the soulless atheist

after listening to the entirety of the four horsemen discussion and thinking on it before falling asleep, i came to an interesting perspective.  i won’t comment on whether or not religions are viable or believable arguments.  what i will comment on is what religions bring to the table in terms of social benefits.  regardless of the truth behind gods and deities, there is a rather common belief that religion imparts within people a morality which would otherwise be unfamiliar to the human race.  it is religion which has held the moral fibers of society together and maintained the necessary solidarity between individuals to foster a secure and righteous society.  in fact, this role is so greatly respected that most religious people don’t bother to examine other possible moral foundations.  this is fine, since most of you know that i don’t believe in moral absolutes, however, the problem is that because religious individuals hold their religious morality with such high regard, they come to believe that those who do not subscribe to their beliefs must necessarily be absent of the moral values they also hold as sacred and vital.  this isn’t to say that people of one religion don’t recognize the religious morality of other religions.  certainly every religion has it own set of values which are often quite congruent.  however, when addressing a person who is an atheist, it seems that because the individuals chooses not to practice any faith based value system,  he/she must ultimately lack a concrete moral compass.

now, to me, this argument seems similar to economic theory, particularly regarding the smith/marx divide.  it is believed by smith that the cumulative diversity of self-serving behavior within the market place ultimately produces the most productive society as every person’s greed pulls society in a unique direction and ultimately the forces balance to a perfect equilibrium.  this idea is hotly contested by marxists who believe the unregulated market ultimately leads to exploitation and increasing class divide which will inevitably reach a tipping point in which the united will of the proletariat will outweigh the centralized power of the bourgeois elite, leading to revolution and massive social and economic reform.

the similarity comes from a belief in whether individual people can enact positive outcomes without the assistance of an overseerer.  the belief that without religion, humanity devolves into ruthless amoral beasts is similar to saying that men cannot be relied upon to create and uphold their own economic lives.  without the guidance of the state, or some theoretical social conscience, economics becomes corrupt and flawed.  it is an argument against economic liberalism.  similarly, to believe that w/o religion, man cannot maintain a civil and sustainable society is almost an equivalently antagnozing argument against social liberalism.  of course, i will grant that religion has in great part throughout the course of history provided a very salient moral outline for societies to mind and abide, however, i find it ignorant to dismiss the possibility of alternatives to religious moral guidance.  i believe mankind has the rational capacity to analyze and understand social circumstance well enough to theorize and effectively argue in favor of a new brand of moral code rooted in logic and social necessity.  it would be a moral code reinforcing the same socially beneficial principles of religious doctrine, only without the unverifiable faith based justifications.  better yet, because this code relies on rationality and reason, it would be inoffensive to criticize and reevaluate the doctrines so long as the criticism stems also from valid logic and reasoning.  unlike the unquestionable voice of god, the redress of outmoded policies and open discussion regarding the credibility and effectiveness of any mandates would be far less difficult to approach.

for an example, we can turn to immanuel kant’s writings on ethics, particularly his conception of maxims as rules of behavior which promote rational social cohesion and sheer existence.  thus, we ought not to kill because rationally, no society can exist if all members are allowed to freely kill at will.  the individuals of the society would eventually murder everyone among them, forcing the dissolution of the society and thereby any rational need for moral codes.  it is a behavioral condition predicated on a logical rational.  one ought not to lie because were everyone to lie without reprecussion or reprehension, it would undercut the value of any promise or statement of truth, not only eliminating the necessary social glue of communication, but also intrinsically ruining the value of lies, as they are predicated on the fundamental value of trust.  of course, i wouldn’t suggest this to be the best solution, but it does exemplify the kind of rationality that i’m referring to.

in fact, it seems that those adherent to religious doctrine or any absolutist mandates are often the most dangerous to society and generally conduct the most devastating acts of moral offensiveness.  so, when viewed from this light, it appears that the soulless atheist is far less soulless and perhaps a more critical eye ought to be cast upon the moral codes so many theists refuse to question.