About Rationally Speaking


Rationally Speaking is a blog maintained by Prof. Massimo Pigliucci, a philosopher at the City University of New York. The blog reflects the Enlightenment figure Marquis de Condorcet's idea of what a public intellectual (yes, we know, that's such a bad word) ought to be: someone who devotes himself to "the tracking down of prejudices in the hiding places where priests, the schools, the government, and all long-established institutions had gathered and protected them." You're welcome. Please notice that the contents of this blog can be reprinted under the standard Creative Commons license.

Thursday, March 31, 2011

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.

35 comments:

  1. I don't understand the problem with Rev. Wheeler's statement. He thinks a belief in God is necessary. Great. I would think anyone who believed in God would think the same thing. If they didn't, they'd be an atheist.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I don't know Michael, I think you're jumping ahead. I wish that the two spearheads of atheism weren't at odds, but more than that I wish they didn't exist as leading groups for promoting atheism.

    I and the others I know who deconverted, did so by the very ground from which come the campaign for secular values and the one *against God.* We were dissuaded by being taught critical thinking, logic, ethics etc. in college.

    As you saliently put it, "the staggering amount of uncritical thinking that is putting society to ruin," is, "the underlying problem."

    To reiterate a point Massimo has made, critical thinking must be taught in our primary and secondary schools. That is the priority, the campaigns are great but the chains of irrationality are put on our kids and the public schools do nothing about it (generally speaking). It's best to stop that first and await (not idly) a more civil discourse between worldviews.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Neither of the objections you raise contradict the goal of the marketing campaign. In fact, both objections grant its truth, so they're not objections at all.

    What they don't do is concede the debate over the existence of God--they're objections to atheism. The responses agree with the ad campaign that Atheists can live full and whole lives, and frames this view within the context of their existing belief structure--theism.

    "There is simply no getting around the fact that belief in God makes for an enormous stumbling block in discourse about morality."

    This is only true if you start with the atheist perspective that discourse about morality means "discourse about morality without using the concept of God."

    ReplyDelete
  4. "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."

    I'm not sure the quoted claim says that "you can only be so moral" without God: it says nothing about morality. It's worthwhile distinguishing between living a moral life, and living a deeply meaningful one. Rev. Wheeler seems to be saying that you can live a moral life as an atheist, but you cannot live a fully meaningful life, since God is the source of that life.

    I also suspect the title of this post is a bit too strong: Nothing in it suggests that belief in God hinders basic moral discourse (although there certainly are plenty of cases where it does--though the same can be said about belief in, e.g., utilitarianism or worse, evolutionary psychologists' free-wheeling conjectures about morality!). For one thing, there are no examples of moral discourse here. The religious responses cited in reaction to the campaign are either (1) meta-ethical--questions about the source of morality, or human moral capacity, or (2) questions about what constitutes a meaningful life.

    Certainly plenty of serious philosophers have taken the religious position on both points; especially on (2), where numerous attempts to make secular sense of meaning in life are still fairly unconvincing (though of course some--like Nagel--have argued that not even God could give life meaning).

    But--importantly--neither of the responses in any way undermines the possibility that theists and atheists might come to agree on moral issues, and by going through more or less similar considerations. (For that matter, it doesn't look like the CFI campaign is making a case for "alternative values"--the values themselves are no different from standard religious values; that seems to be the whole point of the campaign.) It is only when appeal to specific commands from God is made that moral discourse gets seriously distorted; if the difference of opinion between theists and atheists were only at the level of meta-ethics and non-moral considerations, it would hardly be worth launching a campaign to combat it! Instead, we should embrace a pluralistic ground for public debate, and focusing on making "a case against religious belief" isn't likely to be conducive to that.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I've said this before, but being dragged into an argument about God's existence is pointless and frankly not that important.

    The billboards would be better if then substituted the word “religion” instead of “God”, as in you “don’t need religion”.

    When discussing atheism with the religious, atheists should immediately concede the existence of God and instead focus on the problems and irrationality of their particular religion and specific religious texts.

    When debating atheists, the religious always posit the most generic definition of God possible, yet this generic definition often bears no resemblance or has no relevance to the specific tenants of a given religion.

    It is possible to conceive of a society where there is no religion even though there is a high level of belief in "God". From a secular viewpoint, such a society would be a vast improvement over the current religious society and secularists may find that once the religion is removed, the fact that the God belief exists poses no particular problem.

    Most of the problems secularist care about are we attributable to the construct of religion itself and not because of an underlying belief in a generic creator. Think Thomas Jefferson– most secularists would not be troubled by his belief in God because he rejected religious revelation and placed science and reason on the highest possible pedestal.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Most criminals believe in god.
    .
    I think that should be the best campaign.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Arkholt,

    A theist must hold that belief in God is necessary iff they believe God exists necessarily. But that a theist must hold that God exists necessarily is not at all clear. E.g. a theist may hold the belief that God or some other supernatural agency is the defeasible conclusion of a series of inferences to the best explanation.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Michael, how much "critical examination" is needed on this particular issue, that being moral requires belief in god? It's clearly a non sequitur from outside a constricted theistic circle. Within that circle, the argument itself is circular — and, per Arkholt, a fundamental conservative theist tenet. Of course beyond that, among conservative Xns and Jews, is the issue of original din, depravity of human nature. But, it doesn't take any more critical thinking than that.

    The critical thinking is how to address that. And the simple answer, in terms of expenditure of time and emotions is, you just write such people off.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Do we need religion to be ethical?
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/do-the-right-thing/201103/do-we-need-religion-be-ethical


    Thomas Plante, PhD, makes statements that perpetuate common misinformation with regard to religion and secularism.
    Plante casually claims that religious people are "better citizens" and "behave better." And without citing any sources, he tells us: "Research has consistently found that religious people are less likely to engage in criminal behavior, marital infidelity, alcoholism, unprotected sexual activity. . ."
    Read more
    http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/our-humanity-naturally/201103/misinformation-and-facts-about-secularism-and-religion

    How can you explain that crime rates are higher in religious countries?
    There are many articles on the web on this subject, one of them is:
    Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article571206.ece

    ReplyDelete
  10. Michael, good post and good luck with the campaign. I'm mostly of the opinion that any PR is good, but I don't discount the importance of some of it being palatable to most people.

    Alan, I'm with you on "religion" being better than "God", but this is irrelevant: "When debating atheists, the religious always posit the most generic definition of God possible, yet this generic definition often bears no resemblance or has no relevance to the specific tenants of a given religion."

    It is a strong feature of belief that the generic definition is held much more tightly than specific tenants. Most people would say "well, I don't believe everything they say" and wear that as a badge of intellectual honesty rather than cafeteria-style selectivity.

    ReplyDelete
  11. "You don't need God" seems to be saying God's out there but needlessly so. Also it seems directed more at Christians than a number of other Theistic mythologies.
    Better perhaps to just say you don't need 'a' god, etc.

    ReplyDelete
  12. It seems a vast improvement over the "Belief in God/Religion is Stupid and Evil!" kind of advertisements I've seen in the past.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There's that problem again: you don't need to believe in God to be religious. The two are not the same.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Norwegian Shooter,

    You said; "It is a strong feature of belief that the generic definition is held much more tightly than specific tenants."

    I agree with this and I guess my point would be to use this to some advantage and try to argue as a logical extension that the "religion" aspect is unnecessary.

    Seems easier, as a first step at least (and as I indicated maybe the only necessary step), to separate the believer from his religion rather than his/her God belief.

    Unfortunately, debates with religious people often quickly become a debate about the existence of God - at which point the debate is many times lost.

    ReplyDelete
  15. I certainly don't think that atheists can't be moral and good, or even better than theists. What I don't understand is what rational basis an atheist has for using such words as good and evil. If the material world is all there is, doesn't it rationally follow that morality is only an illusion, a chemical reaction, evolutionary conditioning? Aren't atheists who argue that they are a moral entity being inconsistent with the rational implications of what they profess?

    ReplyDelete
  16. Steve:

    'If the material world is all there is, doesn't it rationally follow that morality is only an illusion, a chemical reaction, evolutionary conditioning?'

    Not an illusion, but a natural phenomenon.

    'Aren't atheists who argue that they are a moral entity being inconsistent with the rational implications of what they profess? '

    How so? How does something being a natural phenomenon make it inconsistent with believing it to be a natural phenomenon?

    ReplyDelete
  17. One common myth is that the nonreligious lead empty, meaningless, selfish, self-centered lives.

    the myth that life without God means a joyless, meaningless, selfish, self-centered life.

    The truth of course is that according to the universe everyone's life is essentially meaningless. The universe doesn't care if you live, die or never existed. If you don't have what it takes to find (limited, local) meaning in your life then yeah it will have no meaning. Believing in the hidden, silent god doesn't change that. All it serves to do is shield you from the truth.

    Everyone's life is self centered. There is nobody else in that brain with you. People's joy depends on their capacity for it. One would logically assume that atheists have a spectrum of that as the believing population does. I can't believe anyone would try make the case that all believers are 'joyful'.

    Do the believers never stop to contemplate just what their relationship to this 'God' entails? They would essentially be the equivalent of pets for all eternity.

    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.

    This is a statement of Brobdingnagian optimism. The atheists/secularists are not going to agree on primacy and humans as a species will not be having any rational, constructive conversations about anything in the near (or quite possibly far) future. Crikey! Just watch Fox news for an hour if you think that last is even remotely plausible.

    ReplyDelete
  18. "The fundamental point here is that positive secular values cannot move forward without the critical examination of religious claims."

    I'm not sure that every assertion merits close examination. The claim that atheists can only be good because God granted them that capability is an evidence-free assertion and can be dismissed as such. The same goes for the idea that God guided evolution.

    I think the effort that atheists put forth to disassemble *every* argument sometimes plays into the hands of the apologists because it dilutes any coherent message that the atheistic community might put forth.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Christopher said: There's that problem again: you don't need to believe in God to be religious. The two are not the same.

    Does one need to believe in any other dubious metaphysical doctrine (e.g. karma) or mythology in order to be religious? If so, then count me among the irreligious. If not, then what other criteria are there?

    I'm being a little coy here, because I'm well aware of the religious naturalism option. But it's a very minor trend, and, while logically compatible with atheism and scientific skepticism, does not seem to be particularly popular even among atheists and scientific skeptics, many of whom have no apparent use or desire for religion of any kind.

    ReplyDelete
  20. I'm not a God-thumper but the title alone is such a fanatically black and white statement that it's hard to take the rest of this seriously.

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thameron's conclusion is honest to his world view: "the truth is that according to the universe everyone's life is essentially meaningless". How can there be true meaning or morality? There is no sense or purpose for anything. Let's liberate ourselves from all illusions. But we know better. We couldn't write a sentence if there were no meaning. But there is. How do we know? We don't know how we know. We just know.

    ReplyDelete
  22. If the problem is the existence of god, then there is nothing to do. Because it's basically an option. There is nothing you can do about it I think. That's the reason I guess why atheists rely on these other campaigns about morality, they put the effort in the other side, which is more effective.

    However, I agree completely in the point on teaching in critical thinking.

    Finally, atheists have the same right to make proselithism as religious people, I think. It is completely fair.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I'm with Christopher. Atheism and religion are not mutually exclusive. Most religious people have been atheists (Animists, Buddhists, Taoists, etc.), and unsurprisingly, it appears that most atheists have been religious. Possibly more importantly, the two are not only overlapping as a matter of fact, but also in principle. There is no credible definition of religion that requires as a defining principle a belief in god(s).

    I think much of the difficulty plaguing discussions about atheism and religion stem from the definition of religion - rather than atheism.

    No set of criteria seems to capture all the things we generally think of as religions without capturing things we don't consider religions. Religious Studies spends a lot of time wringing their hands about this sort of thing. As a category, religion borders on the incoherent. Declaring war on a nebulous concept might be a bad idea.

    ReplyDelete
  24. How can there be true meaning or morality?

    Any meaning is as I said, both local and limited. Personally I think this is the universe's (unconscious and unintentional) joke on humans - that they would have a strong desire for something which is essentially a phantom. It is probably a bug (or feature) of our complex brains.

    I don't know that the words 'true morality' have any meaning. One gets the image of a white bearded Greek philosopher striding down from a thunderhead enshrouded Mount Olympus burdened with two stone tablets on which is inscribed the True Morality.

    Morality is just the set of rules we need to A) Get along with each other because we are an interdependent social species and B) Reach our full physical, mental and relational potential (as long as doing so doesn't infringe on A) because that is the best that we will ever do and if nothing else it sounds like a really good idea. Of course if you don't want to get along and don't want to work towards your potential then morality would just be an inconvenient constraint.

    ReplyDelete
  25. As a category, religion borders on the incoherent.

    It's not surprising that Christianity would serve as the prototype of religion for those of us raised in dominantly Christian (or post-Christian) societies. But, since Christianity is only a subcategory, what are the essential traits of the category?

    Most of us who attempt to answer that question wind up revealing our cultural bias; for example, by judging other subcategory candidates according to criteria that fit our prototype: like belief in God or gods and communal rituals like prayer and seasonal holidays.

    That's not to suggest that social scientists and others (e.g. those with more exposure to other cultures) cannot develop and work with broader and more sophisticated definitions of the category (e.g. "a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values" *).

    For the same reason, I suggested above that the concept of "religious naturalism" makes sense (e.g. I don't think it's an oxymoron). But it definitely does not fit well with our familiar prototype for religion.* Plus, it's not particularly popular with naturalists - probably for the opposite reason (viz. even a poor fit is too religious for their tastes).

    * Nor does Buddhism, for that matter, which has led some to suggest that it's a better fit for some other - albeit related - category, like philosophy, mysticism, or spirituality.

    ReplyDelete
  26. "But, since Christianity is only a subcategory, what are the essential traits of the category?" - jsm

    I wasn't talking about Christianity specifically, but religious studies in general. The problem isn't bias but that there is no more sophisticated definition that encompass all religions without capturing other things as well. There s no essential characteristic. Take your example:

    "a cultural system that creates powerful and long-lasting meaning, by establishing symbols that relate humanity to beliefs and values" - jsm

    This kind of definition would capture all sorts of things that we don't consider religions: the publishing industry, Communism, etc.

    The bias is that there is such a thing as a meaningful category named "religion". It's just groups of people that believe particular things.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Hi jcm, You said: Does one need to believe in any other dubious metaphysical doctrine (e.g. karma) or mythology in order to be religious? I think yes. I think you can *act* religious without actually believing - we have all met such hypocrites, and they are a prime cause of cynicism of religion. But to *be* religious you have to believe. So that's you out! lol ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  28. "the truth is that according to the universe everyone's life is essentially meaningless". Agreed - this is the Buddhist view also.

    How can there be true meaning or morality? The Buddhist view is that we give our lives whatever meaning it has by our actions.

    ReplyDelete
  29. There is a fallacy here. The definition of "morality" being used is, roughly, "a system of ostensibly rational humanistic values." By coincidence this is the definition of morality that atheists, in the Western world anyway, tend to subscribe to, so it is not really a surprise that they would tend to be moral in this sense. However, it is not the definition of morality used by most religious people, or by most people in general.

    ReplyDelete
  30. Christopher -

    It is all about the frames -
    In your frame you (and your actions) have all (or nearly all) of the meaning.
    In your group the amount of meaning you have varies with your role and the size of your group.
    In your species (where you are one of seven billion) chances are that you have very little meaning indeed.
    In your biosphere the odds become vanishingly small and in your solar system? Galaxy? Cluster? Universe?

    This is all during the period when you exist. As time progresses any meaning that even the most important person had will shrink away to nothing. Who will be important in 10,000 years? In 100,000?

    Any meaning you find will be local and limited in time. Some people can bear that thought and others cannot. For those who can't there are many shields. Religion is one of these.

    ReplyDelete
  31. From a Buddhist point of view, a moral action is one which leads to happiness. Actions which do not lead to happiness are not moral. The difficulty is deciding what actions do, in fact, lead to happiness. And this can be quite counter intuitive.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Thameron - Thanks for the message. I agree with your view, although I am not clear about what conclusion you are reaching.

    If you are saying that because we as individuals are so tiny as to be insignificant in the 'grand scheme of things' that our lives are meaningless, then I have to disagree. If I give food to a starving person, or pay for a medicine so they can be free from a cureable disease, these actions have great meaning. Placing flowers on the grave of a loved one has great meaning.

    The question is how to make our lives meaningful. People reading this may well be doing this be being committed to the Skeptical cause. Some people turn to religion for this - and fair play to them. In my view, provided they do not make silly claims which can be shot down by the scientific method, or insist others change their behaviour based on their beliefs, I can't really see any problem.

    But we should all ask ourselves the question - what meaning does my life have? How can I use my life in the most meaningful way? It may be local and limited in time, but surely this is no excuse to not use what time we have for the best.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Christopher

    I think the problem derives from the desire to have our personal meaning exceed our frame i.e. to be as important to the group as we are to ourselves, to be as important to our species as we are to ourselves etc. To be important in time long beyond our own lifespan. The idea of being transient, expendable and forgettable runs directly counter to the meaning we feel our lives have (or should have). I don't really blame the religious for disliking it enough to retreat into a world of fantasy where they are so terribly important that no less than the creator of the entire universe is going to preserve them for all time. I suppose that if you are going to dream, you may as well dream big.

    There is indeed meaning beyond the individual. There is group meaning, species meaning and even biosphere meaning. I personally think that meaning should ultimately be to spread life (conscious intelligent life) to every place we can reach that will support it, because without life there is no meaning and as far as we can tell everything beyond our atmosphere is lifeless.

    We can choose to strive to reach the limits of matter, energy and consciousness, finding meaning along the way or we can choose to sit on our collective butts until the sun boils the seas.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Apologies for the late response...

    Christopher said: But to *be* religious you have to believe.

    and James said: The bias is that there is such a thing as a meaningful category named "religion". It's just groups of people that believe particular things.

    OK, so putting the two together, I suppose that everyone is religious, so long as s/he is a member of a group that believes "particular things."

    If so, then I guess that makes me a member of the religion of scientific skeptics. That's alright with me, but bear in mind what I said above about Christianity's being the dominant prototype of religion in the West (although, in my personal life, Judaism is an equally dominant one, with much overlap). Saying that scientific skepticism and Christianity are both religious seems likely to make both groups very uncomfortable.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Thameron,

    As I said above, what is a moral action is sometimes rather counter intuitive. The Buddhist wish is, far from being more and more important, to view ourselves as less and less important. We should strive to cherish others instead of cherishing ourselves. Why? Because, rather surprisingly, this will definately make us happy, whereas cherishing ourself will actually definately make us miserable. It will also make others happy, whereas thinking only of ourselves will make them unhappy.

    Even more ironically, it is by abandoning our self cherishing that we give real meaning to our lives and become objects to be admired - think Ghandi.

    ReplyDelete

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.