Mailbag: Atheism and Morality, Part 1

If you are an atheist, why would you bother to administer a website about Atheism? What is the point? If there is no God that controls the Universe, then why bother?

This sort of question comes up often enough - and it is, perhaps, legitimate to wonder why anyone who doesn't believe in gods would have a site that deals with the subject. After all, how many nonbelievers in unicorns have sites which discuss the nonexistence of unicorns?

The crucial difference here is that there aren't a lot of believers in unicorns going around tell people that they should believe in unicorns, that belief in unicorns is necessary for morality and happiness, that nonbelievers in unicorns can't be good citizens, or that belief in unicorns is fundamental to the nation's identity. There is, then, no real need to discuss the merits of belief and nonbelief in unicorns, is there?

On the other hand, we do see such claims made about belief in gods - and much more than that, too. This site isn't so much "about gods" as it is about belief in gods. It is about religious philosophy ,skepticism , and critical thinking - applied to theism, of course, but also applied to a wide range of issues as well. Belief in gods does exist and it does have an impact upon society - that means that it is not only worth discussing, but in fact needs to be discussed.

It seems to me, if you were an Atheist, you wouldn't be wasting your time writing a website but trying to aquire as much wealth and have as much sex as possible before your time is up.

It seems to me that Nathan assumes that atheists have nothing to live for except material and physical pleasures. Now, there is no denying that such pleasures have their place and that some people do indeed place supreme importance on them; however, there is no necessary connection between being an atheist and being interested in nothing but sex and money. Such a claim, interestingly enough, has the side-effect of making theists seem superior because they are presumably interested in more than money and sex. Of course, that isn't necessarily true either - plenty of theists engage in behavior which indicates that those two goals are, indeed, their primary values.

We must conclude, then, that there is no automatic connection between whether a person believes in a god or not and what they value as most important in their lives. Neither theism nor atheism necessarily lead to anything in particular when it comes to values - whether good or bad.

Now, some Atheists say they are moral, but what's the point of being moral if there is no God?

Nathan is assuming here that it doesn't matter that more people are happy and fewer people suffer if his God does not exist. Consider that carefully for a moment: it appears as though Nathan doesn't consider either their happiness or their suffering to be especially important. If you are happy, Nathan doesn't necessarily care. If you suffer, Nathan doesn't necessarily care. All that matters is whether that happiness or that suffering occurs in the context of the existence of his God or not. If it does, then presumably that happiness and that suffering serve some purpose and so that's OK - otherwise, they're irrelevant.

Does this strike anyone else as rather sociopathic in nature? It is, after all, a key characteristic of sociopaths that they are unable to empathize with the feelings of others and, hence, aren't especially concerned if others suffer. I not only reject Nathan's assumption that his God is necessary to making morality relevant as being illogical, I also reject his implication that the happiness and suffering of others isn't very important as being immoral.

Morally speaking, it really shouldn't matter whether his god or anyone else's god exists or not - the happiness and suffering of others should play an important role in our decision making either way. The existence of this or that god could, in theory, also have an impact upon our decisions - it all really depends upon how this "god" is defined. When you get right down to it, however, the existence of a god can't right to cause people suffering or make it wrong to cause people to be more happy.

What's the point of being moral if there Nathan's God doesn't exist? It's the same "point" that people should acknowledge if Nathan's God does exist: because the happiness and suffering of other human beings matter to us such that we should seek, whenever possible, to increase their happiness and decrease their suffering. It's also the "point" that morality is required for human social structures and human communities to survive at all.

I will tell you that Chritianity has given me meaning to my life. I believe everything happens for a purpose and therefore I can survive the bad things that happen to me.

I'm sure that Nathan's Christianity gives him meaning and helps him when he is sad. Does that mean that people without Nathan's Christianity cannot have meaning in their lives and have no recourse when they are sad? Of course not - that would be a ridiculous conclusion to draw. Just because someone has one coping strategy doesn't mean that other strategies don't exist - and it doesn't even mean the one strategy (like Nathan's) is the best, much less very good.

Please then answer me, what has Atheism done for you? Why even bother with this website? Why bother to be moral if you are an Atheist? Please answer me that.

Atheism, the lack of belief in the existence of any gods, doesn't "do" anything for anyone just like lack of belief in unicorns or elves doesn't "do" anything for anyone - and it would be absurd to expect that it should. The real question must be directed towards the reasons why a person disbelieves in gods.

If a person disbelieves as a consequence of learning more about religion, philosophy, and science and has directed a more critical and skeptical eye towards religious and theistic claims, then we can argue that this process "does" a lot for a person. This atheist is better educated and more skeptical as a general rule; they won't be so easily duped by nonsensical claims and they care more about matching their beliefs to reality.

Atheism, by itself, is not an intellectual virtue. For atheism to carry any intellectual or moral significance, it must be coupled with what George Smith calls a "habit of reasonableness" - the habit of thinking critically and skeptically across a broad range of issues, not just theism and religion. Unfortunately, too many atheists miss this point and assume that simply disbelieving in gods and criticizing religion are, in and of themselves, sufficient to make them "better people" - and in particular, better than theists. That simply isn't true.

This particular conversation about atheism, religion, and morality will continue tomorrow...

More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...