With or Without God?
Does theism or atheism provide the best foundation for human worth and morality? That was the subject of a debate hosted by the Veritas Forum at MIT between well-known atheist philosopher Peter Singer and John Hare, a Christian philosopher from Yale Divinity School. The packed audience watched the intellectuals spar as the existence of God hung in the balance.
Singer based his argument on the claim that human empathy is a product of our evolution as a social mammal–the ability to imagine each other’s feelings was vital to the success of our species. Singer went on to cite the failings of Christians in addressing the pressing issues of poverty and justice, particularly in the developing world. Hare had no satisfying answer to these statements, failing to cite any data that might indicate the importance of charitable giving by those holding Christian beliefs.
Hare based his argument on the claim that only God provides the overall reasoning, justification, and motivation for morality. With sophisticated philosophical wordplay, Hare explained that atheism fails to reconcile the conflicting values of personal self-interest and altruism. However, the sheer clarity–even simplicity–of Singer’s responses made Hare’s elaborate argument appear obscure and off-point.
The debate came to a climax with a question from the audience on what would make each of them switch sides and adopt their opponent’s position. Singer admitted that the problem of evil in a world overseen by a good, all-powerful God stood in the way of his adopting the Christian faith. Echoing the sentiment of 1 Corinthians 15, John Hare stated that if the resurrection were to be shown to be untrue, then his faith would be in vain and he would consider the claims of the atheist position. Singer quickly pursued this point, pressing Hare on how he would respond if irrefutable evidence against the resurrection were found. To the surprise of many, Hare again underscored the fact that the resurrection was an integral part of his Christian faith.
Watch the debate HERE. What do you think? Is atheism or theism the better foundation for human worth and morality?
–Cody Chambers
March 28th, 2009 at 9:18 am
I was also privileged to be able to watch the debate at MIT and personally
interact with Singer afterwards. As a Christian I was divided by the views expressed by Singer. On the one hand, I was impressed by how reasonable and approachable Singer’s views were. Specifically, I was impressed by how consistent he was in interfacing his life with his ethical theory. Though an atheist, Singer still displayed a genuine care for people. To him, the “death of God” did not necessarily lead to amorality.
However, this is where I think Singer’s argument falls short. Singer clearly explained that we as humans evolved a capacity to empathize with others and thus discern how we should treat others by realizing how we ourselves would like to be treated by those around us. I understood how he claimed we could have morality apart from a God. However, I find his atheistic view on morality to be completely lacking in any sense of obligatory motivation. So I know what might be a good thing to do. Who cares? In Singer’s world, I have no obligation to do anything I don’t want to do. I might be able to see a difference between a good action and a bad action, but ultimately there is no one and nothing binding me to take the moral higher ground. I think Singer is pretty naïve in glossing over the inherent selfishness of all of us.
This is where Hare seemed more compelling to me. He openly confessed that leading a moral life is extremely demanding. I agreed with his comment that said that we are less motivated toward morality when we see it in conflict with our happiness. Without a God who has ordered our universe with a sense of justice and judgment there is no justification for obligatory morality. And I believe that Hare would agree with me when I say that Christianity goes beyond just obligatory morality. The Gospel states that God has shown his love to the world by offering a solution to our inherent selfishness. God not only has the power to ultimately judge us for this selfishness, but His greater desire is that we be changed from the inside out into people who enjoy doing good. Christianity can be summed up by the following truth: God can change our hearts from being self-centered to being deeply loving toward both God and others.
Singer made some pretty harsh accusations against the Christian church in America. In a lot of ways I agree with his view that many Christians
have wrongly overemphasized such issues as abortion and homosexuality and neglected the deeper issues of greed and lack of compassion for the
suffering around the world. But this is not how Jesus would have had it.
True followers of Jesus joyfully act as Jesus acted, with sacrificial love.
This is because true followers of Jesus are fully aware of the love that God
has shown them.
So while I was not deeply persuaded by Singer’s ethical arguments, I was challenged by his accusations against Christians. I still happily believe in God and believe that the reality of God is by far a better basis for any substantive morality.
March 28th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Jeremy, you say: “Though an atheist, Singer still displayed a genuine care for people.” Why should it surprise anyone that an atheist cares about people? It surely isn’t controversial that we all care for other people. Empathy is ingrained. However, I agree with you that, without a God, it’s difficult to argue that humans are obliged to be good in any deep sense. We are obliged by our laws (for the most part) as well as the implicit social contract that underlies them. Imagine two people in a spaceship far from Earth with zero chance of contact with other intelligent beings. If one kills the other, there are no consequences beyond that spaceship if there is no God. No moral scoreboard exists that is keeping track of sin everywhere. Other people are the only ones keeping score. If I were posed the question that Singer and Hare were posed by the audience member–what would make me “switch sides” and become religious–this would be a good test case. If I became convinced that somehow there is a moral scorekeeper in the universe, that the murder of one lost spaceman by another has consequences beyond their spaceship, then I would be forced to consider some kind of theism. Until then, I happily (or at least resolutely) have no reason to believe in God. And yet I care deeply about other people. Explain that.
–John Bohannon
April 4th, 2009 at 10:17 am
Having been an atheist for a good while now I have come to a interesting conclusion, for myself anyway. Theism and atheism are simply philosophical, indeed metaphysical, positions and nothing more. I am increasingly skeptical as to the relevance of morality to to the debate over the existence of God. Morality will have to exist whether or not there is a God. It is not dependent on Gods existence, nor is it incompatible with it. Both positions are equally plausible in my view. But, again, this is just a personal reflection.
To the thought experiment proposed above. It is indeed an interesting case, but I would disagree with some of John’s conclusions. True, if there are only two people on the ship there is no one else to keep moral score. But, why are you so quick to discount the astronauts themselves? While this is a speculation, if I was in that situation I would very much care about my own internal scoreboard. It would matter to me that I have killed, regardless of who else is witness to the act. You seem to be assuming a rather Hobbesian conception of human nature and I do not think that it is all that justifiable. That being said, I am myself assuming a certain moral upbringing that would hold a norm against unjustified killing.
Interestingly enough, there has been a recent poll that suggests that Catholics are very much in line with the general opinion on many issues that are seen as divisive (homosexuality, abortion, etc):
http://www.gallup.com/poll/117154/Catholics-Similar-Mainstream-Abortion-Stem-Cells.aspx