Mailbag: Atheism and Morality, Part 2
Subject: Question
By your beleif, you are just made of atoms and nothing more. Why would you care about others?
Note: The first part of this conversation about atheism, religion, and morality began yesterday...
Nathan's question here should be understood in the context of his comment about "atoms." Atheists don't typically believe in souls; instead, they adopt a materialist approach to the question of life and argue that who we are is ultimately dependent upon our physical bodies. We are what we see, with no souls to live on after our bodies die. We are, then, just "atoms."
For Christians, however, our essential nature can be found not in our physical bodies but, rather, in our souls. This is presumably why Nathan thinks that a person should care about others: either because the person doing the caring has a soul or because the "others" have souls. Is either position reasonable? I don't think so.
In the first place, there seems to be no reasonable basis to think that the capacity to care for others is in any way dependent upon having a soul. Caring, like any emotion, seems adequately explained by reference to the physical, material brain. Secondly, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that people would be more worthy of care because of having souls. To approach it from the other direction, there doesn't seem to be any reason to think that people would be less worthy (or not worthy at all) of care if they didn't have souls.
Most Christians don't seem to think that other animals have souls, but that doesn't stop them from caring about animals - even caring very, very deeply. Why? I would argue that it is because animals manifest a capacity both for suffering and for happiness (no, not all animals - but quite a few and especially those animals which we take into our lives, like pets). That alone is sufficient to arouse in humans feelings of empathy, happiness, and sadness.
Here, then, we can se one would care about others even if they are"just made of atoms:" they can feel and they can suffer. That should be sufficient - even for a Christian who believes that he should "do unto others" as he would have them do unto him.
You insinuate that you are better than me because you do things not because God tells you, but I still don't see why there is a inner desire inside you to be moral.
I don't believe that I am a better human being than Christians; I do, however, believe that a morality which is based solely on what one is or is not commanded to do is an inferior moral sense. Not all Christians adhere to such a morality and some atheists do - this is, then, not a disagreement between all Christians and all atheists. It does happen, though, that most atheists are on one side while most religionists can be found on the other.
Why is it an inferior form of morality? There are a number of reasons, a couple of which I can summarize here. First, there is no real moral merit in following an order - anyone can follow an order while not all orders should be followed. Second, the ability to follow an order is more characteristic of robots and automatons, not free ethical individuals. If a person is to be lauded for their decision, it should be because they chose the right path, not because they simply followed instructions correctly. Finally, a morality such as this can be the most arbitrary that exists. Decisions are completely separated from their consequences for others and the impact upon one's personality. Orders are followed simply because they are given - not because they reduce suffering, not because they increase happiness, and not because they are in any way virtuous.
This particular conversation about atheism, religion, and morality will continue tomorrow...
More selections from the Agnosticism / Atheism Mailbag...
Comments
People like Nathan need an ancient book and fairytales to convince them to care about others. Atheists just need common sense.
This “argument” generally fails to take into consideration emergent properties. While existence boils down to “atoms,” what those atoms do when they combine is more than individual atoms are capable of.
In other words, sometimes the whole is more than equal to the sum of it’s parts. A car has no soul. It consists of plastic and metal and fluids. A car is plastic and metal and fluids. Right?
Right. But what happens when you put them together into a “car”? You get a vehicle that can produce power and take you all over town at speeds much greater than you could achieve by walking. Does that mean that when you assemble metal, plastic and fluids into a car that at the moment you complete the machine, it has a soul? Is that what animates the vehicle?
No, it’s animated by electricity and internal combustion. People are also animated by detectible energy. We can scan and record that energy with myriad devices that can show to the umpteenth degree if your nerves are firing at the right speed. Visually we’d be unable to detect the fluctuations that notify us when someone, for example, has early stage neuropathy. But we have machines that can give us that lag time, and let us know when the brain and nerves aren’t firing as fast as they should.
We fuel ourselves with food and water and light. And we produce energy. And we do what atoms do when they’re put together as a person. Just as a car is fueled and produces energy and does what atoms do when they’re put together as a car.
More than the sum of the parts. But that doesn’t mean a soul is required–for cars or for people.
Always thought this was a non-sequiter. Okay, so we are made of atoms. So what? What does that have to do with weather or not we should care about each other? Would it be more reasonable to care if we were somehow made of something other than atoms?