Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Sunday, October 21, 2007 | Reason : Commentary | print version Print | Comments

Document Atheists aren't a bad lot

by Dan Gardner, Ottawa Citizen

Thanks to Stephen Falk for the link.

Reposted from:
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/opinion/story.html?id=978093cc-9fb2-4c94-a522-af85f69c6853&p=2

Can we be good without God? That's a very old question believers like to ask because, I suspect, the answer is very pleasing to them.

No, they say, we cannot be good without believing in an invisible spirit who, like Santa Claus, knows when we've been bad or good. No invisible spirit, no reward or punishment. No reward or punishment, and moral codes become empty words. Inevitably, atheists must conclude that morality is for suckers -- and so believers are, ipso facto, better people than non-believers.

There was a time when there wasn't more to say on the subject. Almost everyone believed in a god or gods and those few who didn't kept their mouths shut lest others conclude they were the sort of lying, thieving, murderous wretches people inevitably become when they stop genuflecting to invisible spirits.

Alas -- some would say -- faith has eroded over the centuries. Today, substantial numbers of people have decided that until such time as there is proof of the existence of Santa Claus, they will not believe Santa Claus exists. Ditto for god. And they're open about their disbelief.

This has complicated the issue considerably because now everyone knows a few atheists who are not lying, thieving, murderous wretches. They work. They pay taxes. They have kids and don't beat them or sell them for medical experiments. How can this be?

An answer comes from the godless science of evolutionary psychology. "People have gut feelings that give them emphatic moral convictions," writes Harvard cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker, "and they struggle to rationalize the convictions after the fact." Those "gut feelings" are not the result of what we learned in Sunday school. "They arise from the neurobiological and evolutionary design of the organs we call moral emotions."

Physically, humans are pretty pathetic. We're weak and slow and our fangs wouldn't frighten a raccoon. We do, however, have really big brains and, by working together, our ancient ancestors could survive and thrive. But working together required humans to follow certain rules even when doing so was contrary to their short-term interests.

Say you covet your neighbour's cave. You could just smash his skull and move in. But you need your neighbour's help in the mammoth hunt. And besides, if you smash his skull and take his cave, someone else might get the same idea. So in the long run, both your neighbour and you will be better off if everybody agrees it is wrong to smash thy neighbour's skull.

Humans who learned to restrain themselves prospered. Those who didn't vanished. Over time, the internalized rules we call morality became hard-wired instinct.

That instinct remains no matter what we believe about invisible spirits. And its force is not diminished by recognizing its origins in biology: We can no more choose not to feel moral impulses than we can choose not to feel sexual desire.

So it's no surprise to learn that atheists can be perfectly decent people. They are human, after all.

This has led believers to a subtler attack. "People who don't believe in God can be good," writes Reginald Bibby, a theist and University of Lethbridge sociologist. "But people who believe in God are more likely to value being good, enhancing the chances that they will be good."

Mr. Bibby's evidence is a widely reported poll he conducted in which higher percentages of believers than non-believers said values such as kindness, forgiveness, and patience were "very important."

"To the extent that Canadians say goodbye to God," Bibby concluded, "we may find that we pay a significant social price." So the occasional atheist may be a fine fellow but in general they're not as nice as theists and if their numbers rise society will go to hell in a handbasket.

One of the many problems with Bibby's thesis is that his poll asks about qualities that religions typically present as dogmas. Kindness is good. Period. No discussion. It just is. Same for forgiveness and all the others.

So it's no surprise that believers would simply say, yes, these are very important. That's what their dogma says. But an atheist is less likely to approach morality dogmatically. She might feel, for example, that kindness is good but she can imagine circumstances in which it's not appropriate. To reflect that, she may rate it "important" instead of "very important." That wouldn't mean she's a less moral person. It would mean she's more thoughtful.

Worse, Bibby simply assumes a link between what people casually say, what they feel, and how they behave -- an assumption belied by heaps of academic research, not to mention plain old common sense. Televangelists would get boffo scores in Bibby's poll. Does that mean they are models of moral behaviour? Anyone who believes that is invited to send a contribution to the Church of Latter Day Skeptics at the e-mail address below.

To get around this, we have to look at how people behave. As it turns out, the lowest levels of religious belief and weekly church attendance in the world -- possibly the lowest in history -- are found in Northern European countries. These societies are not lacking in basic moral qualities. In fact, they may be the most tolerant, peaceful, compassionate, orderly societies that have ever existed.

If that's the fate of countries that say goodbye to God, it will be a good day when we see the back of that old fraud.

Dan Gardner writes Wednesday, Friday and Saturday.
E-mail: dgardner@thecitizen.canwest.com

Comments 1 - 22 of 22 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #80469 by Zakie Chan on October 21, 2007 at 11:21 pm

 avatar"So it's no surprise to learn that atheists can be perfectly decent people."

No way! Really!?

Other Comments by Zakie Chan

2. Comment #80470 by SteveN on October 21, 2007 at 11:25 pm

 avatarThat was a refreshingly humorous article with an important message. It made the point about the evolutionary basis for morality very clearly. I especially liked "....you will be better off if everybody agrees it is wrong to smash thy neighbour's skull"
I think that the 'atheism = immorality' assumption is one that is so deeply rooted in some parts of the world (particularly the USA) that a targeted and concerted effort to dispel the myth is needed. Articles like this can only help.

SteveN

Other Comments by SteveN

3. Comment #80475 by toomanytribbles on October 21, 2007 at 11:59 pm

 avatarthou shalt not smash thy neighbor's skull!

Other Comments by toomanytribbles

4. Comment #80478 by Quine on October 22, 2007 at 12:14 am

 avatarGame theory studies have shown that taking a step forward to be a good person is not a weak strategy, as long as you are willing to stick up for yourself if you do not get reciprocation. I want to be the kind of person who lives in the kind of world I want to live in. So, no skull smashing (unless, of course, you meet the Buddha in the road, and he obstructs you).

Other Comments by Quine

5. Comment #80480 by Theocrapcy on October 22, 2007 at 12:19 am

 avatarMaybe next time Bibby can ask consider the following issues in a poll about values and qualities held by the religious.

Genital mutilation
Gay discrimination
Refusing condoms to AIDS riddled Africans
Pedophilia in the church
Support for the NAZIs
Fatwahs
Suicide bombers
Al Qaeda
The inquisition
The crusades
Stoning of adulterers
Disgraced televaneglists (is there any other kind?)


the list goes on. I'd love to know just how much goodness his studies would get out of these questions.

But of course, it's the extremists.

Other Comments by Theocrapcy

6. Comment #80490 by mmurray on October 22, 2007 at 1:30 am

 avatar
"So it's no surprise to learn that atheists can be perfectly decent people."

No way! Really!?


Actually it is a great suprise to see someone saying this is in the mainstream media. Nice article and great dissection of the survey.

There is also some great feedback to this article on the original page.

Michael

Other Comments by mmurray

7. Comment #80491 by dbunker on October 22, 2007 at 1:42 am

Doubters and non-believers need to be more open about the conclusions we have reached on religion. It's the least we can do to further the cause of rational thought in the community of people who assume "everyone believes in some god".

Other Comments by dbunker

8. Comment #80494 by anonquick on October 22, 2007 at 1:47 am

I'm glad to see this biological account of morality is becoming more widely discussed.

At a talk at uni called 'The Dawkins Delusion' (he stole that from some other boring, unoriginal hack), I brought this this notion of a 'moral organ' similar to a chomskyian 'language organ' and it really shocked the room full of Christians. They were really used to science staying out of the realm of ethics.

It really, really scared them.

Other Comments by anonquick

9. Comment #80505 by AdrianB on October 22, 2007 at 2:33 am

 avatarNice article.

"I think that the 'atheism = immorality' assumption is one that is so deeply rooted in some parts of the world."

This is why Hitchen's challenge is so relevant. (No matter what a certain poster might think)

Other Comments by AdrianB

10. Comment #80506 by detox on October 22, 2007 at 2:53 am

 avatarHitchens points out in AAI 07 that the notion that Moses ascended Mount Sinai and brought back the tablets of stone that somehow established the moral authority of religion is ludicrous. 'Thou shalt not kill' is a moral concept that could only derive from god? The twelve tribes are sitting there and go 'Wow, hadn't thought of that, better stop killing eachother'? (Actually that's a poor example because the revelation of god's words didn't seem to do much to quench their thirst for bloodshed. Substitute 'steal' or 'covet'.)

Call it evolutionary biology / psychology, the golden rule or morality. In my quotidian existence I like to think of it as common sense. I don't defecate on my neighbour's lawn because I wouldn't want to have to clear up the mess when he did it on mine. Pure logic is far more potent as a guide to societal cohesion than any values theoretically imposed from a book of random stories.

And while I'm in a solipsistic vein, having achieved emancipation from the yoke of religion after 40 years, shouldn't my moral compass be necessarily skewed now that I no longer have any religious lodestar? Needless to say, it isn't.

Other Comments by detox

11. Comment #80508 by BMMcArdle on October 22, 2007 at 3:00 am

This article is setting up the straw man that "Believers do not not act less ethically than non-believers can not not haven't done".

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

12. Comment #80510 by tieInterceptor on October 22, 2007 at 3:01 am

 avatarI'm happy the article turn around the fake 'statistical morality' from the faithful... basically they pathologically lie when asked about morals. Religion is very good at making people feel better about themselves and talk 'moral', but not making them better people in practise, on a 'tick the box answer sheet' they will put their Christian hat on, and answer everything as morally important, and gayness and stem cell research as terrible and an abomination.

Sheepole...

thank goodness Sweden is hard-fact-in-your-face-reality, the number one democracy of the world with 85% atheist/agnostic trumps a "Christians are nicer" poll any day.

Other Comments by tieInterceptor

13. Comment #80512 by AdrianB on October 22, 2007 at 3:11 am

 avatar
11. Comment #80508 by BMMcArdle on October 22, 2007 at 3:00 am

This article is setting up the straw man that "Believers do not not act less ethically than non-believers can not not haven't done"

I'm sorry, it might just be me, but it doesn't seem to make sense.

Other Comments by AdrianB

14. Comment #80513 by mjwemdee on October 22, 2007 at 3:11 am

 avatar
So it's no surprise that believers would simply say, yes, these are very important. That's what their dogma says. But an atheist is less likely to approach morality dogmatically. She might feel, for example, that kindness is good but she can imagine circumstances in which it's not appropriate. To reflect that, she may rate it "important" instead of "very important." That wouldn't mean she's a less moral person. It would mean she's more thoughtful.

I loved the way the 'atheist' suddenly became female in the middle of this article! Oh well...why not.

Other Comments by mjwemdee

15. Comment #80522 by BMMcArdle on October 22, 2007 at 3:53 am

See comments:
Here

Other Comments by BMMcArdle

16. Comment #80593 by Russian Freethinker on October 22, 2007 at 9:35 am

Awesome article, loved it! So witty and insightful.

It is interesting to me how in the religion/atheism debates Christians no longer argue that you need God to be good. Instead, now they say that morality is inherent in all humans, religious or not, because God has placed it there. Funny how theistic arguments evolve to fit the evidence.

Did you notice how D'Souza in the debate with Shermer argued that the reason Christians tend to behave worse is that they tend to be the more deprived people socially and economically? Wow, I'm impressed at the ability of Christian apologists to explain away any evidence :-) Aren't they clever?

Other Comments by Russian Freethinker

17. Comment #80603 by kaiserkriss on October 22, 2007 at 10:01 am

 avatarGood article.. Just want to remind my fellow posters, who might not know, that Lethbridge is a hot bed of individuals of the Mormon faith. Not sure if Reggie is one of them though.

IF he conducted his poll in Southern Alberta, his data is skewed and not representative of even Alberta, let alone Canada, the US, or the rest of the world.. jcw

Other Comments by kaiserkriss

18. Comment #80614 by Steven Mading on October 22, 2007 at 10:27 am

On the subject of being nice despite being an atheist:

I remember a TV episode by Dawkins from a while back called "Nice Guys Finish First" (you can find it on youtube) where he discussed game theory and the prisoner's dilemma, and tackled the question of whether morality can develop evolutionarily as a meme or not. It's too complex to explain it all here but it was a great idea - basically a very simple prisoner's dilemma game was made: You have a partner. You win either 1,3, or 4 points each game depending on how it went: If you pick "share" and your partner picks "selfish", you get 1 point and your partner gets 4. But if you both pick "share" you both get 3. Obviously the most overall points will be gained collectively if everyone shares, but it's not by a very large margin. (3+3 points = 6, 1+4 points = 5).

Then computer programmers were called upon to participate in the contest by writing software that would play this game using whatever strategy they feel like, and then the hundreds of different programs they make would compete in a big random-matchup free-for-all to see who got the most points after several trials and random partner matchups between them.

The end result was interesting: It did NOT favor the nice sharing algorithms. It favored the selfish bastard algorithms, seeming to indicate that cooperation is NOT a win in this game.

BUT then a similar try was run a second time with one change. This time each program had an ID that the other programs would know about. When a program is randomly paired with a partner, it would be told "you are about to have a game with program number 151" (or whatever number it was). And the programs were allowed to have memory so they could keep a record of how previous partner programs behaved. In other words, they could remember who betrayed them in the past when they tried to share and got screwed over. Programmers were then asked to write software for this version of the contest that would take this new information into account. THEN the most successful software ended up being the software that would tentatively share to see what the partner does, and form a memory of which other programs didn't share back, and stop being sharing toward the other software only if it shows a consistent history of not sharing back. In a large number of trials, the programs that used some variant of this generous-by-default-but-selfish-if-betrayed style of strategy ended up dominating the scoring all across the set of programs.

The result: In prisoner's dilemma cases, there is an evolutionary incentive for being nice, but ONLY after many trials, and only if you have a way of reliably identifying other individuals, and the ability to remember their past behavior.

Another interesting tidbit is that the software that didn't make vendettas permanent, that would occassionally try to extend the olive branch and do a few trial sharings every so often with a known selfish partner and re-asses that partner if the sharing went well did slightly better than the ones that made their shunning permanent.

Over a large number of trials, the strategy that works best is to be generous by default and assume your partner will reciprocate, and only behave defensively if there is prior evidence that some particular individual won't share back.

In other words, nice guys finish first.

Other Comments by Steven Mading

19. Comment #80708 by Smythe on October 22, 2007 at 6:05 pm

I live in Canada (Victoria, BC) and I have to say that seeing this article in my local newspaper really gave me hope that atheism (or more appropriately, reason in general) are seeping into not-so-small cracks in the foundations of religious beliefs.

As I read the piece, I knew that I wasn't going to hear anything new, but the thought that some of my neighbours would was comforting.

I also have a bet with a friend that in the op-ed section (or whatever you call 100-200 word reader responses) in the next two weeks will appear an unfortunate individual citing Hitler, Stalin et. al. as evidence against the morality of atheism.

Other Comments by Smythe

20. Comment #80711 by Frankus1122 on October 22, 2007 at 6:33 pm

 avatarRiley,
Care to comment?
Dr. Benway made mention of the forest. I think we are getting a good view of it now.

Other Comments by Frankus1122

21. Comment #80990 by MIND_REBEL on October 23, 2007 at 8:42 pm

 avatarCanada seems like paradise. I've heard that non-believers can actually be taken seriously as people instead of being treated like second class citizens like they are in the USA.

Other Comments by MIND_REBEL

22. Comment #81448 by Augustus Osari on October 24, 2007 at 6:30 pm

Interestingly enough, when you look on a map, Canada is above the U.S. and Mexico is below it...

There might be something to that whole "Heaven above, Hell below" mindset, after all. =P

Other Comments by Augustus Osari
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE