Atheism and Theism:

 Two Paths to the Same Issues Concerning Values

 


(Please note: this discussion is accompanied by an illustrative diagram)

Does God Exist?

The debate concerning the existence of God has raged for millennia, and no doubt will continue to rage unabated. Important conclusions as to how we should live our lives seem to be at stake. And yet, as surprising as it may seem, this question is a dead end in practical terms. Let's see why.

What's at Stake in the Debate?

There are two important questions concerning the best way to live. The first question is: how do we know the difference between right and wrong? This question, and questions like it, are questions of morality. The second question is: what is the meaning of life? Other ways to put this would be: What goals should I set myself in life? How can I live in the most meaningful way? These questions are questions of purpose, or teleology. Questions concerning morality and teleology are both at the foundations of our values.

It's commonly supposed that the answers given to these questions by theistic religions, such as Christianity, and non-theistic belief systems, such as humanism, are somehow diametrically opposed. In fact, however, only some forms of theistic religion and some non-thesistic value systems provide fundamentally different answers to these questions.

The Fundamental Question for Atheists

The fundamental question for those who cannot bring themselves to believe in God is whether or not there can be any foundation for values, or, to put it another way, whether there are any grounds for morality or life purpose. If this question is answered in the negative, that is, if it is said that there are no such grounds for morality or purpose, this leads us directly to nihilism, the belief that there are no values. Some have felt driven, out of intellectual honesty, to embrace this discouraging conclusion. And indeed, it must be faced squarely that the reductionistic materialism advocated by many in the scientific community leads inescapably to nihilism. However, reductionistic materialism is not the only form of materialism that merits consideration. A powerful alternative to reductionistic materialism is emergentism, the belief that there are phenomena in the universe, such as life and consciousness, love and value, that are not properties of the smallest elements of matter, such as atoms, but which, nevertheless, exist in their own right. On emergentist foundations, the non-theist may embrace some form of secular humanism, and may go on to affirm morality and life purpose. Numerous non-theistic moralities and theories of life purpose have been offered, most notably, perhaps, the morality of Immanuel Kant and the theory of life purpose suggested by Aristotle.

The Fundamental Question for Theists

Those who affirm the existence of some sort of supreme being initially face a rather different question (though this often goes unrecognized): what is the basis of the supremacy of supreme beings? Is it power, pure and simple; or is it, rather, moral goodness and teleological insight? Much hinges on the answer to this question. If it is said that God is to be obeyed simply because he is all-powerful, this will lead the theist to embrace some form of authoritarian religion. On this view, God is a kind of cosmic dictator, and it is might alone that makes right. The emphasis is then apt to fall on a God who is to be feared and/or who rewards, such as the Christian God of the Old Testament. If, however, it is said that God commends morality because it is right, and right purpose because it is good, then God becomes the advocate and exemplar of values, rather than the dictator of them. The emphasis is then apt to fall on a God who loves, such as the Christian God of the New Testament.

(On the Humanist view, actions taken under compulsion or duress merely to conform to external pressure are not genuinely ethical, even if the external pressure is applied by God. The Humanist philosopher Immanuel Kant said that such acts are heteronomous — that is, they're acts not freely undertaken from an understanding of their rightness, and therefore morally worthless.)

Convergence: Relativism or Univeralism?

An important issue which must today be resolved where morality and teleology are concerned is whether or not these cornerstones of values are relativistic in nature. The relativist urges us to believe that morality and teleology are merely social conventions than can vary arbitrarily from one place and time to another without consequence or reference to underlying principle. While some theists suppose that this challenge on the part of relativism to the substance, permanence, and universality of values is the very essence of secularism and non-theism, it is in fact a challenge to the values of many non-theistic value systems as well.

Relativism derives from neither reductionistic materialism or emergentism, but rather, primarily, from anthropologists and others whose focus is society, and especially the use that society makes of ideologies to enforce social control. Still others abhor the making of value judgments of any kind, and reject the idea that the values of one society might, in any way, have better consequences for humanity or be more correct in principle that those of any other. There is also an epistemological strand of relativism that asserts that there can be no truth, moral or otherwise, for all times, but only truth for a particular historical era.

Thus, tolerance and rejection of covert forms of social control are put forward as the ethical virtues of relativism, while epistemological relativism is put forward as being both inescapable and a matter of common sense.

As opposed to this we would argue that:

1) It is paradoxical to argue or presume that a value such as tolerance should be a universal value at the same time that it's argued that all values are relative;

2) That the proper basis for tolerance of the values of other societies lies in our recognition in them of a common humanity, and of the deep commonalities often found between societies beneath the superficial differences;

3) That the use made by societies of ideologies as instruments of social control is bad precisely because of the universal importance of individual liberty, especially liberty of conscience;

4) That the truth regarding values, like truth in the sciences, can be investigated and approached ever more closely and cumulatively;

5) And, finally, that the major world religions converge on like values, such as tolerance, recognition of a common humanity in all human beings, the importance of liberty of conscience, and the value of the truth.

This leaves us with a position that is held in common by major strands within both secular and religious Humanism: that there are real values and standards for everyone. This position might be called universalist ethics; and in the investigation and development of a better grounded ethic of this nature lies the best hope of a convergence of secular and religious views and a way out of the fruitless debate concerning the existence of a God or Gods.

Ironically, such convergence once existed in the work of Saint Thomas Aquinas as he strove to incorporate the philosophy of Aristotle within the framework of a non-authoritarian, reason-grounded Christianity. While his position is in need of considerable revision and elaboration in light of contemporary thought, it retains substantial promise.