ETHICS:

Atheism: immoral, or?

Give up on God and you give up
on morality, Atheism is
immoral. Believers often claim
that rejecting God has to
undermine morality, and it is a
point we are quick to make in
debates with atheists. Not
surprisingly, secularists reject it
vigorously. They are personally
affronted by the accusation that
they must be immoral and they
have evidence against it.

think that being religious or having some

connection with Christianity makes people good.
One of the points that the secularist often makes is
that religions are very divided over right and
wrong. There are common views among various
religions, most see generosity as a virtue for
instance. However there are also very wide
variations. One reason for this is that not every
religion makes a connection between the divine
and how we should live. In Christianity, however,
there is a very clear connection between God and
ethics. From the very beginning of the Bible to the
end God is interested in how people live. Although
this discussion is often presented as being about
religion and secularism, Christians should make
it clear that the God we are thinking about is not a
There are plenty of people whose lives are not vaguely defined deity who could fit any religion,
based on any religious faith and who are honest but the Triune God who reveals himself in the Bible
and caring. Some of these people are outright and is confessed by the Christian church. It is still
atheists, others accept that there may be a god but the case that Christians can be quite divided about
dont think that makes much difference to how ethics. Ill come back to that point after weve seen
they live (Id call that view secularism). As Leslie the real weakness of secular ethics.
Cannold pointed out in a column in The Age last
year, if one in five Australians have no religion, then
The point Christians should make in
we certainly hope that people can be good the debate about atheism and morality
without God. Whats more, studies do not show
is not that you cant be good without
any clear evidence that non-believers live in a
God.
Our question has to go a great deal
worse way than believers (though of course it will
deeper than that. We have to ask
depend on who gets to decide the definition of
good!).
whether a secular view gives a firm basis
for ethics. Is it possible to be a
Christians arent surprised by good secularists. We
believe in common grace Gods care for all consistent atheist and have a satisfying
people in the world. Just as the physical world
understanding of what is truly good?
keeps operating because God sustains it, so the
social world holds together because of him. God Secularists can offer some reasons for people to
gives the blessing of wisdom and the virtues of live honestly and justly. They can point out that our
generosity and integrity to people with all sorts of own lives and the whole of society are far happier
religious beliefs. In the book of Acts, Paul several if we care for each other. They can tell us that we
times receives justice from Roman rulers whose seem to be wired to feel other peoples pain and
pagan religion he thinks is blasphemous idolatry. receive pleasure from helping others. That
He writes that all people have a God-given sense compassion is part of human make up. So the
of right and wrong (see Romans 2:14-15). This secular moralist will argue that the virtues we
sense of natural law is suppressed by sin, but it value are strongly built into us and make sense. We
still has an effect and every society and culture has dont need God to tell us what is right and wrong,
a moral code, often with similar elements.
and we dont need threats of judgment and
On the other hand, religious believers, including promises of reward to motivate us to be good. In
Christians, do not have a superior record of fact, they will observe, it seems far better to be
goodness. Critics of religion point to innumerable good simply because we care for others and
episodes in which religious people have done evil, recognise that is right than to try to satisfy God.
religious
institutions However, we can press the question further. Is it
have been oppressive enough to say that goodness is based on in-built
and abusive, and altruism and common sense? There seem to be
religious beliefs have three problems with the view. One is that both infostered
violence. built instincts and common sense can easily
Christians will grieve support actions which look far from good. People
this, but we wont be may be inclined to compassion, but we seek
surprised. We dont revenge very easily. In fact the two are often
connected. When someone we know and love is
attacked, then our compassion for them can easily
become a passion to hurt the attacker. The
common sense can have the same kind of
COMMENTARY BY JOHN McCLEAN
problem. Doing what brings the best result to
most people can be the basis for terrible
mistreatment of a minority.
A further problem with these approaches is
that they dont seem to give us a basis for what
we want morality to mean. When someone
receives an award for an act of bravery we
praise her selflessness we want to say more

16THEPULSE

than simply that she was allowing her natural

instinct to lead her to act in a sensible way.
Running into a burning house to rescue children
she had never met is, on many levels, neither
instinctual nor sensible but it is what we think
people should do. Does a secular worldview have
a basis for saying that this is a good act? On the
other hand, when we rage against an injustice we
are concerned about something that is more than
a good way for society to run. Take the debate
over the treatment of asylum seekers. When
people argue over whether it is a just policy, they
do not simply mean is it sensible or does it work
effectively. They probably disagree about those
questions as well, but the question of justice is
more than how sensible and effective the policy is.
Ethical terms speak in a more absolute sense
about how things should be. Even if we could be
convinced that society would run more smoothly
with an injustice, wed hope that we would still
insist that people should be treated fairly.
The third and most basic challenge for secular
approaches is what philosophers have called the
is-ought problem. This problem is that there is
no clear way of moving from what is in the world
to what ought to be. I may be inclined to be
compassionate, but does that mean I should be
compassionate? People like being happy and
eating and being able to choose marriage partners
does that mean they should be free to do those
things? How does the way things are determine
what should be? This problem is the explanation
for the previous point. Secularism does not deliver
a good basis for our ethical claims because it does
not have an answer to the is-ought problem.
Ethics based on the Christian God, see him as the
one who properly determines how things should
be. So when we speak about right and wrong we
are not merely talking about our instincts,
preferences or practical judgements. There are
various ways we can express the connection
between God and good living. We can say that
God has purposes for his world, or that he sets laws
for it, or that he calls us to know him and to reflect
his character in our lives, or that he guides us to
see what is right in different circumstances.
Christian ethics has used each of those
approaches to a certain extent. The point is that
each of them traces the foundation of knowing
what is good to God, the one who shapes and
determines all things.
But what about the divisions between Christians
over ethics? Those debates are not simply
discussions of personal preference. Imagine a
debate between two Christians one is a pacifist
while the other supports just war. They both trace
their argument back to Gods character and
purposes. We dont have to pretend that they
come to an agreement to see that the reality of
God provides a foundation for their discussion.
Each debater feels a great deal is at stake in the
argument. It touches on something very basic in
reality, because the difference is based in the One
who forms and sustains reality. That is something
that secularism can never claim.