Lately this age-old question has become a topic brought up by those who have read Christopher Hitchens' emotionally-charged book, "God is Not Great." Perhaps they have addressed this subject in philosophy or religion classes. Rather than try to tackle the question of God's existence in a thousand-word article, I'll focus my attention on those atheists who try to defend the essence of morality in an atheist culture.
When asking an atheist what motive they have for choosing good over evil, for being nice to others, and/or for maintaining good character, I often hear one of two responses. Either it's because they worry about consequences of the law (jail time, fines, etc.), or because it makes them "feel good" when they do the "right" thing. Where exactly does this idea of "right" come from? Who decides what the "right" thing is? Is it from societal norms and the government? Is it from an innate feeling in each individual? Surely it can't be societal norms or government regulation that determines whether behavior is acceptable. Those who believe in that line of reasoning would have to argue in favor of slavery during America's founding and women's limited rights up until recently. Also, it couldn't possibly be one's personal definition of what is acceptable. I for one wouldn't want to give that privilege to people who might think it personally acceptable to steal or lie in order to improve their lot.
Some human cultures of other parts of the globe suggest strongly that we do not come hard-wired from the factory with feelings of good will toward others. Mass murder has too often reared an ugly head with no apparent religion having been taught. It seems more likely that the suggestion of God causes deeper thinking in directions of wrong and right. Without a higher being, there could be no guarantee of consequences for our actions. No consequences would result in chaos and anarchy.
Where do most people get this sense of right and wrong? I believe that it comes from a set of natural, universal standards that have been refined since the beginning of human existence. This set of standards, which is often called the "Laws of Human Nature," has to have originated somewhere. These agreements between humans allow us to differentiate between what is right and wrong and it appears obvious that there is intelligent design behind these universally-held beliefs.
In my opinion, the idea of a moral compass, one that has been shown to surpass that which is merely "good for the community," is also evidence that a higher power has provided us with that compass. In an example from Denish D'Souza's book "What's so Great about Christianity," he describes the idea of morality based on evolution and natural selection. The problem with basing morality on this, however, is that it gives no explanation for truly altruistic acts. What good is it, evolutionary-wise, for men to give up their seats for older women on the bus?
You might be interested in...- Column: Celebrate victories of summer grads
- Tech Department of Recreational Sports
- Blacksburg police make narcotics arrest
