A question that is often in the social consciousness recently is the Question being asked of Atheists:
“How do you know what is right or wrong if you don’t believe in God?”
Of course, the “pat” answer is the one always pushed by theistic overlords, which says that atheists don’t know, so they feel free to act immorally. Thus, to be an atheist is to be immoral and evil. Naturally, atheists disagree, as we all do actually have morals, and many of us feel our morals are superior to those of religious people, in the main because we actually have to go through a process of decision making to get there, while theists don’t. (Theoretically. As I will note later, people are complicated, and none of us are usually that dogmatic about this.)
But just HOW do we get there? How to explain to theists who do not know (and to new atheists as well) what that process is? What are the issues, and how does one make up one’s mind? Let’s step through the process, talking about those issues as we go. Be aware, this is a complicated issue, and to do this in any manageable manner, I’m going to have to simplify things a bit.
First, I am NOT a philosopher. I am not trained in any professional sense in either the field of philosophy nor logic. I was exposed at one time (high school) to both in my studies in Latin (because I had an awesome Latin teacher), but I can in no wise claim any expertise in either field. So, the following is just me. If you have such training, and see any obvious errors as a result of that lack, feel free to jump in. I won’t be insulted, unless you intend to insult me, and it’s obvious. Otherwise, I’ll be glad to discuss that problem.
To simply this a bit, I’m going to look at four subgroups of people.
Theists who make a decision that something is good.
Theists who make a decision that something is bad.
Atheists who make a decision that something is good.
Atheists who make a decision that something is bad.
Obviously, the category of “theists” is a very broad one. Their morals are often different in particular ways. But, mostly, their beliefs are bound by some sort of Scripture. It may be something dictated by a deity, it may be something dictated by past masters (or clerics) in that particular religious practice. The commonality is broadly the idea that morals are dictated by some authority. It may be centralized, it may not. But generally, people are guided by that authority, and not primarily by their own thought processes.
Also, with Atheism, naturally, that definition is one that encompasses mainly the belief that there are no deities. Note here that atheists may have a widely differing spectrum of political thought and practices, and come from virtually every culture in the world. Thus, the cultural influences will be broadly different. We’ll get to that later. But, the fact that atheists may have differing POLITICAL ideals certainly shows that other influences on their morals are as widely varied as the cultural influences. So, keep these in mind as we examine these processes.
One last thing. This is examining a process. I’m not saying that any of these four subcategories are about a lifestyle of good or bad, either as theists or atheists. People are complicated, and any or all of us are capable of making a decision about what to do in a particular instance that may, objectively, seem good or bad at any one time. The NEXT time we are in a position to make such a decision, we might make the completely opposite one. So, be aware that I am not making any value judgements here about lifestyles. This is about how people determine morality - the decision PROCESS, and how that determines our actions. On THAT, I reserve the right to make value judgements.
- Theists who make a decision that something is good.
Now, in the popular paradigm of the Question, “How do you know what is right or wrong if you don’t believe in God?”, obviously, the implication is that people who believe in God are guided by His hand as revealed in the Bible. (Or, possibly, in a wider context, by a holy Scripture not Christian). This presupposes that all such believers take their morals from that Scripture, and ONLY from that Scripture. I would contend that this is false, at least in general. Everybody lives in the cultural environment in which they live. (For the purposes of this essay, I’ll assume that is where they were born, and that as theists, their upbringing raised them in the most popular religion of their birthplace.)
As an example, let us look at Female Genital Mutilation. FGM, as it is known, is a horrible practice that involves the mutilation of the female outer genitals - the Vulva, with terrible results. (You can look this up, as the details are not relevant to this essay). It is practiced across Northern Africa and into parts of the Middle East. It is NOT a religious requirement at all, as it is practiced by both Christians and Muslims in the countries where it is generally allowed, and neither religion addresses the practice at all.
But, it is considered not only common, but REQUIRED by the cultures in which it is practiced, in order to make women obey the sexual restrictions of those cultures. It is considered “good”. And not at all by Scripture, although some clerics in those areas may fall back on that excuse. It is a strong influence, not from Scripture, but by culture.
Other cultures consider that practice anathema and forbid it, but, again, not as a religious practice, but as a cultural one. In both cases, the resulting practice, either to do it or to forbid it, is very strong. But, in actual practice, religious scripture is irrelevant to those decisions.
So, we see that even theists make decisions about morality based on things that are not “revealed” by their deity, but also on cultural traditions. This is ignored by those who ask the above Question. One can reinforce this point when one sees how Scripture often condones practices once considered “good” in ancient societies but “bad” in modern ones, such as slavery, or even genocide. These formerly condoned practices are today illegal in virtually every society in the world, yet, at least in Christian Scripture, neither one has been removed or noted as currently discouraged. Thus the waters are muddied considerably when asking people to use Holy Scripture as a guide. Cultural influences in modern societies rarely coincide well with ancient writings.
- Theists who make a decision that something is bad.
Making a decision about what is bad is equally fraught with a minefield of such problems, if one is trying to use Holy Scripture as a guide. Taking the Bible as an example (mainly because I am writing this in the context of a largely Christian controlled culture), there are some hard restrictions that do not match modern cultural influences, in which those modern cultural influences overshadow the biblical pronouncements of “badness”.
The most popular ones are the biblical restrictions on eating shellfish or wearing mixed fabrics. Not being a Biblical scholar any more than I am a philosopher, I can’t tell you what the purposes of those restrictions may have been when the Hebrew priests wrote down those verses over two thousand years ago. There may have been some very good reasons, perhaps having to do with either keeping shellfish fresh or with class restrictions on who could wear different fabrics. Who knows today? Biblical scholars or historians, perhaps. Not me.
But the point is that in today’s Western societies, neither of these things are considered “bad”. One is perfectly free to wear mixed fabrics, as much as one is free to eat shellfish or not, in spite of the very firm restrictions on them in holy scripture. Oh, some clerics will tell you that the “laws” in the “Old” Testament are no longer valid, because of some verses in the “New” Testament. But, those same clerics will turn the other cheek and tell you out of the OTHER side of their mouths that the Old Testament prohibition against homosexuality is still perfectly valid!
Which also muddies the water when good and well intentioned people try to use Holy Scripture to decide what to do or not to do.
- Atheists who make a decision that something is good.
One cannot pretend that atheists live free of religious influences. All across the globe, in all cultures and in all religious places, there are those who do not believe the offerings of those who tout invisible magical beings for moral guides. Unfortunately, in most places, those religions are the major influences on the legal and moral sets of values that the cultures they exist in require their people to live by. In the US, it is relatively easy to camouflage one’s lack of religious belief and appear to conform to the common cultural practices of the locality in which one lives, at least in general.
In many places around the world, that is infinitely more difficult, as in some places being an atheist will get you seriously dead. So, let’s just pretend for a moment that we are talking about those who, publicly, have the ability to choose their own moral values with which to guide one’s actions. After all, having to camouflage one’s existence by copying the actions of one’s neighbors and family as they obey the strictures of their holy works isn’t having the freedom to choose one’s morals, is it? Thus, for these poor atheists, the Question above is irrelevant.
But, in general, as one is free to choose, there are many ways in which one can reach out for information to guide one’s decisions. One can look at history to get an idea of how one’s actions can work out in the context of one’s culture. What works? What generally turns out well? What are, for example, the results of common practice on, say, marriage? What is legal, what isn’t? How do other people deal with a cheating spouse? If it is legal, can I justify an affair? What may that affair do to the welfare of my kids? Or to the attitudes of my parents, or in-laws? My boss?
One is free to look at all the data and decide that a course of action is perfectly fine - one may have married with an agreement together that an open marriage allows for sexual freedom, as long as certain rules are followed. This may not conform with traditional ideas of marriage, but then American culture decided several decades ago that the government has no business poking its nose into people’s private lives, thus laws restricting sexual activity outside of marriage were done away with. The same generally true in most Western societies.
Of course, cultural influences don’t always allow an atheist to perfectly follow their own ideals, as living in a more religious locality can restrict one’s ability to take free action similar to more restrictive countries in which religion is a major reflector of the law. Social constraints are often harsh. Just because the law says you can do something and the government cannot stop you doesn’t mean you don’t have social consequences to deal with if you violate social restrictions. Of course, inside the US, those consequences rarely involve death. For many, however, they can be severe on a personal level.
But even if mild, they are something atheists will probably take into account in some ways. Generally, however, other considerations are paramount. Who does this hurt? Does this benefit me without hurting someone else, or will it come back to bite me on the ass someday? (Or perhaps someone close to me?) Is this something that could help others while being good for me? Or, how can I do this and mitigate the possible negative consequences for someone else?
The questions one asks will be consistent with one’s life philosophy. Or, one’s political beliefs, alternatively. There are atheists who are decidedly Libertarian in belief, and the questions they will ask are fundamentally different from the questions a Liberal atheist will ask. Which will also be different from the questions a Conservative atheist might consider.
Believe it or not, it is entirely possible that an atheist could conform quite closely to the values of his/her community if their political philosophy is similar to the religious folks living in that locality. In many US cities and States, one can see social values that are probably more due to political values than religious ones, and often, those values are diametrically opposed to “traditional” conservative Christian values. The rapid rise of the acceptance of marriage equality around the US is an excellent example of this.
- Atheists who make a decision that something is bad.
Again, political values are often more important to this process than pure cultural values. After all, in many families, that political culture is more important than religion in a growing segment of the public. As the sheer numbers of people to whom religion is not relevant enough to matter to their lives (even if they nominally identify as theist) grows to an even greater percentage of the American public, one has seen a growing divide in relative values in political discourse.
At one time, one could count fairly well on the proposition that Christian values would be politically important to a wide segment of the public. Religious leaders of Christian denominations enjoyed (and in some cases still do) wide acclaim and respect, and often influence a significant percentage of the voters.
In what I think is a significant development, the Conservative movement in the US has been reduced in percentage considerably in recent decades, to the point that the Republican Party has collectively decided that it is necessary for them to begin to depend on subterfuge such as gerrymandering and denial of voting rights to minorities likely to vote Democratic to remain in power. More and more Americans seem to have decided that the dependency of the conservatives on the Religious Right is not a good thing, and this seems to have had a remarkable affect on the numbers of Americans abandoning religion and/or religious organizations in recent decades. It is generally agreed that the majority of the category of “nones” have tended to move towards a liberal political set of values.
As with atheists who decide that something is good, those who decide something is bad are also using those influences of culture and politics to come to their conclusions. Nobody lives in a vacuum, and atheists are no exception. In fact, I believe atheists are increasingly becoming more influential in the body politic. Not publicly, of course. It is still politically wise to mimic a Christian while running for office, but that doesn’t mean that closely held secular values aren’t beginning to be felt. It is remarkable that even after the Republican Party has successfully managed to gain control of all three Branches of government, their failure to enact more than a handful of Conservatively leaning policies is so obvious. The failure of the Republicans to repeal “ObamaCare” is only the tip of that iceberg, but is the poster child of their failure to force their values into policy.
It is my opinion that this is due to secular people in disguise acting secretly to confound and frustrate the right wing religious fanatics. In other words, atheists (or nones) deciding that Conservatism is bad, combined with weaker believing theists using modern cultural influences to counter traditional Christian values in the public sphere.
In Conclusion
Life is complicated. Nothing is ever simple, and the emotions, opinions, values, and actions of people are no exception. While every person has something outside of themselves they hold to be most important in its influence on them (whether they know it or not), there are still multiple influences which combine to water down that larger element.
Yes, even religious people. In fact, I would argue that there really isn’t a lot of difference between the religious folks and unbelievers in how they set the values they hold closest in influencing their actions. One set of folks may hold one source more important, the existence of the others are often more important than they might realize.
However, the existence of those who are adamantly holding to written scriptures to make those decisions (and want to force ALL of us to do the same) is hugely influential in the world, and is a major threat to the ability of future generations to make better decisions about life, death, and how to live moving forward. Any source of values that does not change and react logically to a changing population and cultural environments is a continuing threat to the future of mankind and its development.
So, “How DO you know what is right or wrong if you don’t believe in God?”
Think.
Question.
Get answers.
Decide for YOURSELF.
"Your time is limited, so don't waste it living someone else's life. Don't be trapped by dogma, which is living with the results of someone else's thinking." (Steve Jobs, at Stanford University, June, 2005)
