Friday, October 22, 2010

Amoral Ethics (or not?)

I only know a few non-Christians, and I haven’t really talked to them about religion. I’ve known even fewer atheists. But I have some questions that I wish someone would answer – on the other hand, my curiosity is so casual that I’m afraid I’d offend whoever explained it to me by dismissing what they said. But here are the questions.

1. If there’s no God, then how can you argue for the existence of morality at all?

It seems to me that the only way anything is absolutely right or wrong is if there’s someone with the authority to say so and the power to reward or punish people based on their choices in relation to it. If there’s no God, then there’s no one to arbitrate what’s right or wrong. Different cultures can come up with moral codes, but you could always create your own, and no one would be able to prove that yours was wrong. And if there’s no God (no life after death), then there’s no way to guarantee that a person’s happiness will be in proportion to how they kept to any moral code, because mortality is so full of influences beyond our control.

To illustrate this, I can imagine a conversation between two hypothetical atheists – call them MoAt and AmAt. Imagine that MoAt is a generally good person, but he has an opportunity where he could steal some money, and it is guaranteed that no one would ever find out. AmAt is a total jerk. (I’m not suggesting that these guys are typical atheists.)

MoAt: I’d kind of like this money, and I know I won’t get caught, but I don’t want to do something bad.

AmAt: Don’t worry! There’s no such thing as “bad!” How could there possibly be such a thing?

MoAt: Well, some things violate other people’s rights, right?

AmAt: So what? Rights are defined by people, and different cultures believe in different sets of rights. If you decide you have the right to that money, then it’s yours to take.

MoAt: I don’t know – I think I might feel guilty if I steal money.

AmAt: Well then you have a decision. If you think the feelings of guilt outweigh the benefits of the money, then don’t take it. But it’s a tactical decision, not a moral one. And trust me, if you steal enough, the feelings of guilt will go away.

… and so on.

If I were an atheist, and I walked in on the above conversation, I don’t think I could come up with an argument to convince MoAt that stealing is wrong. I could tell him it was dangerous, since it might form a habit, etc. But you could say the exact same thing about eating donuts. If anyone knows or is an atheist who can explain why they believe that certain things are absolutely wrong, I’d love to hear it.

Not that I think that atheists are immoral. On the contrary, I think most of them probably feel that certain things are right and wrong, because they have the Light of Christ, like everyone else. But of course that explanation contradicts atheism. So I wonder.

2. Where do other religions draw the line between saved and not?

This question applies to non-Christian religions, and to other branches of Christianity as well. The way I see it, you can believe that the standard is fixed, and there are certain things that will get you destroyed if you do them. Or you can believe that the standard is more subjective. If it’s subjective, then it’s hard to imagine how God could be fair, since people would be judged by different standards. Plus, how do you know exactly where He draws the line? But if the standard is fixed, then isn’t it possible to cross the line without even knowing it’s there? And what if you totally change, but you can’t make up for what you’ve done? Justice is easy to administer in this case, but not mercy.

The dilemma goes away with the idea of a Savior. Jesus Christ paid the penalty for everyone’s sins. So no one has to reach a point of no return (at least not in this life). Justice is satisfied, since every sin has resulted in punishment. And my church teaches that people who die without the gospel will receive it later, and they’ll accept it there if they would have accepted it here. So everyone gets a fair chance. Mercy is satisfied. And as for where to draw the line, that’s simple too. The line is perfection: one sin and you’re out. But it’s one sin at the Final Judgment, after you’ve been given the chance to repent if you want to. It’s all about whether you want God to change you and take away your sins. (We also don’t believe that people’s final state is a simple matter of joy or torture; in the end, people will receive whatever level of happiness they’re willing to accept.) So that’s pretty good news.

Again, I wonder how other religions resolve the dilemma between justice and mercy. Do you let murderers into heaven, or do you punish good people for mistakes or circumstance? That’s an oversimplification, I know, but still, I wonder.

No comments:

Post a Comment