Religion and Morality

I've been on a morality/ethics kick for a while now, and I guess it's not really because I wanted to continue that old critique. There were a few things which happened recently that made me think about this stuff again. It all started when, for my Intro to Ethnic Studies class, I had to go out and find some place to observe people, writing down what I see and analyzing these observations to see what statements I can make about race relations, social behavior, etc. I went to the Farmer's Market, and my fiancee saw the anti-evolution thing that's there every week. She pointed out that they had both an American and Israeli flag on their stand, so we went to ask about that. This quickly became a discussion about religion, as they pretty much always make it about that, whatever it is you originally meant to talk to them about. But silly arguments aside, they mentioned once that Atheism doesn't give people any basis for morality. I agreed, and this just led us to saying things they didn't really grasp (like the idea that we can't know anything objectively. They really couldn't wrap their minds around that one, unless they simply misunderstood us completely).

Then my fiancee saw two people sitting at a table, giving information about a philosophy group. She was interested, and the next Thursday, we joined them (she used this group for a project she had to do for a class). There weren't many people there, but they had a very long discussion about how we determine value. While that sounds cool...it was pretty superficial. Not once did anyone question value itself, and ask whether or not things had value in the first place. Rather, it was basically just about why we value certain types of work, and certain types of objects, more than others and at different times. Pretty basic stuff. Going there just reminded me how I don't really have many people that I can talk to about deep philosophical things, and that most philosophy classes are just like this group (or, rather, worse than them).

At first, I just started thinking again about why we value things, and the fact that intrinsic value doesn't make sense...but then I was pulled back to what the anti-evolutionists were saying about morality. It's something that I feel Atheists try very hard to explain away, but I think it's something important to delve into. The basic argument is that morality without religion is free from obligation, and is something we do because it is right, instead of something we are told to do. But I think this is a bad argument, since it presumes that something is "right." This is one of the reasons why I think Atheism is, in fact, religion. It's kind of like Buddhism: there's no god, and it's not the same for everyone, but it still has "facts" that we can't explain without belief.

Now, I know that saying this will make Atheists angry. They don't like to be associated with such terms as "belief," "faith," and "religion." But if you are offended, I ask you to really think about what these terms mean. When I say that Atheism requires belief, I mean that it requires belief in "reality." You might not think of that as belief, but then you'd have to be able to prove that what we see around us is actually real. Which you can't. So you have to allow for belief. (For those who'll say that this is ridiculous, think about this: the brain can easily be fooled, and often is. How do we know, then, that everything in "reality" is not simply a misinterpretation of  stimuli? Or that we have the kinds of brains we think we have? What if they work in a completely different way, which forces us to see this kind of "reality," in which our brains work this way instead? How do you know that the entire universe isn't all an illusion, a dream, etc.?)

Faith branches off of belief, but is less present in Atheism. Science, which most Atheists take as a founding principle, basically says that we should question everything, and determine whether things are true based on extensive tests of veracity. And even then, it allows for the idea that we might be wrong. But this system implies faith in the scientific method, in reasoning, and in logic. It is entirely possible that the universe is not governed by any logical laws. Perhaps what we witness is just random, or perhaps the universe changes based on our observation of it, only following laws when those who think laws must exist are near.

And religion basically comes from the combo of those two. The religion of Atheism says that there are no gods, and the universe can be explained purely by natural processes. Since there is no way of knowing if this is true, we can't see this statement as anything but a statement of belief. True, there are some who aren't this strict about things, but I would argue that they are not Atheists. Those who are on the side of uncertainty, and know that it is impossible to know anything, are Agnostic. There's a lot of confusion about terms, but I propose that the designation Agnostic Atheist be abolished, as well as Gnostic Atheist. A better, less confusing way of describing these things would be to change Gnostic Atheist to Atheist, and Agnostic Atheist to Agnostic.

(As for science, I want to clear something up: science, in and of itself, is not a religion or faith-based system. Gnostic Atheism, which uses science, is. Science is just the search for truth--it doesn't state that anything is true. Rather, it mostly gives guidelines for proving something false. The core of science is the endeavor of learning all there is to learn about the universe and everything, while being humble enough to realize that we can be wrong about the answer we come up with. If all of our "progress" in science up to this point were to be proven wrong, that wouldn't be a problem for science, since it doesn't depend on the veracity of its theories. But if a god appeared and showed that he was the one behind what we thought were natural processes, then Gnostic Atheism would be proven entirely wrong. So science goes best with Agnostic Atheism, but is not the exclusive method of either.)

But I digress. Atheism, as I have just defined it, presumes that something is "right." This is a belief, and because they believe that certain principles are right, then it can be argued that they do have a basis for morality. For most Atheists, this basis is reason. It's Agnostics who don't have a basis, since they have no concrete "right" and "wrong" to cling to.

The question I have, though, goes beyond this little semantics problem I brought up. What I have to wonder is...why should it matter? The anti-evolutionists made a point that there is no basis for morality in Atheism. And a lot of people make this point. But why is this relevant? Does the truth require morals? Is morality something we know to be true, regardless of which religion it comes from? No, of course not. Atheism can be right whether or not morals are part of the equation. Morality shouldn't be a prerequisite.

It's entirely possible that morality is just something we came up with, because humans (and some other animals) have an inclination towards fairness. That doesn't mean fairness is necessarily "right." I have an inclination towards reading, but that doesn't mean it is "right" for me to read. People have an inclination towards watching sports, but that doesn't make that "right." Anything we do is simply what we do, and does not necessarily become what we "should" do just because most of us have an inclination towards doing that thing.

So if someone kills another person, and we feel bad about it, that doesn't necessarily make it "wrong." If someone kills the entire human race, and our "progress" comes to an end, that isn't necessarily "wrong." If a comet hits a planet, that's not "wrong." If a star goes supernova, that isn't "wrong." Why should our actions be considered "right" or "wrong," when they are merely things which happen in the universe? This is how I, an Agnostic and Subjectivist, see morality. There is no basis for morality without an objective standard that is either observable or mandated. And when you look at it this way, morals based on reason seem empty.

You can read my last post to see what I think about morals derived from reason alone, which is what a lot of Atheists would be into. The basis for morality for most Atheists and Agnostics is either function (based on living in society), instinct (just being nice because you feel you should), or both. The distinction I would make is that there are two bases for morality: one for what you think should be done, and one for what you actually practice. For the first, I have no basis, because I believe nothing. But for the second, my basis for morality is a combination of function and instinct. I don't believe that the morals I act upon are "right" or "wrong," but I live by them anyway because they work for me, and they feel good.

The more I think about it, the more I sound hypocritical. I think there is a major difference, though, in the way I approach morality and the way most people do. There must be a difference somewhere in there between choosing a moral code to live by...and living to find out that what you do is close to a moral code someone else thought up through reason. After all, I'm not doing this out of any feeling that it is right or wrong, or that reason demands I do it. I just do it. I'm sure someone could argue that I'm working off of a reason-based ethic, but I realize that reason won't always lead one to a single moral theory. I realize that an objective moral standard could actually exist. Function, unlike reason, just means that I do what works so that I can survive. It's something that benefits from reasoning, but they aren't the same thing. So...unless someone can tell me why I'm wrong in saying this, I think I am not a hypocrite.

I think that if there's one thing we can take away from this, it's that one must first define what a basis for morality would have to be. If we go by "what we should do," then it is arguable that neither Atheists nor Agnostics have a basis for morality. If, however, we go by "what we actually practice," then it is clear that almost everyone, Atheist, Agnostic, or even theistic, has a basis for morality in function and instinct. You can say that Atheists and Agnostics don't have a basis for believing moral value, but it is completely ignorant to say that they have no basis for acting in a moral way.