I'm an atheist. I know now that I have reduced credibility as atheists are one of the "least trusted groups" in America according to a University of Minnesota study in 2006 ( http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=1786422&page=1). Although the data is a little bit old, I think that it generally still holds true. Super! I always wanted to be a minority!
I have been told, directly and obliquely, that atheists lack a "moral compass" or that we "don't believe in anything". I disagree. Most Christians point to the bible for their moral code, Jews use the Decalogue, Muslims, the Koran and the hadith (since there are very few rules and regulations in the Koran itself). However, I always ask that is it probable that any pre-Mosaic societies had a code of proper(moral) behavior for the group? Of course! There is even one written down: The famous "Code of Hammurabi", which predates the 10 commandments by at least a couple of centuries (1700 BCE as compared to approximately 1450-1513 BCE various souces). According to the Oxford English Dictionary, morality is defined as"principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong behavior". "If we have written proof of a legal code that outlined the morals of a society that existed before any of these distinctly monotheistic codes were "handed down", then it is safe to assume that moral (good or right) behavior existed well before a "god" got involved. I am sure that, universally, people had problems with somebody fucking their wife, stealing their livestock, or murdering a friend or family member long before the idea of "one true god" ever became fashionable.
Turning to the idea of an "absolute morality", i.e. one that crosses all cultural and ethnic lines (a religion-based morality) versus "relative morality", i.e. that morality is dependent upon the situation, we atheists often hit a hurdle in the debate. I agree that moral relativism is indeed a slippery slope but I put forth that many things that are accepted in the bible as moral that are no longer considered moral in the majority of developed nations, most notably slavery and women's equality. You would be hard pressed to find any American that would be pro-slavery. So if biblical morality has changed due to new ideas, rational thought, and debate, we can say that there is no true absolute morality (god given or otherwise).
In 2010 Sam Harris published "The Moral Landscape--how science can determine human values"(http://www.amazon.com/Moral-Landscape-Science-Determine-Values/dp/1439171211). Harris' thesis is very intriguing. He seeks to define moral behavior as something that "leads to human flourishing" and immoral behavior as something that "leads to human suffering". So, by Harris' reckoning, we can begin to close the gap of moral relativism using empirical data and science to determine what behavior helps humankind flourish. Harris freely admits that this hypothesis is a work in progress but it is a fascinating new look at one of the world's oldest questions. I'll place a video of Harris speaking (20 minutes but well worth it)
There is plenty of biological and sociological evidence regarding moral behavior that is not religiously based. Many religious people counter that Hitler and Stalin were atheistic mass murderers therefore they are examples of atheists having no morals. This logic is incredibly poor, so please don't post it in comments. For example I could say that they both had mustaches, so therefore all people with mustaches are immoral. Absolute morality most likely does not exist at this time, and I am heartened that moral relativism is being examined scientifically. I'm a good, moral person and I am an atheist.
I must admit, I hate to use Wikipedia but the info I found is much like what I am going to add to your post, and shows that not only is this my opinion but rather in alliance with findings in science as well.
ReplyDeletehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
Anthropologically speaking, morality actually developed out of social behavior in groups, as we are social beings. We already know that primates are social beings too and have always lived in social groups. It is necessary in a social group, evolutionarily speaking, to develop social norms, thus creating stronger social bonding structures within that group, reinforcing confidence in resources and ultimately survival.
In essence it seems quite fair to say that morality came about through the understanding and agreement on social norms. Again thank you Wikipedia, "Social norms are the accepted behaviors within a society or group." Does this not reflect our understanding of morality as well?
That being said, morality necessarily preceded God(s), originating in the "animal" species, though lacking in vocabulary it was never named as such until we came along. Based on this, morality and God actually do not have a single thing to do with each other; rather religion uses already existing structures of social grouping to nurture a sub-population of "like" people who have chosen to create and adapt to a specific interpretation social norms. Evolutionarily speaking, this social grouping and structure ultimately builds confidence in resources, which in turn yields higher likelihood of survival.
So really, we could say that religion is more akin to a survival strategy, rather than an issue of morality.
It is not wise to be an athiest, evolutionarily speaking... we have no one organized group looking out for us, perhaps we have many, but we are most definitely moral people. I'm a good, moral person and I am an athiest.