Belief in God hinders even basic moral discourse

by Michael De Dora

The Center for Inquiry launched a nationwide multimedia campaign earlier this month featuring a simple message: "You don't need God — to hope, to care, to love, to live." This slogan was featured on billboards in Washington D.C., Indianapolis, Houston, and on a viral Internet video. The campaign has been successful, drawing media attention, raising public consciousness, and bringing secular-minded people out of their closets. Yet, it hasn't gone without criticism, some of which is worth considering for a moment.

The goal of the campaign was clearly explained by Ronald Lindsay, President and CEO of the Center for Inquiry:

"With this campaign, we are aiming to dispel some myths about the nonreligious. One common myth is that the nonreligious lead empty, meaningless, selfish, self-centered lives. This is not only false, it's ridiculous. Unfortunately, all too many people accept this myth because that's what they hear about nonbelievers."

And as Lindsay wrote in an accompanying blog post:

"We're not trying to convert anyone by this campaign, if conversion implies persuading people there is no God. We are trying to prompt people to consider and converse about some of the myths surrounding the nonreligious, in particular the myth that life without God means a joyless, meaningless, selfish, self-centered life."

This seems about as uncontroversial and inarguable as possible. It is completely justified since these are existing myths about atheists that have an actual, harmful impact: surveys show that atheists are the least respected segment of the American population. And compared to more "in-your-face" ad campaigns that have criticized the veracity of religious claims and honesty of religious leaders, CFI’s ad merely states that secular people can lead moral, fulfilling lives, just like their religious counterparts. Nevertheless, two disagreements with the substance of the campaign have emerged. As wrong as they might appear, atheists would do well to briefly contemplate them. The fact that they are the most common objections to this sort of effort has important implications.

The first objection is known as the "common grace" argument. Originally made famous by apologist C.S. Lewis, it posits that atheists are only able to lead good lives because God implanted within them such a capacity. This position was illustrated by Chris Coyne, the Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Indianapolis. Coyne told an Indianapolis TV station that atheists can be happy and fulfilled, but that “all goodness, all happiness, all creation flows from God whether you believe it or not.” Talk about humility.

The second objection says that while atheists can lead decent lives, the secular lifestyle has inherent limits because of its detachment from God. This stance was explained by Rev. Edward Wheeler, the president of Christian Theological Seminary in Indianapolis. Wheeler told The Indianapolis Star that “he doesn't disagree with the essence of the billboard messages — he, too, has met admirable, responsible people with nonreligious beliefs.” But, Wheeler said, “I believe we are created by a loving, caring God and, because of that, we are not fully complete without a relationship with God.”

In response to these arguments, atheists often cite empirical data that shows that atheists are just as moral as religionists, or bring up the biological basis of morality, the rich history of secular moral reflection, and the human ability to collectively reason toward more objective moral values. But while I believe these responses are both reasonable and correct, they are often an exercise in futility. Why? Because the religionists’ arguments do not hinge on the capacity for secular morality, but on the existence of God. The theist will inevitably respond with: “Well, sure, but God made you moral,” or, “Right, but you can only be so moral without God.” There is simply no getting around the fact that belief in God makes for an enormous stumbling block in discourse about morality.

This ability of the religious to adapt their beliefs to the arguments is not news to atheists (for that matter, nor are the reactions to the campaign). For example, many modern religious believers accept the facts of biology, but argue that evolution was God’s method of design. How can atheists overcome this problem? Perhaps the best move is to recognize that there are two different projects that are inextricably related and have equal importance. One project is illustrated by the CFI advertisements. They seek to present to the public an affirmative secular worldview. This is important because atheists need to make more than just a case against religious belief, they need to make a case for a positive set of alternative values. But atheists must also critically examine religious belief, which is the mission of other projects. This is extremely important because, as plainly seen in this case, religious belief continues to undermine even the most basic and uncontroversial claims about secular morality.

The fundamental point here is that positive secular values cannot move forward without the critical examination of religious claims. As I wrote in a recent blog post here, “The critic of religious faith and dogma is on the same side as the promoter of secular moral values. To squabble about whose interests are more important is to lose sight of the underlying problem: the staggering amount of uncritical thinking that is putting society to ruin.” Once atheists realize this, they can get on with trying to complete both tasks, instead of arguing which is most important. Only when both are accomplished will humans be able to collectively have a rational, constructive conversation about morality.