John Haidt: Religion and Life

I've tagged this video because I think it emphasizes a point I've been trying to make. I am a nontheist (if you've read my blog at all you've figured this out).  However, I am not a evangelical nontheist.  Religion has been an important part of people's lives for over thousands of years.  I personally don't have any use for it, you know this.  However, I recognize that it does play a central role in the lives of others.  So long as that leads to, what one might call, a liberal Christian interpretation of the Bible and the rights that are due to others as members of the species homo sapiens, then I have no beef with religion.  It is when religion encroaches on democracy, when we can no longer talk to each other, do I get bothered.  I feel the same about militant atheism.  It is equally unproductive.  That being said, enjoy the video.  I feel we as atheists have a lot to learn from religion, and a duty to correct the mistakes made in the name of it.

Types of Atheists

Usually when someone thinks of an atheist they conceive of only one facet of the position. An atheist doesn’t believe in God/gods. Full stop. But that position is limiting. It doesn’t say anything about living, about what is valuable, etc. And not all atheists are atheists for the same reasons. There are many ways to be an atheist, or to hold non-theistic beliefs. I’ll touch on three broad categories I attribute to one of my philosophy TAs from college. The categories are metaphysically atheistic, morally atheistic, and existentially atheistic.

The category that most atheists seem to fall into (or are perceived to fall into) is metaphysical atheism that is they will unequivocally say that God/gods do not exist. There is no reality above the physical reality under the domain of the sciences (there may be qualifications, but this is the broad gloss). This kind of atheism is a denial of the supernatural reality of theistic views. Think of this as a sort of first step, basic atheism.

Being morally atheistic may seem ambiguous, but here is how I think of it. Another common argument is that without God there is no morality. It is an argument commonly misattributed to Dostoyevsky. If there is no God, then everything is permitted (this is actually Ivan Karamozov, a character in The Brothers Karamozov). To be morally atheistic is to believe that God is not required for morality. One can be moral and ethical without a theistic worldview. There are many philosophers who have written on this subject, starting with Aristotle and continuing through Singer, and still more. Naturalistic ethics is harder to ground, but many atheists have deeply moral worldviews that have nothing to do with a supernatural reality. Sometimes this is the reason they leave their churches in the first place.

The last category I will outline is existential atheism. As I understand this, to be existentially atheistic is to find no value in the existence of God. Even if God does exist, it wouldn’t change how I construe value and meaning in life. Value in life can come from a variety of places on this view. For many it stems from interaction with friends and family, experiences in the world, their work, etc.

In this way it is not so simple to just be an atheist. For example, I am a metaphysical agnostic. I am perfectly willing to accept that God might exist. Based on the evidence, inferences can go one-way or the other. Morally I am an atheist. I believe that one can lead a perfectly moral life without being a Christian. Existentially, I am an atheist as well. Regardless of the existence of God I don’t believe that God, if it exists, is worthy of worship.

As I have said before, atheism in the classical sense is limited. I’ve mentioned secular humanism many times, but I find it to be an answer to the moral and value questions that follow from leaving a religious organization. Christianity, Islam, Judaism, they all have answers to what we should find valuable and what our moral worldview should be. Non-theists should have answers to those questions as well, because it is with regards to those questions that many of us left the churches, mosques, and synagogues in the first place.

Secular Moral Motivation

How can we argue about the answer to a problem when we do not even agree on the basic elements?

Watching a fundamentalist preacher on a college campus is like watching a burning car wreck. I gain nothing useful from the experience, but I cannot look away. Engaging is often an empty and hollow gesture because even the most level discussions dissolve into shouting matches.

I have seen many of these instances. I’ve also been involved in a couple. Invariably one person will ask the preacher this question: “Who would get into Heaven? A good atheist (and by good atheist we mean a person who lived a moral, decent life) or a bad Christian (and by bad we mean a person who professes to believe in God but leads a life of ‘sin’)?” And always, many times without hesitation, the answer is the Christian goes to Heaven, the atheist to Hell.

Of course, the atheists in the crowd are generally pissed because, well, that does not seem fair.

One way the preachers justify their answer is that the atheist has committed the worst sin, and that is by denying God. By refusing to acknowledge God nothing else they do matches up, or ever could. The answer can be summed up as; it isn’t enough to be good, you have to believe. Our (atheist’s) reactions are often shouts, anger, consternation, or laughter because we knew this answer was coming.

But why? What about the belief itself is so important? Well, the Bible tells us so. Why is that important? Because the Bible is given to us by God and it contains His laws. How do you know? It was revealed by revelation. We still don’t see why this is important. Then you don’t get it and are not open to God’s love. Once this point has been reached, both sides are talking past each other. Most of the time, nontheistic people are ok with that answer.

At the heart of this discussion and argument is a belief in what is valuable. While this may seem obvious, it is a nuanced distinction that requires some reflection. Arbitrariness aside (and honestly, both atheists and theists have moments of dogmatism, it is not just on the theistic side) there is a serious disagreement over the rules of the game, or what matters anyway.

Action versus faith is an old argument in the Christian tradition. One way to consider this issue is the Catholic v Protestant stance. Protestant denominations typically emphasize a personal relationship with God. Faith and belief are the most important aspects. Historically, the Catholic Church placed an emphasis on good works in addition to faith. In the nontheistic view, the action (or work) is valued for what it was.

My personal take on this is as a virtue ethicist. There is a certain mix of action and intention, as well as impact that helps to define moral behavior. Positive and moral behavior is a practice to be fostered. People who engage in these behaviors are behaving morally (loosely speaking, if you want my nuanced view please don’t hesitate to ask). There is no single school of thought in the nontheistic community, but we do feel we have obligations and duties to each other often in virtue of just being human (Here is the Secular Humanism Manifesto http://www.americanhumanist.org/who_we_are/about_humanism/Humanist_Manifesto_I ).

Theistic belief is an arbitrary second layer. To say that since atheists do not believe in God they are deficient regardless of behavior returns to the action versus faith debate, only this time with different players. If religious actions result in good works (ex. Catholic Charities, church run soup kitchens, all of these are good things) then we can say it was a good or ethical action. The same can be said of nontheistic people.

But without God, how do we assure that someone will behave without fear of punishment? If there is no Heaven or Hell why doesn’t everyone just do what they want? This is a slippery slope fallacy. The assumption is that people do terrible things without the threat of something afterlife. This can be addressed in two ways:

1) If belief in God is somehow supposed to solidify or assure moral action, then it often fails to do so. People will be good or bad regardless of religious affiliation (not to take cheap shots, but leaders of religious groups, those supposed to be the models for the members of the organization, have been seen committing transgressions they preach against). I, personally, fail to see how the giving of one’s self over to Christ or God in anyway helps in that regard.

2) Simply dismiss the claim. Obviously, there are individuals who do not believe that God exists. Many of these individuals are like Christians in behavior, look, demeanor, in their dedication to their families and loyalty to friends. Something other than God is responsible for moral and ethical action.

So God is not enough for moral action itself. Responsibility for the action lies on the individual. Sure, in some cases God may be a motivating factor. But for atheists that motivation has to, and does, come from somewhere else. I recommend reading “Free Inquiry”, the publication of secular humanism. It contains concerns and views that many atheists and agnostics share as well as articles from scientists, philosophers, and others. There is a many thousand-year-old literature on moral actions that have nothing to do with religious motivation. Even Kant, a Christian who was a philosopher, had ethics that could be construed as secular in principle, and did not require a supernatural being.

If we agree on what moral action is, and in a western country such as ours while we have differing views we tend to agree in the larger areas moral and ethical life, then why claim that one group is immoral when they act in accordance with the same moral code, just without the belief? And if the answer is still “because you have to believe full stop” then it is arbitrary in a way that doesn’t deserve endorsement.