Morality without religion
Sun Jan 22, 2006 12:01 (UTC -5)Yesterday my aunt came to visit from upstate. On the kitchen table last night, I noticed a book that I had remembered seeing at her house: an old book called “Man’s Religions.” Overnight that book has crept next to my computer desk. Now, how and why is it here, I wonder, and not back at my aunt’s house a number of hours away?
I tend to suspect things of people (almost to the point of paranoia), and I’ve been wrong about suspicions before, but there’s no alternate explanation for how this one book from a loaded bookshelf in a small house outside an obscure town far, far away from here landed within my eyesight just days after I avowed my atheism. The idea is that I’m supposed to pick up the book out of curiosity and wind up picking a new religion for myself.
See, there’s a prevailing belief in the United States that if you adhere to some religion (except for paganism/Wicca, Satanism, and possibly Islam), then you’re an okay guy/gal. Otherwise, you supposedly can’t be a good person. After “coming out” about my atheism, I’ve met with this reaction from a few friends (okay, one), and the argument was something like this: “You need to have some religion because otherwise, everyone would go around doing immoral things with no fear of punishment.”
I’ll ask my religious readers to consider the following: would you rather do good things for the hope of spiritual reward or simply for the sake of doing good things? Obviously, the humbler and more sensible choice is the latter. If you say, “I hope I get into heaven now that I’ve helped that person, ’cause it wouldn’t be in my best interest to burn for all eternity,” then you’re not being good for the right reasons. In order to be a truly good person, you should make common-sense morals, which can exist independently of religion, a part of your natural thought process: “Ah, I feel better knowing that that person has benefited from my help. I’ve done what I had to offer, and I’ve made someone else happy.”
You still may be thinking that it can’t possibly work, that people can’t be good without religion. To that I reply: look around you! Your friends, family members, classmates, or co-workers may have been raised atheists, and you might not know it. In fact, 15% of Americans were atheists in 2001 (1), and there are likely more than that who are afraid to admit it to anyone. Why would they be afraid? Because prejudice against atheists (as determined by approval of a hypothetical “well-qualified presidential candidate who happened to be…”) was as widespread in 1999 as that against blacks in 1959, and it was more prevalent in 1999 than that against Jews and women in 1937 (2).
And still, these American atheists, closeted or outspoken, recent “converts” or lifelong nonbelievers, are all around you, and the majority fit perfectly well into mainstream society so as to pass by unnoticed. They and I can live morally, without needing to appease some higher power, by exercising self-improvement and compassion toward others. It’s a logical course of action because it makes the world a better place for us all. So, as for that old book sitting near my desk, I’m not going to pick it up because I know that I don’t need it.
I’ve been continuing to try out more Firefox extensions. I’ve tried out a few, and here are the new ones I’m using now:
- Fasterfox can speed up browsing using several methods. It can preload links on a page so that they’re already cached when you click on them. I haven’t really noticed a difference in speed, but it puts a timer in the status bar, so maybe I could do some empirical comparisons.
- IE Tab can load Internet Explorer inside Firefox. This could be useful for me when I’m designing web pages, so that I don’t need to have two browser windows open. You can also have it automatically load certain sites (such as Windows Update) in IE.
- Restart Firefox creates a menu item that closes and restarts the browser, so you only need to do it with one click. You need to restart Firefox for any extensions and themes to take effect, so this came in handy quickly.
- Sort Extensions and Themes alphabetizes the lists of extensions and themes you have installed. (Kind of sad how I now have extensions for managing extensions, huh?)
- ViewMyCurrency dynamically converts currency on web pages to the currency of your choice, and it allows for you to plug in numbers for manual conversion if you need to.
Also, I was getting bored with Firefox’s default theme, so I decided to delve into the world of themes. I was looking for something sleek and silvery with a splash of color. After trying out several themes and finding one thing wrong with each of them, I came across Noia eXtreme, which is apparently the most popular theme (besides the default one). It looks really slick and feels very comfortable to use. If you’re looking for a good theme, I recommend it.
In case you somehow missed this story yesterday, a whale was spotted swimming down the Thames through London.
In other news, it’s been discovered that one in twelve Irishmen are descendents of a medieval Irish warlord. I’ve got some Irish in me, so it’s possible that I could be a descendent of “Niall of the Nine Hostages” as well.
Filed under Atheism, Computers, Family, In the News, Internet, Science, Stuff
24 comments
#1 by Daniel: Sun Jan 22, 2006 15:41 (UTC -5)
“I hope I get into heaven now that I’ve helped that person, ’cause it wouldn’t be in my best interest to burn for all eternity,”
I don’t adhere to this belief system at all. Anyone who’s ever read the Bible should know this is not how it goes.
Ephesians 2:8-9
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Have you ever heard of the “Case For” books by Lee Strobel? Strobel was a journalist for the Chicago Tribune. The first one, “A Case For Christ”, was a series of interviews with historians and theologists to try to prove that Jesus either never existed, wasn’t who he says he was, or didn’t do what they say he did. He was an adament atheist, and by the end of writing this book, he became a Christian. It is a very good book written by an intellectual point of view, and trys to stay away from the fact that we need “blind” faith to accept the Bible.
#2 by Jordon: Sun Jan 22, 2006 15:58 (UTC -5)
I was raised Catholic, and I was always under the impression that it was about punishment and reward. Having studied the Protestant Reformation, I guess that’s a uniquely Catholic idea. Didn’t Luther often quote the verse, “The just shall live by faith”? That was pretty much against what the Catholic Church was saying. Even so, I don’t recall being threatened with damnation, but I’d imagine they didn’t want to scare off children so young.
With billions of Christians in thousands of sects, I’m sure that they all have very different views of which I’m not aware. Thanks for pointing that out. And no, I hadn’t heard of the book.
#3 by Daniel: Sun Jan 22, 2006 16:18 (UTC -5)
No problem, Jordon, and know that I will be checking all of your religious “tidbits” against the Bible…
#4 by Jordon: Sun Jan 22, 2006 16:42 (UTC -5)
No problem. I enjoy hearing other points of view.
#5 by kevin: Sun Jan 22, 2006 17:51 (UTC -5)
I’m still sticking to my idea because it makes more sense but honestly, I agree with Daniel, it’s not about punishment vs. reward, that’s not how it is. and you’re not doing good things as a reward but because you want to help others, hence following the golden rule. you’re making it seem like being a christian is just so that you’re guaranteed a “spot in heaven” and that’s definetly not how it is. i think you’re really getting negative about all this, honestly. see, these are the things i was saying like atheists always say “oh well, i respect others religions bla bla bla” and than they’re always the ones criticising anything that’s not atheist.
christianity is about being a good person and trying to do good things, it’s not about doing good things to impress God to get into heaven. i think that’s more of a motivational thing or whatnot. and you had said earlier how something about how father paul or gabriel had said something about how the church was the first in giving aid in natural disasters with catholic charities and you disagreed but it was true. you’d be surprised (probably) but the church is always defending human rights and has a kazillion organizations and societies in place to help homeless, hungry, devastated, etc. whether or not you’re religious i think it needs to be admitted that the [catholic] church is always helping humans around the world and christianity DOES make sure (or any religion really, it doesn’t matter if it’s just christianity) that people stay good.
honestly, if there were no religion, and noone had ever been raised in any religion, the world would be chaotic. you may be atheist now but you were raised your entire life catholic so no matter what happens your thoughts and actions reflect your catholic upbringing and that’s why you’re a good person. had you been brought up atheist than there’s nothing to look up to, nothing to look forward to so why do good? idk, i really do stick to my belief that there’s absolutely nothing wrong with religion when it preaches good and when it helps people feel better. and your reply to me still doesn’t satisfy my belief because those people were most likely all raised in some religion so they still have those very important influences on them. i atleast don’t know any atheist infants.
anyways, i feel strongly about all this but i just think you shouldn’t bash catholicism so much you it’s still a bit part of you whether you reject it or not and religions i think do help make more good than evil regardless of what atheists or anyone may say.
#6 by Jordon: Sun Jan 22, 2006 18:34 (UTC -5)
You say that if there were no religion, the world would be chaotic. But if religion (or Christianity, at least) is not about doing good things to impress God, then there’s no point in being religiously moral, in my opinion. I guess you could say that doing good things for their own sake is what God wants, but even then, it’s still about trying to appease him.
Even though some religions like Catholicism work to do good things, I think that there are negative effects to consider as well. Looking at the Catholic Church in particular, their governmental power structure has pretty much been about control, just like in the good old days when they had total political power over Europe’s lords and peasants. In short, some people got sick of the Church’s interference once they could develop their own ideas (though others remained loyal). If the Catholic Church and other denominations/religions hadn’t opposed progress, we’d be living in a much better society.
Also, I don’t like how the Church has a thing against women. Though “we’re all created equal in God’s eyes,” only men can be priests, and there’s no real equivalent of that for women who don’t want to be excommunicated. What’s so bad about having women ordained that the Church has said it will never allow it? It would lead to more equality between men and women, that’s what they don’t want. And then there’s the whole thing about the Church hierarchy ignoring cases of child molestation. Sure, in the big picture there aren’t many cases, even though we hear about more every day. Still, one incident is one too many.
Seeing that secular organizations tend to do the same good works without the stigma of sexism, homophobia, and child molestation, I think that they’re more praiseworthy than the Church is, and we could use more of them.
#7 by Luke: Sun Jan 22, 2006 18:39 (UTC -5)
I won’t dwell on Firefox because there are more important things at hand, but bravo on beginning the journey into free/open source software. +1
First of all, saying that morality only comes from religious belief is, without a doubt, one of the most ignorant things I’ve heard this week. Extra point for you. In my experience (though this is just a generality and by no means a rule), most athiests who were once religious have stronger morals than those who claim to be religious because of the sensitivity that led them to leave what is a corrupt system. i.e., Jordon (see also Joyce’s _Portrait_ — do it). To make your point before you do, not all athiests possess this sensitivity. But as a Catholic, it is not hard to see that there are inherent flaws with any organized religion (and let’s not pick on any). Perhaps we should be seeking a middle path with a true belief based on experience rather than a force-fed pseudo-belief (I need not say more on the Catholic school system). Seek the infinite yourself; do what you want with that information; do not step on those who have found something different.
As another case in point, a good friend of mine was raised by parents of two religions. They allowed him to choose his own way, and he chose to become an athiest; thus, he had no religious-based morality thrust on him at any age. He, too, possesses a moral strength beyond that of supposedly devout persons that I know. I’ve asked him to comment on this page, but whether that will happen is unclear for the moment.
The Dalai Lama’s teachings greatly influenced my own religious tolerance (see http://www.lamrim.com/hhdl/atishaslamp.html for the speech I’m commenting on). To all “militant” believers and non-believers alike: let it be.
#8 by Luke: Sun Jan 22, 2006 18:50 (UTC -5)
Anyhow, “militant” and “religious” seem to me to be a contradiction in ideologies.
#9 by Jordon: Sun Jan 22, 2006 18:52 (UTC -5)
Well said, Luke. If I’m allowed to give you points, then +1 to you. I’d be interested in hearing what your friend has to say. And, altough it may not seem like it, I do think that religious tolerance is a good idea. It’s just that when I’m trying to get my own point across, I can’t help but be militant about it, because you’re either for religion or against it. I suppose that the other side of the coin is that you’re for nonreligiousness or against it. That’s another angle I would be interested in exploring…
#10 by kevin: Sun Jan 22, 2006 19:54 (UTC -5)
i still don’t agree with you jordon and probably never will but w/e, i don’t care, it’s fine. anyways i suck at arguing. i just think religions are important and that’s that.
#11 by Jordon: Sun Jan 22, 2006 19:57 (UTC -5)
My skills (?) of arguing are being tested also, and I value our friendship, so I agree to disagree.
#12 by Luke: Sun Jan 22, 2006 21:02 (UTC -5)
Jordon, I wasn’t referring to you, but if you feel that you’re being militant, then maybe you are. I’m really liking these Eastern ideas that I’m studying now: “you are that.” Of course you’re allowed to give points.
#13 by otherguy: Mon Jan 23, 2006 04:09 (UTC -5)
Kevin–
I just want to point out. I was raised atheist (think agnostic atheist). Any time I or my sisters ever wanted to explore a religion, we were given free reign to do so (I never did, though my sister did), and we all turned out ok.
One of the most ignorant things I ever had anyway say to me was, “I can’t believe how moral you are for not being religious.”
Here’s the deal: values and morals are instilled in you by your upbringing. Your parents (or other caregivers) are responsible for that. Sometimes the morality and values you’re instilled with can be influenced by religion, but there’s nothing about any one religion that gives it a monopoly on morality.
And finally, if you can’t articulate an argument about why you believe a certain thing, you might want to consider to discontinue your belief in it.
#14 by sean: Mon Jan 23, 2006 16:41 (UTC -5)
rock on, otherguy
#15 by kristen: Mon Jan 23, 2006 18:48 (UTC -5)
just because you can’t articulate an argument over something you believe in doesn’t mean you shouldn’t believe in it. some people just can’t argue well. like kevin and me.
#16 by Luke: Mon Jan 23, 2006 19:11 (UTC -5)
“A day without grammar is like a day without sunshine.” Of course the ability to articulate your thoughts is important.
#17 by kevin: Mon Jan 23, 2006 19:54 (UTC -5)
who needs sunshine when there’s electricity? not capitalising doesn’t mean you’re illiterate. therefore, the “ability to articulate your thoughts” is not handicapped.
#18 by Sean: Mon Jan 23, 2006 20:26 (UTC -5)
seriously… you people take everything way too seriously and personally. this was jordon’s decision, so just chill out and let him be. i frankly don’t care what view he has on religion, or whether he even beleives in one. if he didn’t feel that God was really fulfilling his ideas and philosophies, what would make you think he would want you all shoving it down his throat? so just let the guy live out his life as he feels he wants to. i’m not sure whether or not i agree with his descision or not, but at least i support him. damn, people. just relax and chill out
#19 by Sean: Mon Jan 23, 2006 20:30 (UTC -5)
and if you’re gonna argue about something, i think there’s bigger issues hErE than TH3 pRopr useage oF GrAmMeR 4ND 5p3LL1ng
#20 by Jordon: Mon Jan 23, 2006 21:09 (UTC -5)
Thanks, Sean, for your well-said response and your support. I couldn’t have said it better myself, and I wouldn’t want to try.
#21 by Alisha: Tue Jan 24, 2006 12:40 (UTC -5)
The most ignorant argument on religion I ever had was with a Jehovah Witness friend. He claimed that being an atheist meant that I had no morals or ethics, and would therefore be very likely to commit a horrible crime like blowing up newborn babies in a hospital.
To this day, I still don’t know where he pulled that example from but I find it humorous anyway. Of course it is completely invalid. Not only do I know zilch about bombs, but I also detest little crying babies and try to stay as far away from them as possible. Is that a product of my lack of religion? The most common sense answer would be no, but a lot of people with highstrung religious beliefs leave their common sense at home.
I don’t dislike babies because I don’t believe in God and can’t understand that life is His most precious gift to us. No, I dislike babies because they’re annoying and they cry and they poop on themselves without being able to clean it up. Among other things, naturally.
And why don’t I like bombs? Well, it’s not because God told Moses that thou shall not kill, that’s for sure. See, I just prefer to stay out of jail as I have things that I want to do with my life. Besides, I’m sort of flighty and might forget a step in the bomb-making process, resulting in blowing myself up by accident. That really doesn’t sound like much fun.
The point is that people will make really dumb comments about you being too nice of a person to be an atheist, or that you’re not an atheist…you’re just confused. It’s to be expected but I’m not completely sure why. I was brought up without religious beliefs (heh, my mom, mema, and I went shopping while everyone else was gettin’ in good with God at church Sunday mornings), and have never depended on the moral teachings of any higher being. Whatever my mama told me was right and wrong was good enough for me as a kid, and that helped to build a strong foundation of morals and ethics that I use today as a (young!) adult.
And now that I forgot exactly where that was leading to, I’m gonna have to stop here. Just remember to laugh about the little things like religious books with legs, because it is pretty funny when family and friends see you walking down the path to evil and want to set you straight. ;)
#22 by anonymous: Thu Mar 23, 2006 21:14 (UTC -5)
There is much perversion in the world(Morality and immorality appear to occur in cycles.) Without belief in something, there is not really any reason for those who do not possess sense to behave properly.
#23 by Andrew Warren: Wed Jul 12, 2006 10:40 (UTC -5)
In regard to Kevin’s comment that all people live serving “their religion and without living for “religion” the world would be chaotic… There is much truth behind this statement, but at the same time, this statement is very artificial.
In reality, whether a person comes from the wealthiest of families, or is made of rags and cardboard boxes, we all possess one similar life motive – to survive. No matter how much money you have, which god you worship (if any), survival is the one key aspect of personal spirituality that keeps this world in “check,” and free of utter chaos.
Yesterday in India, when bombs shook the country, people fled building, streets, and vehicles – barely escaping injuries. Others, searched for loved ones, friends, and cohorts. Without any words being spoken, it was very evident that the general public, in their panic, were calmed by the sight of light and survival. Religion and higher beings did not bring comfort to the people of India, but rather, the fact that they “made it.”
The same goes for those in financial trouble, legal trouble, and emotional trouble: We are all just trying to get by. Some people do rely on religion for survival, but not all people, and not the majority by any means.
So, in short, it is not true to say that the world would erupt in chaos without everyone living for “their” god. However, the world would lose control if animals (including humans) lost their skills to survive. We all rely on different aspects of life for survival, mortality, and spirituality. Some find their peace within a higher god, while some find peace in music, books, and even meditation of self.
#24 by Patrice Jefferies: Thu Jul 13, 2006 17:41 (UTC -5)
Faith may seem as if it is inherited to most. It is definitly created through life experience. Many times people are raised to believe in having faith in absolutly nothing. Possibly looking at everything and not hesitating to second guess it. On the other hand, someone raised in an environment where they feel everything happens for a reason, may always look to the “higher being” for guidence. Yes, many of us have a large amount of influence at an early age. However, it may cause a slight handicap, when we see or experience anything that contradicts that pattern, we will immediatly question- and beg for answers. Like Kohlburg stated, when we have a specific way of thinking, and it becomes challenged or questioned it will “motivate us to create another way to look at the situation or continue a pattern.