Can Atheists Be Moral?

Spoiler alert: yes.






Today I stumbled upon the Christian Apologetics & Research Ministry, which, besides having a silly name, attempts to define and analyze things related to religion, as well as defend Christianity when their research comes back to bite them on the ass. Poking around, I was surprised by how they defined what is atheism; a decent overview of atheism and its modern attributes, considering the source. Intrigued, I dug further, and was not surprised to see everything break down when the author asked "Can atheists be moral?"

Again, I was not prepared for what I initially read. The first sentence says the answer to this question is "a definite 'yes'". But then the second sentence lays out how the rest of the article will go, by referencing Romans 2:15. "They demonstrate that God's law is written in their hearts, for their own conscience and thoughts either accuse them or tell them they are doing right." (New Living Translation, 2007.) So God programmed his laws into us, and we all act according to them whether we believe in him or not.

The author then goes on to say that atheists abide by the laws of their countries, and will even work alongside those of other beliefs and opinions without issue. This is true. But pay attention to this bit: "In addition, they often form their own moral standards based on what suits them. Besides, things like robbery, lying, stealing, etc., can get you imprisoned, so it is practical and logical for an atheist to be ethical and work within the norms of social behavior. However you want to look at it, atheists, generally, are honest, hardworking people." See what he did there? He slipped in a rather large straw man by claiming that atheists are only moral as long as it fits their own self interests, and that we avoid imprisonment only because it would seemingly inconvenience us from our personal goals.

Continuing, the author states: "Basically, society will only put up with so much if it is to function smoothly. So, if an atheist wants to get along and have a nice life, murdering and stealing won't accomplish it. It makes sense for him to be honest, work hard, pay his bills, and get along with others. Basically, he has to adopt a set of ethics common to society in order to do that." Besides failing to realize that what is moral and what makes sense are not always in sync, the author seems to have a misunderstanding of sociology. It's not as cut and dry as someone choosing to follow everyone else; besides inherent behaviors, people generally fall in line with the demands and expectations of society as a product of their environment.

There are other factors to consider, such as our natural empathy towards each other, as a result of evolving to be a social species. In a New York Times article, experimental psychologist and cognitive scientist Steven Pinker wrote "The stirrings of morality emerge early in childhood. Toddlers spontaneously offer toys and help to others and try to comfort people they see in distress. And according to the psychologists Elliot Turiel and Judith Smetana, preschoolers have an inkling of the difference between societal conventions and moral principles. Four-year-olds say that it is not O.K. to wear pajamas to school (a convention) and also not O.K. to hit a little girl for no reason (a moral principle). But when asked whether these actions would be O.K. if the teacher allowed them, most of the children said that wearing pajamas would now be fine but that hitting a little girl would still not be. Though no one has identified genes for morality, there is circumstantial evidence they exist."

Now, my favorite part. "[Atheists] live in societies that have legal systems with a codified set of laws. This would be the closest thing to moral absolutes for atheists. However, since the legal system changes, the morals in a society can still change, and their morals along with it. At best, these codified morals are "temporary absolutes." In one century abortion is wrong; in another, it is right. So if we ask if it is or isn't right, the atheist can only tell us his opinion." If we lived by absolute morals, we would still be stoning people for working on the Sabbath, or cutting the hands off of thieves, or castrating the mentally ill so they can't breed more mentally ill children. Some societies do live largely under absolute morals, and they take the form of Sharia law.

"If there is a God, killing the unborn is wrong. If there is no God, then who cares? If it serves the best interest of society and the individual, then kill. ...Society experiments with ethical behavior to determine which set of rules works best for it. Hopefully, these experiments lead to better and better moral behavior." I would count this as a red herring, but it's also another straw man (besides the false dichotomy involving God). Another gross misrepresentation of what is actually involved. Abortion, for instance, is not just a matter of "kill or don't kill". Is the mother in danger if the pregnancy continues? Does the baby have a physical malady that does not guarantee a long life, but does guarantee a life of misery and hardship? Is the baby a product of rape, or likely to grow up in severe poverty with little chance of getting sufficient food or shelter? Far more at stake than deciding an embryo's fate on a whim.

Of course, there is a lot more crazy to
Ron Paul than just his religious beliefs.
But that's another blog post.

Flexible morals do allow us to experiment, but that's good! Provided we apply logic, reason, and critical thinking to issues of morality, that we discuss and debate, we can achieve much more than if we were to stick to absolutes. This way, we can design a society and a humanist moral system for the benefit of everyone, inclusively and individually. Without being able to change, we would not be able to improve. As evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins has said, "Can we not design our society, which has the sort of morality, the sort of society that we want to live in - if you actually look at the moralities that are accepted among modern people, among 21st century people, we don't believe in slavery anymore. We believe in equality of women. We believe in being gentle. We believe in being kind to animals. These are all things which are entirely recent. They have very little basis in Biblical or Quranic scripture. They are things that have developed over historical time through a consensus of reasoning, of sober discussion, argument, legal theory, political and moral philosophy. These do not come from religion."

The author then claims "But, as we see by looking into society, this isn't the case: crime is on the rise." I don't see what this has to do with atheists, specifically. Is he implying that atheists are criminals, or that criminals are atheists? Besides that most crime rates are falling in the United States, there are compelling statistics that nations with high populations of non-theists are generally more peaceful.

"If a totalitarian political system is instituted and a mandate is issued to kill all dissenters, or Christians, or mentally ill, what is to prevent the atheist from joining forces with the majority system and support the killings? It serves his self-interests, so why not? Morality becomes a standard of convenience, not absolutes." When have atheists done any such thing en masse? Let's get reductio ad Hitlerum out of the way here; you can't say the Nazis did what they did because they were atheists. It's a widely known fact that they were largely made up of Lutherans and Roman Catholics. The millions of Soviet Union citizens that died under Stalin's regime were a result of his government policies, not his atheism. However, there are hundreds of cases where the religious have risen up as one to purge others from the world; pogroms, crusades, jihads, the slaughtering of women, children, slaves, and homosexuals.

You may say this is all in the past, and it certainly is, in large numbers. But it still occurs frequently today in many nations around the world. Need I remind you that these are committed in the name of a higher power that we supposedly all must look to for our morals? You can say that it is religious institutions and not God that carries out these atrocities, which is true, but the churches get their morality and their commands from God. They also have God's laws hard-coded into them, as I mentioned above, which is quite a contradiction. To say that they misinterpret religious teachings or that no real (insert religious affiliation here) would do such a thing is treading into No True Scotsman territory. Most people, when pressed, would admit that things like stoning adulterers are not good morals to pull from religious teachings like the Bible; but to only pick out the "good" parts is to do wrong by your religion. It means you are deciding your own morality, and denies God's authority.

"...Just because someone has an absolute ethical system based on the Bible, there is no guarantee that he will not also join forces in doing what is wrong. People are often very inconsistent, but the issue here is the basis of moral beliefs and how they affect behavior. That is why belief systems are so important, and absolutes are so necessary. If morals are relative, then behavior will be too. That can be dangerous if everyone starts doing right in his own eyes." So telling people "do good and you will go to paradise when you die" and "do evil and you will burn in fire for eternity" is a good foundation for a moral society? It may sound like it superficially, but it instead enforces more selfish actions, since you're essentially looking out for your own skin given those conditions. A system built on fear is not sustainable, as countless toppled theocracies and totalitarian regimes will attest to. Also, there are no absolutes to human behavior just as there are no absolutes to morality.

This sort of thinking has other unintended consequences. Religious conservatives are notorious for caring less about the environment and humanity's impact on it. To the religious, this mortal coil is merely a stepping stone to glory, so what the fuck do they care if an oil tanker runs ashore and causes the extinction of several more species? God gave man dominion over beasts and birds anyway. Screw 'em, right?

"The Bible teaches love, patience, and seeking the welfare of others even when it might harm the Christian." Unless you're gay, not of the same race, or of a different religion (and that applies to all religions, not just Christianity). "In contrast, the atheists' presuppositions must be constantly changing and subjective, and do not demand love, patience, and the welfare of others. Instead, since the great majority of atheists are evolutionists, their morality, like evolution, is the product of purely natural and random processes that become self-serving." That's bullshit as well. Atheists, non-theists, and secular humanists alike all believe in the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. That's such a basic, important thing when you live on a tiny blue dot of a world covered in other members of your species. No one can afford to not live by that, nor should they want to. And there is nothing random about the morality of atheists. As I said, we apply a whole host of critical thinking tools to decide what's moral, and we'll be the first to admit when we're wrong, as well as the first to step up to make things better. We don't sit around praying for a deus ex machina. We recognize that we are all there is, so we accept the responsibility and take care of it ourselves.

The Christian would be Tim Tebow, on the right.
The atheist is Pat Tillman, on the left.

"To an atheist, ethics must be variable and evolving. This could be good or bad, but with human nature being what it is, I'll opt for the moral absolutes -- based on God's word -- and not on the subjective and changing morals that atheism offers." This is indicative of another global problem in religion. Religions have held our species back, stalling progress in areas of science, mathematics, culture, literature... You name it, and we're a few hundred years behind where we could be.

Religion gives people power over others, which is likely the reason it has persisted for so long. Religion must block progress to maintain that power, as the more we learn about our world and the universe it belongs to, the more we'll understand what is really going on, and we'll be able to shut the theological book on this dark, twisted chapter of our species.

Moral absolutes would not only still allow slavery (Leviticus 25:44), but would have us selling our daughters into slavery (Exodus 21:7). We should kill anyone working on a Sunday (Exodus 35:2), regardless if they are doing so out of desperation to provide for themselves or those under their care. Exodus and Leviticus are full of such deadly commandments, as is the rest of the Old Testament, but it doesn't stop there. Even gentle Jesus of the New Testament, who still clings to the ways of the wrathful God, said "Because Moses said, 'Honor your father and your mother,' and 'Whoever curses his father or mother must certainly be put to death.'" (Mark 7:10)

Other religions are just as bad. Where as the "temporary morality" that the author warns about has given progressive nations women's rights, those still under the Sharia law of Islam must abide by Quran 4:34. "Men have authority over women because God has made the one superior to the other, and because they spend their wealth to maintain them. Good women are obedient. They guard their unseen parts because God has guarded them. As for those from whom you fear disobedience, admonish them and forsake them in beds apart, and beat them." Read any other religious doctrines you like, you'll find more of the same.

The story of Isaac and Abraham is likely the best example of the flaws in following God-decreed morality. As Christopher Hitchens said about his own children, "...if I was told to sacrifice them to prove my devotion to God, if I was told to do what all monotheists are told to do and admire the man who said, 'Yes, I’ll gut my kid to show my love of God,' I’d say, 'No. Fuck you.'"

In short, atheists, non-theists, secular humanists, and other freethinkers are most assuredly moral people. I dare say they are more moral than someone who derives morality from ancient texts written by backwards primitives, texts that supposedly reflect the will of a malicious supernatural whose love is conditional, and demands your servitude. Atheists and their freethinker brethren care about the here and now, as we know that's all there is, so we accept the responsibilities of compassion, empathy, justice and morality on ourselves, and strive to make this world better for those around us and those yet to come.