Often, people bring up the argument that atheism or religion lead necessarily to evil. Here, I assert that both history and logic support the arguments that atheism and certain kinds of religion (Divine Command religion, specifically), combined with man’s predilection for abusing power, DO lead to violence, both logically and evidentially.
However, Christianity, in a form that does not involve a commitment to Divine Command theory (such as St. Thomas Aquinas‘ view), does NOT lead necesarrily to evil, and perhaps necessarily to GOOD.
Further, this contention is supported by both logic and historical evidence, with exceptions, of course (we argue from the norm, not the exception). Syllogisms examined below.
ATHEISM LEADS TO VIOLENCE
- Belief in atheism logically requires a commitment to subjective morals (no external referent)
- Belief in subjective morals leads to justification of exterminations of dissidents ‘for the sake of the whole’ (often, bolstered by Social Darwinism)
- Therefore, atheism, when scaled up to a majority, logically ends in exterminations and cruelty.
This is basically an ‘ultimate power corrupts ultimately’ argument. You may disagree with either of the first two premises, but I think history supports the reality of them. I am aware of atheists who believe in objective morals, but the problem is, though they (rightly) are able to identify objective morals, their atheistic presuppositions give them no LOGICAL means of making those assertions.
RELIGION LEADS TO VIOLENCE
- Religion asserts objective morals by Divine Command without logical support for its claims
- Without reference to reason, religions can claim any moral grounds they want, including genocide and sectarian superiority
- Therefore, religion leads to violence.
This again, seems an ‘ultimate power corrupts ultimately’ argument. I think this argument has merit for a Divine Command religion. However, Islam creates violence for more than just this reason, and Christianity, I would argue, is NOT a Divine Command religion.
Christian morality is NOT merely based on Divine Command, but also on such principles as the value of human life and flourishing, racial equality, etc. It asserts that, though we rely on revealed truth in determining what is right, we also confirm and clarify with reason and experience. (For those who want to go deeper down this rabbit hole, Christianity, as William Lane Craig argues, sees the Euthyphro Dilemma as a false dilemma, and splits the horns of this dilemma, thereby not committing to either Divine Command or objectivism).
Again, I would argue that history shows that Reformed Protestant Christianity has produced such goods as abolition, the valuing of human life, the founding of hospitals, universities, and service organizations, and much more (see How Christianity changed the world by Alvin Schmidt), and perhaps logically so based on it’s ideas and values.
Other religions, specifically Islam, produce violence, not merely because RELIGION or DIVINE COMMAND produces them, but because the direct teachings of Islam and the life of Mohammed directly teach violence.
What is the difference between an “external referent” and a “Divine Command”?
It seems to me that you are arguing that purely subjective morals lead to violence, and also that purely objective morals lead to violence. Which sounds like all roads lead to violence…
…unless you are saying that there is an optimal blend of subjective and objective morality that leads away from violence? And that Reformed Protestant Christianity is the best example of such a civilizing and humane moral alloy?
Divine Command requires that ONLY an external referent defines what is good, and reason and experience do not change that.
But when you lack an external referent, then of course, you are being self-referential, essentially, being subjective.
A view that incorporates both, an external referent that defines what is objectively true, plus our own confirmation of such with reason, is the best of both systems. And this is what, I argue, Christianity supports.
Does that make sense? For example, what is the external referent in atheism that would, for example, support the claim that humans are of more worth than other animals? Or that animals should not be killed and eaten?
I’m not saying that all the arguments on either side of this debate are ironclad. I’m just presenting them as I understand (or misunderstand ;) them.
I think this view is well captured in the phrase “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights.”
You must appeal, in a sense, to man’s intuitions about objective morality, because reason without an external referent can NOT prove objective morals, and that to be logically consistent, you must appeal to an outside authority who can not only declare what is moral, but proclaim it as a duty that is punishable if not followed.
To rephrase the constitutional phrase, I would say “we hold that all men of sound intuition will recognize that objective morals exist, esp. the rights of equality of men, and further, that such rights are established, not by governments or the consensus of men, but objectively by God.”
I think you can’t really be logical about objective morality in any other way.
@ danielg
A non-theist external moral referent? How about…laws?
An atheist would argue that the Ten Commandments were written by men, not God; that same atheist can easily respect the moral value of those Commandments, accepting them as an external referent.
Most of my morals and ethics are derived from my Protestant upbringing. I no longer believe the theist portion of that belief system, but the basic values of the morality taught in the Sermon on the Mount remain.
Separately, the Prisoner’s Dilemma and game theory teach us that, as it happens, being kind to others is an excellent success strategy. One might call atheistic morality “enlightened self-interest” — doing well by doing good.
The problem with the atheistic method is that it’s self referential as far as authenticating itself objectively. And moral laws aren’t empirically measurable (at least, not directly) like physical laws, which makes them hard to ‘prove’ as true. Hence we must hold certain truths ‘self evident,’ or at least take some founding assumptions as true without proof (givens like ‘human life is more valuable or sacred than animal life’ and deserves special protection.)
I have no doubt that atheists can and do act morally or recognize and affirm the objective morality of things like the golden rule or parts of the Sermon on the mount. But on what logical grounds?
I mean, is ‘success’ the measure of what is moral? What if being unkind proves to be successful instead of being kind?
I’ve read up on Luke’s pursuit of atheistic Desirism as an explanation or method for determining morals, but I think it suffers the same logical circularity, and as of yet, has not really defined a hierarchy of values (e.g. are humans more important than animals? are the unborn people with rights?).
Again, my real beef is that logically, atheism seems committed to subjective moralism, which in my evaluation of history and the nature of man, leads inexorably to the abuse of power and justification of evil. That’s the whole argument.