Has science replaced religion as a guide to morality? Are our genes a better guide to right and wrong than revelation from a divine being? Can science lead us to a new morality?
A recent study, by Abigail Marsh and her team at Georgetown, might imply that science is replacing religion when it comes to our moral beliefs. Their study offers some initial insights into a potential link between our genes and our moral judgments. As Georgetown’s website summarizes,
Today I’d like to look at a very commonly held idea regarding religious belief. It is often expressed somewhat like this, “It is arrogant to say that Christianity is true and that all other religions are false.”
We need to thoughtfully consider this statement, because if is true, it means that being a Christian is, to some degree, an inherently bad thing.
The standard disclaimer: I am not speaking about or attacking atheists. Instead, my goal is to rationally work through the logical implications of the atheistic worldview. (Please notice how I define atheism).
My conclusion is that, if atheism is true, then we need to re-imagine how we understand human beings.
As I have argued earlier, atheism leads to determinism. (Please notice how I define atheism). The most important reason that atheism leads to determinism is that atheism requires that everything be subject to naturalistic, scientific explanation. From an atheistic perspective, there can be no thing, event, or action which cannot be given a total explanation by reference to physical objects and natural laws. As Charles Darwin put it: “Everything in nature is the result of fixed laws.” Humans and human actions are part of nature; therefore, we and our choices are the result of fixed laws.
Many atheists, dedicated to doing what is good, are offended by arguments that the atheistic worldview has problems with morality. It is frustrating for an atheist who genuinely loves doing kind actions to be told that, philosophically speaking, their lifestyle doesn’t fit with their worldview. After all, for that person, it does fit together. On the one hand, they don’t believe in an invisible fairy god who magically grants wishes, on the other hand, they love science, reason and the people in their lives. (Please notice how I define atheism).
Let’s look at the relationship between atheism and selfishness. Let’s be clear: I am not discussing atheists and accusing them of selfishness. Many of my secular friends are generous, kind, hospitable, friendly folks. I don’t think, in general, that they view the world strictly through the prism of evolutionary logic. But what I do want to make clear is how atheism, if followed strictly, is an inevitably selfish worldview. (Please notice how I define atheism).
As a response to an earlier discussion of atheism and morality, one person wrote, writing, “Atheists have morals and act morally because morality isn’t related to existence of gods.” I think this raises a very interesting question: if atheism is true, what is morality related to? Granted, it wouldn’t be related to the existence of gods! But that’s a negative answer, a non-solution. A more interesting question is the positive version of the question, namely: if atheism is true, what would morality be related to? (Please notice how I define atheism).
Christopher Hitchens, in his Introduction to the Portable Atheist: Essential Readings for the Nonbeliever, has a witty counter to those who claim that religious people are especially good:
My own response has been to issue a challenge: name me an ethical statement made or an action performed by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer. As yet, I have had no takers (xiv).
I’d like to take up Hitchens’ challenge.
Atheism – the worldview, not the people group – has a problem with evil. (Please notice how I define atheism).
The problem is sometimes called “the naturalistic fallacy,” which states that “you cannot derive an ought from an is.” In ordinary language, that means you cannot go from a description of how things are to a prescription about how things should be. An example may clarify this. Consider this situation: