Atheists and Morality

Someone who goes by the name Barefoot Bum linked my last post on the lack of atheist saints. I touched on morality there but just briefly. His comment seemed to focus on morality so I will give a longer answer here. The first thing to understand is that atheists can be and usually are very moral people. That is frequently thrown out as the straw man that Christians simply assert atheists are immoral and it is not true. Some Christians might say that. I don't and most of the Christian thinkers I respect don't. So the straw man accusation is itself a straw man. We generally don't make the straw man argument we are accused of making.

So what is the argument? The problem is not that atheists don't have morals but that they don't have a source for those morals that is greater than themselves. They can base morals on their feelings or on their reason and end up with a moral code that is pretty good. The problem is it is something they have created and therefore they can change it at any time. If they convince themselves that something is OK then there is no standard that someone can point to and show them they are wrong. The classic example is Hitler and genocide. This is just because it is something that everyone agrees is immoral. What do you say to a person who has honestly comes to the conclusion that genocide is a good idea? Is their opinion of what is moral just as valid as yours? You can question their motives. You can question their logic. They can question your motives and logic. But at the end of the day they can just dismiss your argument and simply say they disagree.

So why does this matter? Because humans are capable of skewing their reasoning. What is known as rationalization. Here is Thomas Merton:

I think that if there is one truth that people need to learn, in the world, especially today, it is this: that the intellect is only theoretically independent of desire and appetite in ordinary, actual practice. It is constantly being blinded and perverted by the ends and aims of passion, and the evidence it presents to us with such a show of impartiality and objectivity is fraught with interest and propaganda. We have become marvelous at self-delusion; all the more so, because we have gone to such trouble to convince ourselves of our own absolute infallibility.  The desires of the flesh–and by that I mean not only sinful desires, but even the ordinary, normal appetites for comfort and ease and human respect, are fruitful sources of every kind of error and misjudgement, and because we have these yearnings in us, our intellects (which, if they operated all alone in a vacuum, would indeed, register with pure impartiality what they saw) present to us everything distorted and accommodated to the norms of our desire.

Moral reasoning is one place where our intellect bumps right against appetites and desires. Atheist morality makes the assumption that reason will win that encounter. At least if we can put aside religion then human reason will be able to follow what logic tells him is right and not be hopelessly skewed by our passions. It isn't true. The most intelligent alcoholic will fall for the silliest line of reasoning if it justifies his drinking.

So what is the solution? People need some reason to overrule their own opinion. Sometimes the state law serves this purpose. But the laws can be immoral. Then there are cases like the Hitler example where the person has the power to rewrite the law. So we need some higher law. Like a law that says it is always wrong to break your marriage vows. It might come from religion or maybe just your sense of some moral absolutes. Then no matter how many interesting arguments for adultery cross your mind you dismiss them all because this law trumps your reason.This is good because those arguments are going to be skewed by your passions. But if you don't believe in moral absolutes then your chance of succumbing to bad reasoning is a lot higher.

The truth is that most atheists are moral because they have some unquestioned moral absolutes. This is a good thing. It is not a rational thing because they don't have a logical reason for believing these principles trump all logic. Yet they are there and they are typically true. Principles like honesty, hard work, the pursuit of truth no matter the cost, respect for other people, etc. The reality is most atheists were raised in a society formed by Christian morals. So they have picked up these ideas and have them so deeply ingrained they don't even know they are there. But how long will that be true? As the Christian world and life view becomes less and less dominant in the west how long will we see atheists displaying these values?

Atheist Saints

One way to measure of a world and life view is to look at the lives of those who have embraced it best. Who have lived it out without compromise. In Catholicism we call these people saints. We can see the beauty of a life lived totally for Jesus. It inspires us.

It occurs to me that atheists don't have these. That is people who embrace atheism fully. People who take the idea that the material world is all their is and push it as far as it can be pushed. To say everything that gives us a hint of the supernatural is just an artifact of evolution. Morality, love, truth, purpose, virtue, miracles, everything is just something our minds made up to give us survival advantages. They may continue to give us survival advantages or not but they are not to be taken seriously as pointing to some greater reality or any reality at all.

When you discuss matters with an atheist they don't defend this position. One of the first statements they make is to declare that they believe nothing on faith and only accept things through reason. The trouble is they see it as a virtue. That arriving at opinions through reason is somehow superior to arriving at them through faith. This may be true but to an atheist it is just one of those properties of the human brain that evolution has left us with and we can ignore. My brain uses method A and your brain uses method B. Isn't that nice? There is nothing more to say because virtue and truth are illusions. Actually you can't say "Isn't that nice?" either because that is an opinion about goodness. Just remark that this state of affairs has a impact on the pleasure centers in my brain. What does it do to yours?

The atheists we have today don't go there. They talk about values all the time. They assert that it is possible for an atheist to be a very moral person. Why should a real atheist care about that? One evolutionary artifact gives me pleasure from being moral. Another one gives me pleasure from eating cheese. Why not assert it is possible for an atheist to enjoy cheese? Why does being moral matter? If Hitler felt like he was doing the world good by killing the Jews then isn't that feeling all that matters? Who cares if it causes the human species to become extinct? That is the way evolution is supposed to work. We do what we do and we either survive or some other species does. Why does any of it matter?

The one thing atheists seem very concerned about is intelligence. They want to be seen as smarter than religious people. Again, this relies on a notion that the intellect is useful for arriving at truth and that truth is inherently good. But this is precisely what is being denied. Just say "I think of myself as smarter than you because it pleases me to do so." Who cares if it is true or not?

There is even the notion that humanity will somehow be better off if religion dies and atheism dominates. But "better" is one of those concepts atheists can't find scientific proof for. Even leaving that aside, where would the work ethic come from? How could the integrity of the scientific method be maintained without participants who value personal integrity?

These un-atheistic ideas flow regularly from even the most celebrated atheists. So atheists really don't have saints like we have. That is people who embrace atheism without compromise. Perhaps it is not possible. Perhaps it is just an inhuman philosophy.

Does this prove atheism is false? No. It does make you wonder though. People who try and embrace true atheism fail. They import some value system from somewhere. But maybe humans are so dysfunctional they can't embrace the truth even if they want to. It is logically possible. As Christians we believe that the agape love God wants us to live out cannot be fully grasped. But people failing to live out higher ideals seems more plausible than people actually refusing to drop to a lower standard.

Think of a diet. We can see why people might not live out a diet even if it is imposed for very good reasons. But why would someone make up a diet for no good reason? Then when they discover the diet is made up they still can't just follow their appetite and eat what they want. That is harder to see.

Protestants and Atheists

One thing I have noticed over and over again is the parallels between the conversations Catholics have with protestants and the ones they have with atheists.  Newman talked about atheism simply being a more extreme form of protestantism. That they have gone down the same road. Just the atheist has gone down it further. He rejects more of God's revelation and substitutes more of his own ad hoc assertions. Both value truth and reason. That is why you can have arguments with them. They think their position is rational and true and they are willing to try and prove yours is not. That is different from the popular SBNR (spiritual but not religious) crowd. They could not care less about truth or reason. They are just about experience. So we have quite a bit in common with both atheists and protestants in that we have not given up on the idea of our intellect seeking truth.

But where do these arguments go? There are a few common areas. First of all, we go to history. For atheists we try and show the first Christians had good, rational reason to be Christian. For protestants we try and show the first Catholics had good, rational reason to be Catholic. Now most atheists don't think Jesus believed about Himself the things that Christians believe about him. Namely that He is God and He came to save sinners and He demands absolute obedience from every person. If they believed that they would be caught in the liar, lunatic, lord trilemma that CS Lewis posed. So they assert that modern Christology was invented by somebody sometime after Jesus. Never mind who or how or when. Just assert it must have happened because I don't want to believe the alternative.

Similarly, most protestants don't believe the first Catholics believed things about the church that Catholics believe about her today. Namely that she is the visible body of Christ, that she is protected from error by the Holy Spirit, that she has legitimate authority from God that we are to obey. So they assert modern Catholicism was invented by somebody sometime after Pentecost. Never mind who or how or when. Just assert it must have happened because I don't want to believe the alternative.

Then there is the moral argument. Essentially saying that their system allows people to simply disagree with any morality that might flow from it. That can create a dangerous trend towards gradual moral decay. They argue that they are moral people and they don't see how one could logically question basic morality. But they won't address the question directly about what could be done if somebody does. If you have an atheist like Adolf Hitler or a protestant like David Koresh what reason is there to say they are wrong? Are all opinions equal or do we have an objective standard to declare some moral codes to be inadequate? These arguments are always hard because people don't understand the difference between something being objectively wrong and something being wrong in their opinion. Both atheists and protestants have themselves as the center of their thinking and have trouble reasoning from any other perspective.

There is also talk about atheism and Protestantism being unworkable. This is a combination of history and morals. What has happened to protestant communities? What has happened to atheist regimes? There is a huge double standard here. Catholics are chastised for not delivering utopia. All the standard sins are repeated ad nauseum. Galileo, the crusades, the inquisition, the priest abuse scandal, etc. Never mind about whether atheists or protestants have done better because they haven't. Just throw mud and maybe nobody will notice your system has never worked. Sure it works for individuals to justify what they want to justify. But as a long term foundation for society these belief systems have failed frequently.

Now the biggest problem with Protestantism is schism. The biggest problem with atheism is genocide. Even though the logic is parallel it is important to note that genocide is a much worse problem than schism. Atheism not only ends up in a worse spot but in generally gets there quicker. Atheist regimes generally need very few years before they start filling up internment camps. Protestants often need decades before they start to experience schism.

The parallels continue but I am starting to get a bit long. The point is that the fights between protestants and atheists can confuse us. We tend to think of them as two different beasts. Worse yet, we let protestants handle the atheists and we focus exclusively on protestants. Atheists see themselves as the new protesters. If getting rid of the church was progress then getting rid of the bible is more progress. They see the hypocrisy in protestants objecting to one and embracing the other.