Resize 
Frequently, when students aren't discussing the previous week's basketball game or a looming midterm, the conversation drifts to the uncomfortable territory of whether or not God exists.
Lately this age-old question has become a topic brought up by those who have read Christopher Hitchens' emotionally-charged book, "God is Not Great." Perhaps they have addressed this subject in philosophy or religion classes. Rather than try to tackle the question of God's existence in a thousand-word article, I'll focus my attention on those atheists who try to defend the essence of morality in an atheist culture.
When asking an atheist what motive they have for choosing good over evil, for being nice to others, and/or for maintaining good character, I often hear one of two responses. Either it's because they worry about consequences of the law (jail time, fines, etc.), or because it makes them "feel good" when they do the "right" thing. Where exactly does this idea of "right" come from? Who decides what the "right" thing is? Is it from societal norms and the government? Is it from an innate feeling in each individual? Surely it can't be societal norms or government regulation that determines whether behavior is acceptable. Those who believe in that line of reasoning would have to argue in favor of slavery during America's founding and women's limited rights up until recently. Also, it couldn't possibly be one's personal definition of what is acceptable. I for one wouldn't want to give that privilege to people who might think it personally acceptable to steal or lie in order to improve their lot.
Some human cultures of other parts of the globe suggest strongly that we do not come hard-wired from the factory with feelings of good will toward others. Mass murder has too often reared an ugly head with no apparent religion having been taught. It seems more likely that the suggestion of God causes deeper thinking in directions of wrong and right. Without a higher being, there could be no guarantee of consequences for our actions. No consequences would result in chaos and anarchy.
Where do most people get this sense of right and wrong? I believe that it comes from a set of natural, universal standards that have been refined since the beginning of human existence. This set of standards, which is often called the "Laws of Human Nature," has to have originated somewhere. These agreements between humans allow us to differentiate between what is right and wrong and it appears obvious that there is intelligent design behind these universally-held beliefs.
In my opinion, the idea of a moral compass, one that has been shown to surpass that which is merely "good for the community," is also evidence that a higher power has provided us with that compass. In an example from Denish D'Souza's book "What's so Great about Christianity," he describes the idea of morality based on evolution and natural selection. The problem with basing morality on this, however, is that it gives no explanation for truly altruistic acts. What good is it, evolutionary-wise, for men to give up their seats for older women on the bus?
As C.S. Lewis explained in his book "Mere Christianity," the instincts we have for personal and group survival do not lead to the kind of morality our world holds as an ideal. If people are walking in their neighborhoods and come upon a house on fire, their first instincts might be to find safety. They might then think it important to try to save the people inside. However, it is only after a third voice enters their heads, their conscience, that they will probably conclude that it is their moral obligation to risk their personal safety in an attempt to save whoever might be in that house. A good question might be why would an atheist make any attempt to save a life if placed in such a circumstance? Certainly any bystanders would understand the risk involved, would they not? And are there not trained professionals available to perform such work? And if those professionals arrive too late to save a life, isn't it their own fault? Surely it could not be the passersby responsible for losing these lives by failure to act in a timely manner.
Besides, who would know if the passerby neglected the situation? Only the person who has failed to act would know to a level of certainty -- and if there is no God watching, why would the atheist care? After all, there are no rules or laws that mandate that we must risk our own lives to save others, save those greater laws that seem to come from a belief in a higher being. If there is no God, then why bother to save lives at all? In such a god-free environment, humans would be seen as a dime a dozen -- beans on a beanstalk, random creations of a chemical brew, accidental, often inconvenient, and nothing special. We could walk by a bleeding homeless man without a pause. We could even smile or laugh at a starving child. In a godless world, we could ask, "so what," and "why not?"
As long as they behave within the societal rules, how harmful to others can it be that they deny credit to God and believe that they have become good and brilliant out of their own fountain of goodness and self-created intellect? If there is a God -- and I confidently believe there is -- then it is their souls that are on the line, not yours or mine. If confronted with a life or death situation, we will allow them to change their minds, won't we? And we won't hold their prior positions against them, will we?
Our tolerance for differences of opinion is established by God, not man. These rights are held high along with freedom of speech and the others articulated by our founders. God help us if atheists ever get the upper hand because then our rights would be only as firm as one man's opinion, or one mob's passions, and we would be as likely to lose our rights forever, as to gain new ones.
Newly-established rights would assume natural human benevolence, and that would be as dangerous and disappointing path we could ever to go down. Putting faith in man, I submit, is not a smart direction for a free people to take.
Leave a comment 88 Comments Write a letter to the editor
All letters to the editor must include a name, e-mail, daytime phone number and affiliation to Virginia Tech. Affiliation includes: year and major for students; position and department for faculty and staff; current city for alumni and parents.
By submitting your comment, you agree that it will not:
Comments that violate these guidelines will be moderated by the public editor and will then be buried in the comments section.
I'm so sick of this idiotic argument that Atheists can't possibly really be good people because we don't have a God who is watching us to be afraid of at all times. Some of us are capable of being good people without fear of reprisal from an all-powerful, Galactus-like being in the sky. I'm sorry that you and many other Christians can't understand that compassion and kindness are themselves their own rewards, not the price you have to pay here to enjoy heaven. It must be a dark, cynical existence, but that doesn't mean you can project that on the rest of us. I'm an Atheist and I'm a good person. Just because you can't come up with a pragmatic reason for me to be a good person doesn't mean I'm faking it.
Reply to this Top
It is actually the worst form of bigotry to assume one's own moral superiority - and to do so for no reason whatsoever other than that one has 'faith' in one's own moral superiority. I am an atheist. I decided in high school that I wanted to leave the world a better place than it would have otherwise been. Consequently, I spent 12 years in college studying moral philosophy. Your article here shows that you have such a hatred of atheists that you look for excuses to denigrate and demean them, caring nothing about the reasonableness of your assertions. Atheists have very good reason to promote a moral society. If you do not want to be killed, then you promote a society in which people are adverse to senseless killing. If you do not want to be robbed or to have your children kidnapped and raped, then you promote society's aversion to theft and the rape of children. If you want to help to ensure that somebody will help you in times of crisis, then you encourage people in your community to value helping others in times of crisis. It's as simple as that.
Reply to this Top
Altruism (real examples not social mores like bus seat etiquette) does have a place in survival and Dawkins has much to say on the subject. Ah yes, this of course is typical of theists, they'll point to various communist regimes and insist that it was their atheism that caused the Killing Fields and other acts of brutality ignoring the reality; the communists did these things for communism not atheism. It would be like saying Jesus died for chocolate and a really long weekend. But if we want to talk mass murder let's talk about the 500 years or so of Christian civil war across Europe. Those were all places where religion was not only taught but was the law of the land. Not just any religion but the dominant Christian one. Did Spain, France, England and the rest turn cheeks? Love their enemies? Or did the invade, murder, torture and pillage the holy hell out of each other with crosses flying on the flags of each side? Hmm it's almost like gods or the lack of doesn't seem to make a difference in the evil that men do. But theists are like marketing departments, they have a product (god) they want people to buy it so they need to come up with needs. You need our god otherwise people are bad! There is no more evidence for that than there is evidence of your god being real.
Reply to this Top
This is a good effort Allison, but it’s not your job to convince the atheist of God’s existence. It’s Gods job to convince them. No matter how logical or illogical your argument is, no matter how compelling, no matter how honest and sincere, you cannot possibly change the heart of an atheist. So while you and I may be thoroughly convinced of the truth because God has shown us truth, the nature of man apart from God’s grace is to reject and run from God, even to the point of denying His existence. A better thing for you to do would be to live your life as a good example and save the arguments for philosophy class.
Reply to this Top
Many individuals (theists and atheists alike) such as salvage tend to trumpet the vengeful and evil things that have been done in the name of Christianity over the course of history. It is important here to recognize that what is done in the NAME of any particular movement or belief does not necessary correspond to what is ADVOCATED or SUPPORTED by by that same movement of belief. We experience this every day in our dealings with Islam - the fact that many terrorists act in the name of Islam doesn't necessarily imply that Islam itself is a terrorist-supporting religion. Similarly, the 'problem of atheism' Allison seems to approach with this column isn't with the 'live and let live' atheists - people who don't happen to believe in God, but don't particularly care that others do (and as a result, don't advance opinions about such theists as incompetent, intellectually inferior putzs) - but rather against those atheists whose seemingly avowed goal is the total rejection of all religion by all people everywhere. The most fascinating part of that latter group, to me, is that it in itself is a religion - rather than God, it seems to hold man and his capacity to reason as the 'higherst echelon' of power, and represents a wholly conceited view of man's power and rights. It is this latter group of atheists with whom most theists have a problem.
Reply to this Top
Mr. Fyfe summed it up very well: the atheist (and most people, for that matter) act in a "good" way because it is in their own self-interest. What goes around comes around. If I don't want people stealing from me, then I make it a point not to steal from others. The analog is true for any other crime where there is an unwilling human victim. Of course, simply because I do not harm others is no guarantee that I won't be harmed, but that's the chance you take by being alive. I don't need a Big Cop in the Sky to tell me that it's in my own personal interest to foster a peaceful environment that respects other people.
Reply to this Top
Mr. McGlumphy has a valid point - there are certain things which 'just make sense' to do as a means of self-preservation and correspond with what we might objectively consider 'good things.' The problem here comes from the opinion of God as a 'Big Cop in the Sky.' I don't claim to be an expert in world religions, but I know that for most religions, while the moral code is certainly a 'central feature,' the point of God isn't t 'police the world' and make sure people play by the right rules - the whole principal of the moral code exists on account of the nature of free will, which many theists believe is a gift from God. Clearly, different religions offer different opinions of the nature of God's interaction with the world on a day-to-day basis, but I don't know of any religions wherein God's active role is to routinely and deliberately dole out punishment for transgressions against His law - that whole 'final judgement' thing happens, at the earliest, after death, and in many cases it is something which will happen 'at the end of time.' There's a lot more (most religions teach) that God does than act as a policeman dictating what would be best for everyone, and to simplify religion as such represents a gross misunderstanding of the nature of religion in the first place.
Reply to this Top
I am not sure what is conceited about believing in man's power and rights. There is no dispute that we as humans are the most successful and competitive animal there is on this planet. We have the power to change landscapes, ecosystems, and travel beyond this planet. So why then, is it conceited to think that our capacity is not the 'highest echelon of power'? There is no other being, proven to exist, that has our reasoning and mental capacity. If you deny the existence of god(s), then there is no higher being than we are. And to the author, please learn something at this fine institution and shed your ignorance. I'm sure "God" gave you that brain for a reason. Thinking? Researching? Those are all constructive and useful ways that brains can be utilized besides paraphrasing talking points of others.
Reply to this Top
This point is completely off base. God does not have to be the deciding factor in a moral decision. An Atheist defends his morals with the care for his fellow man. A Christian acts for fear of being punished by God. He feels that if he does something "wrong" God will punish him by sending him to Hell. Therefore, they do the "right" thing in the eyes of God so that they will be rewarded with eternal life in Heaven. An Atheist does something because it will help his fellow man. He is someone who cares about people above all else. It seems as though the Christian is the selfish one who is acting simply in his own interest. Take the house on fire example, a Christian would go into the house because God would be upset with him if he didn't. God would punish him if he ignored the cries for help. The Christian needs the added threat of God before he will act to help his fellow man. An Atheist would run into the fire knowing that a person needs help. He would not need to be pressured by God to do the right thing, he feels a compassion for man and does not want to see an innocent life lost. An Atheist morality is easily defended, it is defended by mans compassion for his fellow man, it does not need to be justified by God and rewarded with eternal life in Heaven.
Reply to this Top
That depends on how you classify success. I'd challenge that we may well not even be the most competitive animal on the planet - although we are perhaps the most resourceful and intellectually advanced. That having been said, it is worth recognizing that there are things even Man cannot do, including controlling the weather and preventing death, among others. So we come to your point about 'proof,' and like most atheists, the conjecture denying God's existence is rooted squarely on the truth that such an existence has not been objectively proven. But it is worth noting that, while we have made many technological advances over the centuries and we are certainly more knowledgeable about our world now than we ever have been before, there still exist things we do not know. That's why we have fields of study such as, for instance, chaos theory, and string theory, and other such theoretical fields which seek to understand the nature of 'how stuff works.' The fact that we don't 'have the technology' to prove or disprove God's existence doesn't invalidate His existence any more than the fact that we didn't have the technology to show that the Earth rotated around the sun until many years into the time of the humans indicated concretely that the Earth is in fact the center of the solar system.
Reply to this Top
Mr. King, you offer a rather provincial "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God" view of Christianity as a whole. Certainly, there are sects which take this 'fear of the Lord' concept to an extremely high degree. There are many other sects (and religions - I'm not sure why the assaults on this board have all been against Christianity specifically), however, which believe that God, for instance, sent Jesus as a means of DEMONSTRATING how to live and love one's fellow man. It has little to do with a threat of punishment and more to do with an understanding of God's love and how to show it to one's fellow man. It's a bit simplistic to assert that Christians act always with an air of self-preservation while atheists are morally superior because they have no compelling interest in self-preservation - I'd argue that the point is not so patently obvious as that (look at, for instance, Mother Teresa).
Reply to this Top
Billy King, I'll bet you I could find a bunch of people, religious and atheist alike, that would not be willing to run into a burning building at the prospect of saving someone. I resent your implication that compassion for fellow man is an atheist condition, rather than a human condition. The fact that religious folks believe that good works are a way to enter heaven does not necessarily make all such works contrived.
Reply to this Top
I agree with Jason T. What a horrible judgment to pass on ALL Christians. Furthermore, why can't it just be believe what you want to believe and leave it at that? I don't have a problem with people being atheists, it's their choice as it is my choice to be Christian. What I have a problem with is what Kyle mentioned earlier: when atheists criticize my belief in God and try to convince me otherwise. I certainly know this goes both ways as this article seems to be trying to convince atheists. But as I am sure atheists resent Christians and other religious people passing judgment on them, I don't appreciate atheists judging me.
Reply to this Top
david, I've got to side with Kyle on this one. You must qualify your statement that humans are the most successful and competitive animal on the planet. Most successful how? Why do you get to determine how success is measured? We believe that we are the best at reasoning, and we believe that our system of communication is tops, but aren't we also the best at synthesizing toxic chemicals, developing sophisticated torture methods, mass killing, etc.?
Reply to this Top
I'm guessing you're religious Allison so I'll try to be as unbias as possible. I myself am an atheist. I equate belief in God with belief in Santa Clause. They're the same thing, just different names and I would say Santa Clause is much more a role model than the Judeo-Christian God. You say that atheists act purely because it's the law or because of evolutionary means and that's not enough to account for the origin of where such guidance comes from. Well you left out one other mechanism: socialization. This concept has been observed and studied by social scientists for decades. It is an accepted scientific fact. People develop their sense of right and wrong from a mix of things, including the topics you mentioned in the article. But to say that God established this concept of a conscious is what scientists call an argument from ignorance. You don't know all the facts so you ascribe it to God. That's a common tactic of every religion, not just Christianity. The truth is socialization along with evolution and group dynamics are what establishes our morality. In between all of that is context and God is never part of that equation.
Reply to this Top
It is also worth noting that God is not very kind or loving if you're talking about the God of the Bible. That God condones slavery, rape, war, and genocide. That God wiped out every living thing on the face of the planet in Genesis, save for Noah and his family. Even Hitler and Stalin never came close to that. God also murdered all the first born children in Egypt. How is that moral? And Jesus Christ was no saint either. He advocated people giving up all their wealth and living a chaste life in order to inhabit the kingdom of heaven. It's all in the Bible. You'd be better off taking your morals from comic books or Santa Clause. I have no problem with people believing in God. I have no problem with people believing in Santa Clause, Thor, or aliens. But I find it insulting that you think mankind is not fit to establish their own morality and we need a god to watch over us. God is an unknowable, unprovable being. You can't make those assumptions in intelligent arguments and expect people to take them seriously. It's fine to argue morality, but keep God out of it. God is best kept to yourself.
Reply to this Top
Saying that we can not invalidate god's existence because we can not prove that god does not exist is not a good argument. There have been many things that are thought to have existed that we can not prove did not exist, yet the majority of the human population would scoff at anyone who believes those things. The problem with God and scientific proof is that God requires faith, which is the antithesis for science. When scientists change their paradigms, such as from solar system revolves around the earth to heliocentric, they can do so because there is enough evidence, and that as scientists, they take what they know, through scientific method, through testing and retesting, conclude that as far as the evidence shows, this is how the world works. On the other hand, if God was found to be non-existent, would a believer disbelieve? I can't speak for any believers, but I doubt that in light of evidence against God, many deeply faithful would just stop believing in god. Therein lies the problem. Where atheists would change their views to include god, believers will not change their views to exclude god. And as far as your second comment in regards to Mother Teresa, I would say that she may not be the saint everyone thinks she is.
Reply to this Top
Kyle, Jason, I see where your concerns over the term "successful" have merit. Thinking about it, I can not see where there is an instance, perhaps besides intelligence, where we excel beyond other animals. Yet we compensate, like no other animals can, in the areas we lack. We can reach heights beyond what nature has evolved to so far. No other animal is so versatile, and none so adept at adapting to cope with their disadvantages. I also believe no other animal has had such a drastic effect on the planet in which they inhibit in such a short time, and are in a position where they can potentially oversee the well being of this planet.
Reply to this Top
What a wonderful column this was! As a Christian theologian and experienced writer myself, I found this writing to be not only insightful, but uplifting. It ended on such a meaninful and thought-provoking principle. The very mid-point and center of the entire Bible is Psalm 118:8. From that point, there are 594 Biblical chapters preceeding it and 594 Biblical chapters to its end. Now, what is not so ironic is what that verse, Psalm 118:8 says. It reads, "Better to take refuge in the Lord, than to put one's trust in man." My second, final, and conclusive point is that athiesm is ultimately "a lack of belief" in anything divine, higher, or greater so then, how are we to respect or draw any sort of intellectual prowess from athiests because of what they say are their beliefs. They claim to believe in not believing. That in itself is a contradiction. I will conclude with this thought, from St. Thomas Aquinas: "For the man of faith, no explanation is necessary; for the man without faith, no explanation is possible." Thank you for writing this article. It has impacted my life significantly in a positive light. ~ Anthony Maranise CBHS Athletics: Director of Faith Development Program Major of Religion / Theology: Christian Brothers University
Reply to this Top
Haha... yeah right Anthony; the part about how atheists would 'walk by a bleeding homeless man' or 'smile or laugh at a starving child' was really insightful and uplifting. What a joke.
Reply to this Top