|
Good Without God by Gordon Stein
Chuck Colson, of Watergate fame, and now a chaplain to prisoners, has recently written an article (originally delivered as a speech) in which he examines whether humans can be good without a belief in God. Of course, he says we cannot. As others have made similar statements in the past, perhaps it is worth taking a look at this whole issue again, from a non-believer's perspective. To employ logic for just a minute, we can show the falsity of the statement "Being good requires a belief in God" by merely producing one non-theist who is good. Obviously, this is a simple matter, so the statement is false. Does this end the matter? No, not to Colson. He is really asking the question "Can the average man or woman be good without a belief in God?" This is a different matter. It takes us to the heart of what ethical or moral behavior is, and to the concept of absolute values. Unfortunately, Colson, no philosopher himself, never does address the reasons why we cannot be moral without a belief in God. I will do what Colson appears unable to do, namely, offer the best arguments that his side has, and then examine them to see if they have any merit. Absolute values are values that are given by some divinity (supposedly), and are therefore unchangeable (unless the divinity changes his/her mind). They are always true. The problem with the absolute values that we supposedly have (e.g., "Thou shalt not kill") is that the same divinity that gave the original absolute often seems to have given exceptions to that absolute. Often the exceptions are not clearly indicated. God seems to have ordered killing quite often in the Bible, and to not have made clear why it is OK to kill sometimes and not OK at other times. So, the question now becomes "How absolute are absolute values?" Do we need to wait for exceptions to be made by God? Do we need to decide for ourselves if there are exceptions? What about self- defense? Without guidance on this matter, the concept of "absolute" makes little sense. What about the idea that a belief in God is necessary in order to have people obey even non-absolute moral values? We now have to examine what it means to be moral. Is doing something because someone powerful tells you to do it being moral? Almost by definition, it is not. Morality, it should be remembered, is doing what is right because it is right, and not because an authoritarian figure tells you to do it. So, if you do something because you are afraid that God will punish you if you don't do it, you are not acting out of moral reasons (i.e., you are not being moral). Well, without a God or Bible to tell you what to do, how can a non-theist receive guidance about what is moral or about how to make a moral decision? There are many ethical and moral principles taught to all children by their parents and society as they are growing up. There is no necessity to bring a god into the picture when teaching these moral principles. In fact, most of the time children are simply taught what is right and wrong by example, without a theistic component at all. Yet, the non-theist does have several moral principles that he or she can use to make ethical decisions. Some of the most important are the following: l. The Golden Rule of "do unto others only that which you would want done unto you." 2. The Utilitarian Principle of "the greatest good for the greatest number." 3. The Self-Actualizing Principle of allowing each person to reach his or her full potential. 4. the principle of not hurting anyone against his or her will. With these four principles, most decisions about ethics can be made. True, it is not always clear how much weight should be given to each, especially when there is a different result that will be produced by weighting the various principles differently. Using these "principles," let's show how what the Nazis did to the Jews was immoral or unethical. The Nazis prevented the Jews from becoming self-actualized by killing them. They also hurt the Jews against their will. In addition, the Nazis violated the Golden Rule. In a way, by killing off much of their intellectual class, the Nazis also indirectly violated the utilitarian principle, since the good of the society as a whole depended upon the existence of an intellectual class. What does all of this tell us about whether an atheist can be ethical? It says that of course he or she can. One learns to be ethical or moral during the processes of socialization that occur during growing up. Of course, there are always a few children who are not well socialized. They become the criminals and delinquents of the next generation. Some of these may be theists, some non- theists. That is more or less irrelevant. A number of studies done prior to 1930 have shown that there were very few non-theists in prisons. Is that because non-theists are never caught or punished for their crimes? That is not too likely. Rather, it is probably because most non-theists are quite moral and do not commit crimes. Colson is dead wrong. One can be good (maybe more good) without God. © 1993 by Gordon Stein, Ph.D. Dr. Stein is editor of The American Rationalist and author of The Encyclopedia of Unbelief.
Table of Contents | 1993 Issues | Subscribe Credit card Orders call: 800-321-9054 or fax: (619)676-0433 Truth Seeker is published by Truth Seeker Co., Inc. (ISSN 0041-3712) © 1996 |