Theos

Home / Comment / In brief

The moral limitations of atheistic humanism

The moral limitations of atheistic humanism

 

Atheist humanists, like Andrew Copson are always saying that, as atheists, they can be as honest, decent, and generally good citizens as Christians – even better, actually. Speaking as an anthropologist I quite agree with them.

It is a fallacy to suppose that without God to make the rules all hell automatically breaks loose, because a great deal of our morality doesn’t come from God at all, but from human nature and from our experience of living in society. We don’t need God to tell us that murder, rape, theft and general dishonesty are wrong, because we can see for ourselves that these are harmful both to individuals and to the society on which we all depend for survival.

Humans are indeed naturally co-operative and friendly – this is the sunny side of our nature – but normally only among those we regard as ‘one of us’. The dark side is that we are also easily aroused to hatred and hostility by outsiders who are seen as threats to our group. Unpalatable as it may be, this is just as much a part of human nature as co-operation.

The ‘social instincts’ do not naturally lead to the golden rule, which was only formulated in the ancient literate civilisations that produced the world religions. In most times and places the rule has been very different: ‘Do unto others as they do unto you’. In the tribal societies with which I am familiar, those outside the We-group were owed no consideration and could be killed without compunction. An overview of conflict in world history doesn’t actually show that religion is top of the league in creating an ‘us and them’ mentality and irrational thinking. Nationalism, tribalism, race, culture, language, class, and, especially in the last century, political ideology, win by a mile.

Atheist humanists produce endless arguments for not believing in God, but it is curious that they never seem to ask themselves why we should believe in the existence of equality and human rights at all, which seem to be taken as a matter of faith. In a purely material, Darwinian universe, the whole idea of human rights is meaningless.

Concepts of human rights and dignity and worth emerged from the soil of the idea that humankind is made in the image of God. Without this theological foundation there is only the survival of the fittest or, at best, qualified co-operation with those we (or our genes) see as useful to our own ends. We are simply another species of animal, as Richard Dawkins and others remind us, ‘not so special after all’, with no more significance in the ultimate scheme of things than ants or wasps.

It is quite normal for different groups and individuals of the same species to fight one another in the competition for natural resources, and between groups and between individuals there are inherent inequalities that make some winners and others losers. This is what natural selection is all about. In a purely Darwinian world, the very idea of human equality is laughable. In such a world it would be quite rational to regard the poor as contemptible failures in the battle of life, to treat the old and sick as burdens, and to be wholly unconcerned with the well-being of foreigners. In this respect, the philosophy of Nietzsche is far more plausible than atheistic humanism. Belief in human equality requires a leap of religious faith like no other.

I applaud Andrew Copson’s appeal for compassion, and his generally altruistic sentiments, but they don’t have any logical connection with atheism and materialism. Scientific thinking, so often drawn on by atheistic humanists as a friend, is in fact as much a foe. The compassion and altruism trumpeted by atheistic humanists is not to be found in nature but needs, rather, to be constructed. In the UK, they have been constructed from materials forged within the Christian worldview, which so many people have absorbed without realising.


Christopher Hallpike is Emeritus Professor of Anthropology at McMaster University, Ontario, Canada.
His latest book Do We Need God to be Good? An anthropologist considers the evidence explores the arguments in this blog post in greater detail and can be
found here.


Want to keep up to date with the latest news from Theos? Click here to join our monthly e-newsletter. We'll let you know about our latest reports, blogs and events.


Image by Leticia Bertin from flickr.com available under this Creative Commons license

Research

See all

In the news

See all

Comment

See all

Get regular email updates on our latest research and events.

Please confirm your subscription in the email we have sent you.

Want to keep up to date with the latest news, reports, blogs and events from Theos? Get updates direct to your inbox once or twice a month.

Thank you for signing up.