I recently read a quote from one of atheism's spokesmen. He was criticizing religion and said that the world would be a better place without it. That statement intrigued me. The history of turmoil brought about by conflicting religions in Europe and Middle East over the past two centuries is often used as an argument for how much trouble religion has the potential for causing. Granted, politically motivated individuals can use religion to rally the "faithful" toward ignoble ends. However, an atheist stating that the world would be a better place without religions got me thinking.
What standard does the atheist use to measure a good world and a bad one? If I understand atheism correctly, the world as we know it is merely a cosmic accident. Atheists maintain that a substrate suitable for the evolution of life as we currently experience came about by a random sequence of mind-boggling, improbable events. What is, is. The world we see just happened by accident. Essentially, if all is random, how can there be an objective measuring stick with which an atheist can compare our world to a better one? I imagined the following dialogue between two individuals with sub-par puns for names.
B. Cause: How would the world be better without religion?
A. Theist: You have already admitted that conflicting religions are used to promote turmoil and violence. That does not have to happen. We have evolved the capacity for reasoning which obviates the necessity of religion to guide our actions.
B. Cause: You mean a standard of behavior without religious morals?
A. Theist: Yes.
B. Cause: So we have evolved reasoning that we can use to mandate what we should and should not do, without bringing a God figure into the picture?
A. Theist: Correct. The utilitarian code of ethics completely excludes any sort of God figure, and exists as a rational system to optimize behavior.
B. Cause: Why follow it?
A. Theist: Excuse me?
B. Cause: If we have somehow evolved the rational nature of our brains, let's use it to its fullest extent. Why bother following a rational system of conduct?
A. Theist: Well, for example, I am a utilitarian. I make my decisions based on what I think will lead to the most utility.
B. Cause: What if one is most happy while exploiting others to our own advantage?
A. Theist: Maximizing utility is not just for my own personal gain. It is creating the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people.
B. Cause: Why should any one individual be concerned about the happiness of others?
A. Theist: If one does what is best for only him, people will make selfish decisions. We can best propagate our species when we sometimes make decisions based on what is best for the majority, and not just oneself.
B. Cause: Why should I care about furthering our species?
A. Theist: Because that is how we evolved, that is why we are here.
B. Cause: I disagree.
A. Theist: About what?
B. Cause: It is not why we are here. According to you, it is how we evolved, and how the species exist as they do today. There is a big difference between how and why we are here.
A. Theist: Fine, it is how we are here. But that doesn't mean we cannot do our best to continue it.
B. Cause: Of course. But it doesn't mean we should.
A. Theist: I'm not sure I follow.
B. Cause: If we got here by accident, not God, not by anything but chance, there is nothing to tell me that we should do what we can to further the species. If it all ended, who cares?
If this world is all there is, why does it matter what happens to it? Ultimately, it does not. Atheists who state that the world would be better without religion are calling for an order of their own invention, while maintaining that we are products of mere random processes. Utilitarianism is by far an atheist's best argument. Treating happiness and survival as an end uses our rationality to create a system of living and ethics. Who does not want to be happy and survive? It is how we are wired biologically. However, basing behavior on our biological drives is dangerous. Anyone would argue that just because someone's biology pushes them toward alcoholism or child molestation does not mean they should follow their corporeal desires. Thus, if I am just as random as you, nothing says I should care for your happiness. I can. It makes sense based on biology and survival. But ultimately, what is telling me that I should? The words "should" or "ought" cannot be derived from a physical fact. If the world ended tomorrow, would it really matter to an atheist? I suppose it would be a shame to miss out on all the utility of the rest of his life, which is why an atheist acts to prevent it. But, would it actually matter in an ultimate sense?
An atheist's condemnation of the behavior of religions does not make sense. How can an atheist pass a value judgment in a purely reductionist universe, where there can ultimately be no right or wrong? Any theistic system such as Islam, Christianity, Judaism, or Buddhism has a final court of appeal when morals are questioned. The scriptures point to the eternal principles of Allah, Jesus Christ, Yaweh, or a group of gods. It is difficult for them to argue against divine instruction. However, when asked why an atheist should behave in a particular way, one reaches a dead end. He cannot appeal to a moral standard of right or wrong because a final arbiter is assumed not to exist. William Provine, evolutionary biologist from Cornell stated, "Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly. 1) No gods worth having exist; 2) no life after death exists; 3) no ultimate foundation for ethics exists; 4) no ultimate meaning in life exists; and 5) human free will is nonexistent."
An atheist friend of mine admits that without God there are no universal morals. He said that all of his decisions are amoral, living his life in the manner that will maximize his happiness. He gave up the word "should," because it was not logical to impose a set of values upon others when we are products of randomness. When another's actions adversely affect him, he would do what it took to prevent it. However, he never stated that they should not do it. An agnostic can at least state that we know enough to have moral order, yet we cannot know exactly what it is. While excluding God altogether an atheist gives up any appeal to ultimate right and wrong.
While presumptuous to tackle an issue debated for centuries in an Orient column, reason eventually sides with Nietzsche, who was honest enough to realize the implications of his conclusion that God is dead. If God does not exist, human relationships are reduced to exercises in the use of power. It is interesting to speculate on how such reasoning ushered in the bloodiest century in history, led by God-denying dictators such as Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, and Mao. Ultimately, nothing says we should look out for each other. British novelist and poet William G. Golding stated, "It was at a particular moment in the history of my own rages that I saw the Western world conditioned by the images of Marx, Darwin and Freud; and Marx, Darwin and Freud are the three most crashing bores of the Western world. The simplistic popularization of their ideas has thrust our world into a mental straitjacket from which we can only escape by the most anarchic violence." The order that atheists call for has no ultimate basis, and there is nothing to say we should follow any order at all. Our survival has no ultimate meaning. A world would not be better without religion. If atheists try to direct the behavior of theists, the latter need only retort, "Why should we?" Without God, there is no right, no wrong. No should. No ought. What is, is.