This isn't intended as an open question (though I encourage discussion) but rather a comprehensive analysis of the myths, facts, and reasoning behind atheist morality. It is one of the least understood aspects of atheism by theists, and any atheist has doubtless heard numerous variations on the question, "Well, where do you get your morals from?" from an incredulous and confused friend or family member.
My point isn't to promote atheism, nor to denigrate other philosophies, but simply to shed some light on this perpetually pertinent religious topic.
Various studies and books are cited as needed, and I'd also like to credit Michael Shermer's "Do You Believe In God?" (Skeptic Magazine, Vol. 6 No. 2) essay for compiling many of the statistics contained in the first section.
Testing Morals
Perhaps the biggest myth concerning atheism is that morality becomes an "anything goes" attitude without a god-figure to keep a person in check. For example, a July 1995 poll of 1,007 adults published in George Barna's 1996 Index of Leading Spiritual Indicators found that 60% of Americans believe atheism has a generally negative influence on society. But as it turns out, this hypothesis is testable, and has been tested by numerous credible sources.
- a 1934 study by Abraham Franzblau found a negative correlation between acceptance of religious beliefs and three different measures of honesty.
- In 1950 a survey of thousands was conducted by Murray Ross, and found that those who considered themselves agnostics or atheists were more likely to express willingness to aid the poor than those who considred themselves deeply religious.
- A 1969 report (Hirschi and Stark) that analyzed a multitude of crime and cultural data found no significant different in the likelihood of committing crimes between children who attended church regularly and those who did not.
- A 1975 report (Smith, Wheeler, & Diener) reported no difference in religious/non-religious college-age students when measuring how likely they were to cheat on tests.
- A similar report from 1962 (Middleton & Putney) reports a noticeable increase in cheating among religious students.
- David Wulff's 1991 novel Psychology of Religion compiles dozens of studies to this affect and finds a positive correlation between "religious affiliation, church attendance, doctrinal orthodoxy, rated importance of religion, and so on" with "ethnocentrism, authoritarianism, dogmatism, social distance, intolerance of ambiguity, and specific forms of prejudice, especially against Jews and blacks" (219-220).
To my knowledge, none of the researchers cited are atheists. All are researchable for those who wish to see the exact methods and results. It does not prove that atheism or spirituality makes one more moral than the other, but it shows irrefutable evidence that not only that atheism can be moral, but most atheists are moral. But the data is clear: not only does religion not ensure a heightened morality over non-religion, but it is statistically correlated with higher occurrences of immorality.
Why is the data skewed slightly in favor of atheists then? Analysis of the results may vary, but my personal take is that religion in an "in group." In early civilization, the in group was the tribe. Later on, countries, states, and various social groups replaced community allegiances in developed countries. It creates an us/them mentality, and teaches doctrines that say "this is right" where the implication is that "others are wrong." Atheism has similar views, and an atheist may think "I think this is right, which makes others wrong" but there are no atheist churches or, indeed, atheist gatherings (not to mention the low percentage of atheists to begin with). There is less of a distinction between "us" and "them" which leads to a greater acceptance of others. And with no prescribed moral laws that target various aspects of society (unwed sex, homosexuality, other gods, etc.) there is no ingrained negativity in a person based upon their beliefs in an atheist system.
This is but one interpretation only, but even sans an interpretation the data provides ample evidence to "bust" the myth, as they say.
The Argument From Historical Figures
The Institute for Creation Research's museum in Santee, California has a wall dedicated to unsavory figures who were either evolutionists or atheists. Among them: Hitler, Stalin, Issac Asimov. The implication is obvious: that atheism leads to wars, genocide, and all forms of evil (and science fiction novels, apparently ).
Hopefully we can see the flaws in this line of thinking, but it is still a popular argument.
For one, case studies don't make a statistical trend. It's rationally invalid to hold a single person, or even small group, as indicative of an entire group of people, many of whom have vast differences in cultural and philosophical background from the examples put forth.
Second, a list of "good" atheists, philanthropists and missionaries for example, would be equally as invalid, but would hold the exact same weight as such an argument.
A common retaliatory argument is to list religious historical figures who committed atrocities (amusingly, Hitler can controversially be added to that list as well due to his frequent citation of Scripture to justify his actions). It falls prey to they same flawed statistical logic, but the common response is that "Ok, but they weren't actually following the religion. It was a perversion of religion into something totally foreign. The true {insert religion} is peaceful and loving." So it wasn't because of their religion that they did evil, it was because they were evil that they did evil. Fair enough, if that is your argument, but be prepared to concede the same point to atheism. What makes us so sure that Hitler did what he did because he was atheist? Nothing, of course, as atheists will nigh-universally condemn his actions as quickly and vehemently as any theist.
This is difficult to answer, not because an answer doesn't exist but because many of them do. In the search for disambiguation that infects religious labels and generalizations (we all do it), the lack of one convenient reason to blanket all atheists with becomes a problems for theists who can't possibly see how morality exists without a deity.
In a similar eye-for-an-eye vein, a common response is to ask a theist, "So you're only moral because your God tells you to be moral? If He wasn't around, you'd do all sorts of horrible things? I'm moral even without that looming over my head, so you could say it's a more advanced morality." I dislike such vindictive responses, and there are also flaws with the argument as I presented it, so I will not espouse such thinking. In any event, it dodges the central question.
A rather scientific response might be that certain amounts of altruism are programmed into us by evolution, because overly aggressive creatures would tend not to survive as much as those who are willing to work with one another toward common goals (survival, at the lowest levels), so natural selection favors those who are aggressive enough to ensure survival without sacrificing the well-being of others. This is undoubtedly part of the explanation for all of us, not just atheists. But it doesn't answer the entire question of why atheism is moral despite the lack of a god.
The simplest answer, perhaps, is that any human being can see the joy and value of doing good things simply for the sake of them, or for the sake of other humans beings that we love and value. Why does a deity have to be present for altruism to be emotionally beneficial to the person who gives it? It doesn't, though it can be a difficult way of viewing it from a theistic perspective.
My personal response (please note this is just me I speak for now): All things are subject to our subjective interpretation of them. Nothing is so until we perceive and interpret it as such. In that sense, we have great power over how we view reality, and how we let it affect us. Nothing is inherently "depressing" or "joyful" for example, unless we make it so. Nothing is intrinsically "loved" or "hated" until we decide to love or hate it. To that end, it is possible for us to be joyful, loving, etc. at ALL times about ALL things. In practical terms, this is impossible to always achieve, but it becomes a way of looking at the world that maximizes the tolerance and love I have for others, and increases the happiness both within me and (I hope) in others. To me, it goes beyond religious labels of Good and Evil and simply loves all of it.
All these and more are valid responses. Why are atheists moral? Because they are. The individual reasons vary wildly, but there is nothing intrinsically immoral about it.
What are you afraid of? That if in your mind you abolish the distinction between right and wrong you are more likely to commit acts which are wrong? What makes you so sure that self-consciousness about right and wrong does not in fact lead to more wrong acts than right ones? Do you honestly believe that so-called amoral people, when it comes to action rather than theory, behave less ethically than moralists? Of course not! Even most moralists acknowledge the ethical superiority of the behavior of most of those who theoretically take an amoral position. They seem so surprised that without ethical principles these people behave so nicely! It never seems to occur to them that it is by virtue of the very lack of moral principles that their good behavior flows so freely! Do the words “The conflict between right and wrong is the sickness of the mind” express an idea so different from the story of the Garden of Eden and the fall of Man due to Adam’s eating of the fruit of knowledge?
- Raymond Smullyan (philosopher and Taoist)
My apologies, as usual, for the length. I'm proud of this compilation, however, and strongly recommend reading it for anyone who is interested in the topic.
That's totally untrue. Many of the atheists viciously attack theists for what they believe. The line between "us" and "them" is just as clear.
Yeah, no atheist would call someone retarded or delusional for having a belief system . . .
I do agree with pretty much everything else though. Especially the "overly aggressive creatures would tend not to survive as much as those who are willing to work with one another" line.
__________________
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
I have always found this to be a generally satisfactory response when deliberately excluding transcendent reasons.
I'm not sure what you're asking here. It sounds like: "Why is atheism (itself) moral despite the lack of a god?" In which case, I would say, "There is nothing, as far as I can see, intrinsically immoral about atheism."
This strikes me as a very subjective statement which begs for more objective grounding. Perhaps one could say that feeling good from helping others is a learned response (enhanced by genetic predisposition shaped via evolution).
----------------------------
If I may, I would also like to add this regarding long posts (from anyone): after posting the main body, it would be a good idea, IMO, to summarize in as few words as possible what the main body of the post just said. This would make, I think, the post less intimidating, easier to grasp and would invite more people to read and respond ("Hell, I ain't gonna read all this! Where's the freakin' summary?")
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
Last edited by Mindship on Mar 6th, 2008 at 09:06 PM
The question "Where do Atheists get their morals?" is asked a lot, and I think the answer to that is that it depends on the culture and society they were raised in. America is 70-something percent Christian, and until pretty recently that figure was in the 90's. So as a result, a lot of laws are based on Christianity. So the American Atheist would agree with the American Christian largely that murder, theft, and adultery are wrong. Now the Atheist didn't just come up with all that on his own, he/she was raised among religious people, maybe had religious parents, learned laws that have a base in religion, so all this rubs off onto the person and believe it or not, effects them. So the only real difference between an American Atheist and his American Christian neighbor is that the Athiest has let go of his belief in god, but still klings to the all the godly morals.
A perfect example: my son has a Saudi friend at college who's a closet Atheist to his family and other Saudis. But he still fanatically avoids pork because it was ingrained into him as child that the animal's meat is bad. Its no different than an American Atheist having an aversion to killing another person.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
So, we must be fair and say that the Christian people didn't just come up with it on their own either. They were raised in society that already saw murder as wrong even before the first Christian's or Jews said so.
It was a set and formulized system thousands of years before some guy who was born in Anytown,USA decided that god doesn't exist. But the society's values, norms, and morals still affect his life and outlook.
Gender: Unspecified Location: With Cinderella and the 9 Dwarves
No, you misunderstood. My point was that it was already set and standardized in the society before anyone in Israel/Egypt/Wherever decide that God does exist. The societies values and norms affected Moses and Jesus life and outlook, just as it does with us today.
Granted. But that sort of viciousness runs both ways. We create all sorts of false demarcation lines in our minds, regardless of spiritual leanings, and this leads to animosity toward the "others." It was a possible interpretation of the results, and I stand by it because I think that ingrained negativity toward other groups is less likely to happen in atheists than theists, but it wasn't intended to absolve atheists of any and all flaws, because we all have them.
I would agree, but the answer was to the question as posed by theists, because a purely scientific explanation (which is likely the best one) is inadequate for allaying fears about the potential evils of a system of beliefs.
The first two sections of my piece were intended to extrapolate on your (correct) statement that atheism isn't inherently immoral (just as religion isn't inherently moral).
In any case, my proposed reasons why atheists are moral are just examples. As there is no formal doctrine for atheism like there is for religions, the reasoning varies, and I wanted to leave my explanations as broad as possible to accommodate such distinctions.
Noted, and thanks. Though I deliberately leave out such summaries often times in this forum (and use them frequently in others) because those who get upset and demand summaries generally aren't my intended audience anyway, especially with a topic this complex because it leads to people reading ONLY the summary.
It wasn't posed as a question, as I stated in the first line of the thread.
Though I would agree with you that ANY person's morality is largely inherited from their culture, not just atheists.
Without a doubt, Christian members--as well as other religious group members--have claimed that atheists are immoral; but such claims are totally absurd. Not all religious persons--including myself--share this view. Do not stereotype. Atheists can live (and have lived) moral lives, at least, as best as humanly possible. The same applies to Christian members (or other religious group members). But the Christian is saved.
I didn't say that all religious people think atheists are immoral. I said it was a common misconception that atheists can't have a set of moral standards because of their lack of religion, and many don't know how atheists can be moral otherwise.
So no, I didn't paint theists in a negative light. My intention, as I spelled out in the opening post, was to shed light on the subject...nothing more.
KMC Community Forums
).
Mar 6th, 2008 07:00 PM
