What Can't Atheists Answer?

Michael Gerson, erstwhile speechwriter for George W. Bush (and coiner of the term, "Axis of Evil") has a vexing question about morality that he thinks atheists can't answer. As an evangelical Christian, he might be excused for not having read much about morality without gods, but that doesn't stop him from making false assumptions about it.

Like most Christians, Gerson assumes that since the only real source of morality is the Christian god, those without a belief in such a deity can't be expected to defend their moral behavior. Although he freely admits that atheists can be staunchly moral individuals (he cites Christopher Hitchens as one example, provided you haven't taken issue with his arguments), he claims that while theists are able to answer the question of why the good should be sought (God tells us to do so), atheists have no answer for this question.

But there is a problem. Gerson paints Christians as saintly, obedient followers of their god's decree, but in an ironic twist, he fails to realize the obvious motivation for such obedience- the very pursuit of self-interest that he uses to accuse atheists of moral superficiality. As Richard Carrier points out, Christians are not exempt from this carrot either- whatever justification a Christian gives for following the edict of his god will fall under this same category. Most Christians will admit that the fundamental reason for obedience to the divine will of Yahweh is because of the promise of heaven/threat of hell dichotomy that is at the root of their theology. If that's the case, then they're no moral paragons- they either want a juicy reward (less likely) or are desperate to avoid a painful torturous end (more likely). Of course, you could always test their true fiber and ask them what they would do if they found out that Yahweh's salvation plan was secretly switched, and they would only go to heaven if they disbelieved in him. Those who say they would continue to accept Christ regardless if it meant torture are still betraying their self-interest, because clearly their highest value is that of adherence to truth at any cost. So, instead of the atheist being unable to answer questions about his own morality, we find that it is the Christian who can't provide an explanation why he claims to be following orders from his god, but is clearly acting on his own self-interest (which is presumably ignoble, given the fact that he accuses atheists of doing so).

Now, Gerson is wise enough to recognize at the end of his article that both atheists and theists recognize an innate sense of value and morality, but his explanation for this is backwards. It is the atheist whose recognition of the importance of morality is placed in its proper context- that of using rational investigation of the world around us to determine and fulfill our moral values. The Christian may ultimately act in accordance with secular moral principles, but unfortunately he's doomed to a life of moral hypocrisy, pushed by his superstitions and fellow believers into trying to second-guess the edicts of a non-existent entity, while at the same time attempting to retrofit his own values onto those of a vapid and violent deity.

At the end of the day, the Christian is like the runaway Pinocchio, dancing onstage while Stromboli pulls the strings- he could dance even better by himself, if he only had the courage to cut them.

via Kill the Afterlife