Apologia Christi

On atheism and morality.

Suppose God didn’t exist. Would we be able to enjoy life? According to our billboard atheists this enjoyment stands in contrast to what we should be doing if God in fact did exist. The billboard can be interpreted in two different ways: (1) God does not exist, so stop being moralistic; stop correcting others and just enjoy life. (2) God does not exist, therefore you need not feel resposible to anyone. So let go of all restraints. In both cases it seems there is a clear link with moral consciousness. So how are things with morality in atheism?

Strangely enough I come up with a double answer. On the one hand the atheistic worldview rules out the possibility of an absolute moral on the other the average atheist proves the existence of absolute moral values with his behaviour.

Consequences of a materialistic worldview
Naturalism is one of the foundations of atheism. Naturalism includes the belief that there is no God, that there is no reality outside what our senses offer and consequently that matter is all there is.

A material view of reality has far reaching consequences for ethics. Since only matter is given no criteria can be found to identify good and evil. Matter is simply the only brute fact there is. About 1080 atoms that float around in the universe, or rather, make up that universe. We people are part of this atom soup; complicated lumps of molecules no doubt, but still nothing more than ‘atomic assemblies’.

If total reality is nothing more than atoms how do we arrive at morality? Moral values are immaterial. We cannot derive from matter the judgement that one thing is good and the other bad. Because matter is all there is (according to naturalism), morality is impossible in principle. The same can be said of our conscience. It is either immaterial in which case it points to a supernatural cause or it has its origin in the material in which case it at best can be said to be derived from chemicals, which has nothing to do with an ‘inner knowing in our hearts’.

So atheism cannot provide us with a model for moral values that have their origin outside of man, that are considered absolutely true and are therefore considered possessing enough authority to cause one to be willing to obey them.

The materialistic view, as a corollary of naturalism, offers only two possibilities with regard to morals: determinism and libertinism. Determinism teaches that every action of a person is predetermined as it is a necessary consequence of causes which in turn are necessary consequences of other causes, etc. Libertinism teaches the exact opposite: man is completely free. Nothing, absolutely nothing can limit him in his urge to free development. Let us look at these two more closely.

(1) Determinism. Since materialism offers us a closed system of cause and effect it is not at all sure whether man has a free will. According to determinism man’s behaviour is fixed as part of a chain of cause and effect. ‘Determined’ does not mean that it is destined by someone, but simply that as part of a mechanical material universe it is bound to happen, even though we have the illusion of free choice. In such a universe free choice simply doesn’t, couldn’t exist. The same can be said of moral choice and conscience. Everything that man does or chooses is purely the effect of a long chain of cause and effect – first fysically and then chemically.

(2) Libertinism. On another view we have the exact opposite: total freedom. It is the belief that man posseses a free will with which he could and should pursue whatever urge he has without any regard for the consequences for other individuals. In its radical form (the only realistic form I believe) there are only two kinds of people. As Marquis de Sade put it: perpetrators and victims. Nietzsche used slightly different words in order to describe this situation. After the Christian slave morality has been thrown away a new mankind rises up. Nietzsche called it the Übermensch, Overman, who wields his power and subdues others.

In both cases there is no sense of responsibility. In the case of determinism every deed is a necessary consequence of a cause. In the case of libertinism every deed is permitted regardless of the consequences. There is no middle ground.

Solutions that don’t work
Above I have given a summary of the consequences of atheism. I am not saying that this is how atheists in fact do behave. On the contrary, modern atheists eschew the above conclusions and seek an explanation for the existence of morality in order to preserve it. They certainly do not want to abolish it.

For many atheists morality is a by-product of evolution. Man is simply the most developed mammal. As an intelligent being with a complex social life he has acquired a certain behaviour. Morality as a refined evolutionary product is part of that behaviour. It is a tool for survival of its species.

With this explanation of morality’s origin in mind various ethical models have been developed that fit into an atheistic worldview. One of them is utilitarianism. Utilitarianism teaches that the good is determined by whether something contributes to the common good. Under utilitarianism the individual ought to work toward the good of the larger group.

However there are serious objections to both an evolutionary explanation of morality and an ethical system such as utilitarianism.

If it is true that morality is governed by evolutionary principles what do we say about something like, lets say, rape? We all think it is morally right not to rape someone, but from an evolutionary point of view rape would be a virtuous thing to do. It is not difficult to see which effect an evolutionary view of morality has on sexual behaviour. For in the case of evolution sexual morals are not based on an absolute standard. This means it is rather difficult to bring forth an objection against unlimited promiscuity. From an evolutionary point of view it is in fact desirable to inseminate many women in order to produce as much off-spring as possible.

Not everyone will agree with my conclusion, but there are enough examples to be found in which we would praise people as heroes for doing something that goes against evolutionary logic. Think for example about people putting their life at stake in order to save someone. On an evolutionary view such behaviour could be considered repugnant.

Whatever the case, an evolutionary view of the development of morality does not lead one to feel compelled to actually display a certain moral behaviour. It wouldn’t have the power to force me, because (1) it concerns a morality that is still in development and has the potential to develop further still (I might be the facilitator of this development by my disobedience), (2) it does not carry enough weight and authority in order impress me in such a way that I really would want to obey.

Utilitarianism will eventually collapse because in order to act in conformity with the common good one needs omniscience. Before any deed is done or any choice is made one would have to weigh endlessly what the consequences will be, virtually obliterating morally good behaviour. Aside from that no criteria have been given for what is good and evil. It might be that collective suicide is the highest good, because in this way future generations are spared the suffering that is part of the human condition and animal species will be less prone to extinction.

Where does the imperative come from anyway? Is it not an a priori knowledge for which the atheist needs to device a system in order to justificy its existence? He is stuck with a moral consciousness for which his worldview does not provide him a foundation. Yet he tries desperately to find it within the context of his atheistic worldview. And lastly, why should the common good be preferred above personal desires? Why is the preservation of mankind as a distinct species morally prioritized above what an individual would like to do?

The problems remain
When it comes to the question of good and evil the atheist continues to have a problem. This problem needs to be solved before the atheist experiment is carried on. Yet atheists continue to act in accordance with an absolute morality (irrationally so with regard to their own worldview). You see this especially in politics where you find all kinds of moral indictments without reference to a common basis for moral behaviour.

It remains a strange fact of atheist reality. There is no foundation for moral values and yet atheists act in accordance with it. Even where the atheist’s worldview does not allow him the tools to fashion his own morality he tries to find it passionately. That in and of itself is one argument for the existence for a transcedent absolute morality, which in turn can only be explained with the proposition of a personal God, Creator of mankind.

With this I do not say that atheists cannot be people with high moral values and live very decent lives. On the contrary, many atheists live highly ethical lifes and thereby prove that there is such a thing as an absolute morality. In doing this their lifestyle reflects a transcendental reality that their own worldview barrs them from acknowledging.

So in atheism we do not find the basis for a viable morality. The atheist wavers between the invitation of ‘Enjoy this life’ and the indignified ‘Don’t tell me I have no moral values’. He has moral values even though his worldview denies it. He shivers at the consequences of the invitation that his worldview issues: an uncontrolled enjoyment that devours everything in its path. But what then is there to enjoy as the billboard says? We will see this in the next article ‘Dare to think for yourself.’ On atheism and meaning.

Filed under: article | Tagged: Apologetics, atheism