In the dialog between Christians and atheists, atheists often complain that Christians portray them as immoral people. The suggestion, they think, is that it is impossible to be moral if you don't have a belief in God. Now, this isn't entirely accurate. Nor is it entirely inaccurate. Christians believe that atheists are immoral ... because Christians believe that all people are sinners. That would include Christians. So on one hand it is accurate to say that Christians portray atheists as immoral, but that's only because they portray all humans as immoral. On the other hand, it isn't accurate because the suggestion is that Christians hold that atheists are immoral because they are atheists. That's not true.
The position is that morality is based in God. That is, for moral law to have any meaning, there must be a Law-giver. And for it to carry any weight, there must be ultimate justice. Since we know that ultimate justice does not occur here on Earth, there must be a final, Ultimate Judge who dispenses ultimate justice. The characteristics of this Ultimate Judge include omniscience so that He knows all aspects of the case, omnipotence so that He can carry out the sentence, holiness so that He is not able to be accused, immutability so that He doesn't mete out varied rulings, and, of course, justice. In other words, for morality to mean anything, there must be a God. The position, therefore, is not that atheists are immoral because they don't believe in God. The idea is that they don't have a logical basis for morality. The fact that there are indeed relatively moral atheists isn't in question. The fact that they are moral without any rational basis is the question.
To get this across isn't easy because, well, we all seem to "suffer" from Christian influence. Whether we are religious or not, there is a Christian moral heritage built in to most of our thinking. We call it the "Judeo-Christian ethic". So we basically agree on things like "murder is wrong" and "rape is wrong" and "it's wrong to steal" and the like. We are almost universally in favor of protecting the more helpless members of society. Very few would argue, for instance, that torturing a 2-year-old for private enjoyment would be anything but evil. We agree. But why? Well, in Jewish and Christian thinking, Man is made in the image of God. As such, we are required to respect human beings. Murdering them is immoral. Stealing from them or violating their well-being is akin to attacking God Himself. And it is moral, based on that premise, to protect those who can't protect themselves. It's obvious. Everyone sees it. But that's because it's such an ingrained product of the Judeo-Christian ethic.
Try removing that ethic and replacing it with an ethic without God. Let's assume that human beings are the product of billions of years of evolution, the top of the animal chain, with no "higher being" to whom we have to answer, no "heaven" or "hell", no "Law-giver" or "Final Judge". It's just us, folks, human animals living on this rock we call "Earth", biochemical bundles of nerves, flesh, and bones. We're on our own. Where does that leave us morally? Well, let's see ... Rule #1: Survival of the Fittest. If there is any rule to which we must adhere, it has to be that one. Without it we could end Evolution entirely. So, all this protecting of the weaker members of society must stop. It's bad for the race. It's bad for the society. They're using up resources. Think, for instance, of how much we spend trying to take care of sick people. Stop it! If they can't fight off sickness, do we want them reproducing? I mean, look at the animal kingdom as a whole. They don't do it, do they? Sick members of a herd are simply food for predators. Sure, protect them to some extent, but not at any risk to your own life. "Your own life" -- that would be the essence of Rule #2. Take care of yourself at all cost. Nothing else matters. Anything else is meaningless because all you have is here and now. Killing a rival if you can get away with it is no problem. Taking what you need if you can do it isn't an issue. If you can kill a chicken for food, you can kill a coworker for a promotion, right? What difference does it make? Oh, sure, sometimes it benefits you to be nice to others. That would be fine. But to limit your survival strategy to that would be unnecessary. Now, maybe you're ambitious. Maybe you want your influence to carry on beyond this life. How would you do that? Well, have lots of kids, of course! That will likely include a promiscuous lifestyle, but that's not a big deal because the rules are "Survival of the fittest" and "Look out for #1", and "promscuity" doesn't violate either of those. You'll likely need to make a lot of money to ensure the survival of lots of offspring, to do whatever is necessary. Beg, borrow, or steal. All that matters is your goals and desires. Is that little 3-year-old not showing any potential? Kill it. Who cares? Or, better yet, sell it to some bleeding heart type. Income, you know, for yourself.
None of this falls in the realm of Christian morality. It is abhorrent to Christianity. And, the truth is, generally speaking it is abhorrent to most atheists. Oh, sure, you find a Peter Singer or the like on occasion who suggests that it's okay to experiment on the sick and useless. There are still Joseph Mengles around who value human life like oxen and don't mind sacrificing people to personal goals. But, for the most part, it's wrong in most everyone's book to operate the way I just described. The question is not whether or not atheists are that way. The question is why are they not? I agree that atheists are often very moral people -- sometimes even more than some Christians. They act as if they have something to prove. But the question is ... why?
I have no animosity towards atheists. I obviously think they're mistaken, but I don't view them as worse than any other humans in terms of morality. I simply hope that they remain inconsistently moral because the world that they offer without Law and Judge is a frightening world to me.
No comments:
Post a Comment