The problem with ‘Forget God and be good for goodness’ sake’

This holiday season the American Humanist Association — an atheistic organization — is running an ad campaign in Washington, D.C., to counter the Christian and theistic message of Christmas. Metro buses bear signs that read: “Why believe in a god? Just be good for goodness’ sake.”

My question is, “Why believe in moral goodness at all if you don’t believe in God?”

The author George Eliot would likely have appreciated the bus signs. She once said to a friend while strolling through a Cambridge garden, “God, immortality, duty — how inconceivable the first, how unbelievable the second, how peremptory and absolute the third.”

Morality, she thought, simply does not require a religious foundation. Indeed, the religious impulse dilutes the moral, as thoughts of another world distract from the duties of the present, and hope of an eternal reward reduces moral motivation to a form of self-serving egoism. Isn’t it better, after all, just to “be good for goodness’ sake”?

But Friedrich Nietzsche, a fellow atheist, referred to Eliot and her ilk as “English flatheads,” and charged them with blatant inconsistency. “They are rid of the Christian God and now believe all the more firmly that they must cling to Christian morality.” He insisted that, in giving up belief in God, “one pulls the right to Christian morality out from under one’s feet.”

The “duty” to which Eliot and her freethinking friends appealed, was actually part and parcel of the system that is Christianity — or, at least, theism. “By breaking one main concept out of it, the faith in God, one breaks the whole: nothing necessary remains in one’s hands,” he wrote.

If Eliot held out for the reality of a moral law over against the illusion of religion, Nietzsche countered with the exclamation, “Moral judgments agree with religious ones in believing in realities which are no realities.” Nietzsche’s moral nihilism is handily summarized with his assertion, “There are altogether no moral facts.” And there are no such facts precisely because neither are there any theological ones.

Nietzsche was right.

If we embrace the atheistic and naturalistic world-view of those responsible for the bus signs, then our explanation for what we call “morality” will have to be drawn from whatever the natural world affords us. And, notoriously, morality is not so much explained as explained away when “naturalized.”

On garden-variety atheism, the best available explanation for what we call “conscience” is rooted ultimately in a set of “social instincts” that, according to Darwin, would have conferred reproductive advantage upon those creatures — our early hominid ancestors — that possessed them.

While it is true that well-formed moral principles, such as the Golden Rule, are products of rational reflection rather than the direct result of genetic hard-wiring, the whole enterprise that is morality takes its cue from the propensities that have been programmed by our genes and are part and parcel of a biologically based human nature.

For instance, we believe, most of us, that there are actual, objective duties of parenthood. It would be morally wrong to neglect or abandon our children, we think.

But from a naturalistic and Darwinian perspective, the powerful bond that exists between, say, mother and child is merely an evolutionary means to the end of reproductive fitness.

As Darwin saw it, natural selection has bequeathed to us, and animals similar to us, a strong “pre-reflective” impulse to care for our offspring. But only humans have also developed the capacity for thinking about such impulses.

Darwin thought that “conscience” is what you get whenever any social animal, equipped with the social instincts, also develops a certain degree of rationality. He wrote in “The Descent of Man,”

“The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable — namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man.”

But evolution has found entirely different means to that same end of reproductive fitness in other species. The sense of parental duty that is possessed by, say, a female sea turtle ensures only that she lay her eggs somewhere above the high tide mark. After that, she loses no sleep from concern over the fact that her offspring are on their own against daunting odds.

The point is that from an atheistic and evolutionary perspective, such instincts and impulses that are at the root of what we call morality are merely solutions to problems posed by whatever happened to be the circumstances of reproductive fitness.

Had those circumstances been different, then, presumably, so would the solutions and resulting instincts. Consider this striking observation from Darwin — also from “The Descent”:

“If ... men were reared under precisely the same conditions as hive-bees, there can hardly be a doubt that our unmarried females would, like the worker-bees, think it a sacred duty to kill their brothers, and mothers would strive to kill their fertile daughters, and no one would think of interfering.”

As it happens, we weren’t “reared” after the manner of hive-bees, and so we have widespread and strong beliefs about the sanctity of human life and its implications for how we should treat our siblings and our offspring.

But this strongly suggests that we would have had whatever beliefs were ultimately fitness-producing, given the circumstances of survival.

We might put it this way: the processes ultimately responsible for human moral beliefs are fitness-aimed rather than truth-aimed.

It appears that we would have had precisely the sorts of moral beliefs we do whether they were true or not. Whenever the best explanation for someone’s having a belief has nothing to do with whether it is true, that belief is undercut and thus without justification.

The Darwinian explanation thus undercuts whatever reason the atheist might have had for thinking that any of our moral beliefs are ever, in fact, true. The result is moral skepticism.

And so, again, Nietzsche was right: the consistent atheist will be skeptical about any references to moral goodness, including those displayed on D.C. metro buses.

The atheist simply has no good reason for supposing that morality is anything more than “an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes in order to get us to cooperate,” as Harvard biologist E.O. Wilson once put it.

Much less does the atheist have any rational ground for going on to affirm humanism — the belief that human persons enjoy a special and inherent worth that is not shared by other species. Why think this, given the context of an atheistic and evolutionary view of things?

The theist, on the other hand, holds the background belief that we have been created in the image of God. This is at once the ground for affirming human dignity and for being optimistic regarding our capacity for discerning actual moral facts.

If theism is true, our moral capacities have been designed chiefly for the purpose of discerning truth. The moral law is “written upon the heart,” the apostle Paul told the Romans.

So I’ll answer the question on those bus signs. Why believe in God? I do so, in part, because I believe in goodness!

[Mark D. Linville lives in Fayetteville with his wife, Lynn. The ideas here are developed and defended in full in his essay, “The Moral Argument” forthcoming in “The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology,” J.P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, eds. (Oxford: Blackwell Publishing).]

login to post comments | Mark Linville's blog

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
Submitted by steveyoth on Fri, 12/26/2008 - 2:09pm.

I don't see goodness as being a religious choice at all. Like Mark Linville, I assumed at one time that goodness came from a Christian or at least a religiously-inspired morality. But then I went on several trips to Japan and I found that the Janpanese people were very moral, and yet only about 2% of them are Christian!
It appears to me that morality is a matter of practicality. Do you want the reputation of being a liar? Then, don't lie. Do you want the reputation of being hateful? Then, don't hate. This is the philosophy that I have always followed, and it has worked well for me.
If you want to have friends and have other people treat you nicely, you just have to get along with others. That means that you should treat others with dignity and respect. Then, they will see that you are safe and pleasant enough to hang out with, and they will want to be associated with you.
It has nothing to do with religion. It has everything to do with maintaining a peacefully society.
- Steve Yothment, Peachtree City

Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 3:00pm.

Belief in a God/god is required for some people to be good and to act civil in a society. It is what they were taught as children, that someone or something is always watching them and so they must follow the rules lest they be caught and severely punished now, or in the afterlife. For others, a belief in a God/god is not required to be good and these people do not believe there is a supernatural force watching them or dictating the events on earth and that inherent human nature is what drives people to do good, or evil, in this world. I am beginning to think there is some truth in the theory that some people have an internal "God gene" and others who do not.

I'm seeing a secular movement rising throughout the world as a response to the many atrocities we are witnessing, from 9/11 and the multitude of terrorist attacks enacted by Muslim extremists, to the events in the African nations inflicted upon various tribes, and so many of these events are enacted in the name of religion. But now, there are even Muslim intellectuals who are speaking out against the insanity taking place around the world in the name of religion and it is people like this who will help change the culture and hopefully instill religious tolerance towards others, even towards those who don't follow a religion:

A MUSLIM VOICE OF REASON*

(*from Al Jazeera television, Wafa Sultan, a secular Arab-American psychologist speaks out about Muslim extremism even when she is being called a heretic and blasphemer. I just hope she is not assassinated for her words and beliefs)


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 3:17pm.

Thanks for commenting.

You ask "Do you really need God in order to be good?"

My answer to your question is No. Clearly, there are people who have no belief in God at all but they display genuine virtues--in many cases surpassing those of religious believers.

But that is not the question--at all.

The question is not whether belief in God is somehow required in order to be a good person. Rather, it is whether belief in God is required in order to be consistent in believing in objective moral values...and being good. It is the question of whether there would be such a thing as goodness if there were no God.

My brief piece argues simply that the naturalist (atheist) has no conceptual resources for affirming such, and the Darwinian account, as developed through evolutionary psychology, would explain why we believe there to be a difference between right and wrong even if, in fact, that is a distinction without a difference.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue


Main Stream's picture
Submitted by Main Stream on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 4:27pm.

I know that wasn't really the question, whether one needed God/god in order to be good but that simplistic idea seems to be the premise behind the bus-sign campaign. I was hoping that John Pieret and Gordon Hide would return to your blog to continue the discussion but they seem to have left. I hope they return. I googled John Pieret and found some of his previous posts and comments on other sites - do you know of him?

I'm no match for you in debating religious philosophy but I find myself fascinated with the subject again, especially now that the election is over and the political discussions have died down somewhat. I lack the formal education you possess in religious philosophy and theology, however, my curiosity about the subject continues and I would answer your question in my own way:

muddle's question: "... whether belief in God is required in order to be consistent in believing in objective moral values...and being good. It is the question of whether there would be such a thing as goodness if there were no God."

My answer, with a question: Then how do you explain the many tribes and cultures that have built a good, moral and civilized society without the knowledge of any organized religion and associated moral tenets, which are based upon God/gods or supreme being? There are many cultures that have not been visited by missionaries or who have been taught to love/fear a God/god, and these cultures have built seemingly moral societies without a religious belief system. They continue to live this way, passing on their atheistic belief system to their offspring, while maintaining a moral society. For example, the Piraha tribe in the Amazon (Piraha Link) that has survived and built a moral society without God/god/gods.


muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Fri, 12/12/2008 - 7:09pm.

Then how do you explain the many tribes and cultures that have built a good, moral and civilized society without the knowledge of any organized religion and associated moral tenets, which are based upon God/gods or supreme being? There are many cultures that have not been visited by missionaries or who have been taught to love/fear a God/god, and these cultures have built seemingly moral societies without a religious belief system. They continue to live this way, passing on their atheistic belief system to their offspring, while maintaining a moral society.

Suppose, first, that we were asking a different question that has nothing to do with religion. Suppose that the question is,

"How do we explain the fact that there are cultures in which people display the same virtues that we admire in our civilization even though there was never any interaction between the cultures and, therefore, no ideas were communicated?"

And suppose that we are asking an evolutionary psychologist.

The answer would be that the behaviors in question are a part of our hardwiring as human beings. Regardless of the cultural context, mothers tend to love, nurture and protect their children. Young mothers may need to be taught how best to care for their children (e.g., breast feeding or formula?), but this presupposes that they do care.

The maternal instinct is not something that is culturally transmitted, and, other things equal, it seems to be in place regardless of whatever else is believed. (This is probably not absolute. I think it is clear that culturally transmitted beliefs can override the propensities that we might otherwise have had, but that is another story.)

So let's say that certain beliefs and resulting behaviors are byproducts of our "constitution." Call them, for ease of reference, "constitutional beliefs."

The theist is in a position also to maintain that certain fundamental moral beliefs are "constitutional beliefs." If, in fact, human persons are created in the image of God, then we might expect that our moral faculties have been designed specifically with a view to discerning moral truth.

So how would the theist explain pagan virtue uninfluenced in any way by theistic belief? By suggesting that the beliefs are constitutional in nature and thus in no way dependent upon cultural transmission.

So what remains? This.

The theist and the evolutionary naturalist agree that our basic moral propensities are constitutional in nature. But they offer different and competing accounts of how and why that is so.

If the theism is true, then we should expect that the processes responsible for our coming to have such beliefs are truth-aimed. But if it is not, if naturalism is instead true, then the best explanation for our "moral constitution" and resulting beliefs has nothing to do with truth. We believe as we do simply because the consequent behavior was adaptive for our remote ancestors.

Some evolutionary naturalists, such as E.O. Wilson and Michael Ruse, make the point even more strongly than I do. They maintain that, given the Darwinian account, we properly conclude that ethics is actually an illusion--there are no such things as moral facts, but our falsely believing that there are helped to ensure that we would behave in ways that confer reproductive fitness. Thus, it isn't really the case that, say, rape or recreational baby-stomping are wrong. But we are, most of us, hardwired to believe that they are.

So, again, I'll concede in the immediate context that one way of escaping my conclusion is just to deny that rape really is wrong. (In a broader context I would argue against such moral skepticism.) But that's still a very significant conclusion: atheism may be had only at the expense of a moral skepticism that cannot countenance the actual worngness of acts that seem actually to be wrong.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue


Submitted by GordonHide on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 9:28am.

Congratulations. You are one of the few theists to have a coherent understanding of one of the common atheistic moral justifications. What a pity that you failed at the last.

The fact that the evolutionary gifted instincts and emotions have a different goal to a modern moral system is no reason to throw the baby out with the bath water. Using our intellect and experience to hone our moral systems to something that produces a better result for the sort of society we want to live in is a much better option than reverting to superstition for an alternative.

Submitted by yourfavoritehood on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 8:13pm.

What I find of interest is the statement, "evolutionary gifted..." Gift implies a giver not a total chance event. What intellect are you suggesting is behind these gifts?

I would differ on the concept of our doing better for our society simply based on our own wisdom. To be sure, religion, (which is what I believe your are referring to with term "superstition") has been abused and is still being abused, but so have godless philosophies. Why would Hitler's approach to society be wrong and yours be right? His society thrived under his guidance, however we term him a crazy monster. What makes one person's moral systems honed from their intellect and experience evil and my own good? Popular vote? Well, then Hitler was right because he won the popular vote.

Your Favorite Hood

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 9:49am.

What a pity that you seem not to understand the role that a moral system would play in the event that such were valid.

As you have it, a "moral system" is of mere instrumental value in that it serves whatever happen to be our interests and desires. But, of course, where that happens, the moral system is a mere facade. It is rather like saying, "I like what Kantian ethics imply regarding human dignity, but I like what utilitarianism implies regarding warfare. So I'll be a Kantian in the one case and a utilitarian in the other." Here, actual desires are doing all the work and there is nothing normative about the ethics.

And, of course, your assertion that theism is superstition is just so much sword-rattling.

____________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue


Submitted by John Pieret on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 12:05am.

"Why believe in God? I do so, in part, because I believe in goodness!"

Which is perfectly well explained as a fitness-aimed, socially-instilled belief, rather than a truth-aimed one. The question remains, why not just be good?

Submitted by yourfavoritehood on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 8:15pm.

Please define "good".

Your Favorite Hood

muddle's picture
Submitted by muddle on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 1:25am.

Which is perfectly well explained as a fitness-aimed, socially-instilled belief, rather than a truth-aimed one. The question remains, why not just be good?

Why should anyone suppose a thing like that?

Perhaps the naturalist will be tempted to appeal to such undercutting explanations of theistic belief. He must, since his own worldview precludes the possibility that such theistic belief is true and warranted. But there is no compelling reason for the theist, who is not shackled in that way, to accept such an explanation. If we thought the mere fact that there is a possible undercutting explanation sufficient for being skeptical of the beliefs in question, then we should be skeptics on a more global scale. After all, my present experiences of an apparent world around me are explained in an undercutting way on the hypothesis that I am in The Matrix. But I've no reason to accept it.

Further, the belief that morality requires metaphysical underpinnings unavailable to the naturalist but available to the theist is hardly the sort of thing that is readily explained away by appeal to social science explanations. The point is that insofar as one embraces a robust account of moral goodness, one has transcended the bounds of atheistic naturalism and is flirting with something more on the order of theism. You may, of course, opt out of the conclusion of the argument by urging moral skepticism. But, of course, that is the whole point. Whatever reason we have for resisting moral skepticism (e.g., the insistent belief that rape really is wrong) serves also as a reason for rejecting naturalism. And if you argue instead for skepticism, I'll want to look closely at your assumed principles that lead you to discount our moral experience as sufficient for moral knowledge.

On the other hand, as I argue, the naturalist himself is in principle committed to undercutting explanations of moral beliefs just as surely as he is regarding theistic belief. The arguments, in fact, take the same shape. The same Dan Dennett who wrote Breaking the Spell, in which he offers an undercutting explanation for theistic belief, says in Darwin's Dangerous Idea that the notion of rights is "nonsense on stilts" given his Darwinian scheme.

And so, I'm afraid you overstate the case: The question "Why not just be good?" does not remain.

Further, assuming that we assign some fixed meaning to "good" as you wish to use it, I suppose that, on Darwin's account, if the impulse is sufficiently strong, then I'll be seen behaving in that way. If not, then not. But nothing of the normative nature that we suppose morality to require is seen here.

(I would welcome your account of a naturalized notion of "goodness" that is at once objective and normative.)

___________________

"Puddleglum" by Weatherwax (one of the Muddlings).

Jeeves to the Rescue


dawn69's picture
Submitted by dawn69 on Wed, 12/10/2008 - 2:15am.

"Beauty is truth, and truth beauty. That is all ye know on Earth and all ye need to know." - Keats


Submitted by yourfavoritehood on Thu, 12/11/2008 - 8:20pm.

Thanks for the quote. It is really nice. One hang up I have is we have to define truth or beauty in order to understand the other if Keats is correct. I've seen some really ugly things in art exhibits that someone else called beauty. That would mean truth is completely relative to what an individual considers to be beautiful.

On the lighter side, if the quote is correct, Miss America is truth and when I saw her on T.V., she definitely wasn't smarter than a fifth grader.

Your Favorite Hood

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.