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.
You might be interested in...- Letter: Celebrate the holidays however you see fit
- Local GOP cleaning house, aiming high
- ACC weekend preview: Four conference battles elsewhere
