Can a person who opposes religion still be moral?

Here’s Casey Luskin’s analysis of Harvard evolutionary psychologist Marc D. Hauser, from Evolution News.

Here’s something Marc wrote:

What is dangerous is not the idea that we are endowed with a moral instinct–a biologically evolved faculty for delivering universal verdicts of right and wrong that is immune to religion and other cultural phenomena. What is dangerous is holding to an irrational position that starts by equating morality with religion and then moves to an inference that a divine power fuels religious doctrine.

Marc conceives of “morality” as mere descriptions of behavior that people feel compelled to comply with because of biological instincts. If one member of a troop of baboons doesn’t follow the evolved instincts and social conventions of his tribe, and he is discovered, then he is shunned. That is morality on atheism. It’s mere descriptions of behavior that varies by time and place. No individual has a duty to anything objective – it’s arbitrary, because evolution and tribal customs are arbitrary.

Casey notes that Marc’s view of morality was written up favorably in the New York Times – that’s their view of morality, too!

So what does a person like Marc who believes this view do?

And here’s an article from USA Today explaining Marc’s latest doings:

In a letter sent to Harvard faculty today, dean Michael Smith confirms a university investigation found “eight instances of scientific misconduct” by Hauser. A research paper has been retracted as a result of the finding, another corrected, and a Science paper has a correction under discussion; “five other cases” were also investigated, according to the letter.

If there is no God, then morality is an illusion. I understand that some atheists aren’t theists because of intellectual concerns, but for the vast majority, it really comes down to the desire to pursue pleasure without any moral restraints. And they get really mad when you make them feel bad about their selfishness, too.

You’re not going to be able to ground self-sacrificial moral actions rationally on atheism. The only reason to do anything on atheism is because of the pleasure that it gives you. Either direct pleasure, or the pleasure of being approved of by others, or the pleasure of avoiding punishments. There is no right and wrong in an accidental universe – just people doing what feels good to them. Atheists may act better than Stalin, but they have no reason to.

7 thoughts on “Can a person who opposes religion still be moral?”

  1. is it too ridiculous for me to wonder how people who think like this “professor” was allowed to become an educator? yeah, I know the world is torqued…but still…

    Like

  2. The only reason to do anything on atheism is because of the pleasure that it gives you. Either direct pleasure, or the pleasure of being approved of by others, or the pleasure of avoiding punishments.

    You’re kind of right about that. You leave out the origin of that pleasure though. We are wired to gain pleasure from things that make us more likely to reproduce and pass on our genes. Pleasure happens when we do things that help us survive. In our society, as in groups of other less intelligent animals, being moral can give us advantages. We gain trust from others, and we help those around us to survive. In any group of animals, those who live closest to us usually share more genes with us than those that live far away. We have evolved to be moral because helping those close to us helps propagate genes that we share. Evolution is about the survival of genes, not the survival of an exact lineage.

    Like

    1. Thanks. This comment is fine. But if you’re going to disagree with me (elsewhere) on matters of fact, then please try to cite something and link to it. Cite and link. Or you can ask me to back up my assertions and I will find evidence if I haven’t already.

      I really recommend that you sneak into a Christian bookstore with “Contending With Christianity’s Critics” and read Mark D. Linville’s chapter. It’s called “The Moral Poverty of Evolutionary Naturalism”. It’s the finest thing I’ve ever read on evolutionary origins of morality, and it’s a shorter version of the chapter in the magnificent “Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology”.

      Oh, look what I found! It’s the chapter!

      Like

      1. Hey , do you have an online file or pdf to the Blackwell companion book. I can’t afford it :( Perhaps mail me ?

        Like

    2. Pleasure happens when we do things that help us survive.

      Sure, like driving fast or bungy jumping. Don’t forget binge drinking and drug taking!

      Like

  3. Yep, from atheism point of view, one tribe killing another in Africa is not immoral, they’re just competing for genes supremacy.

    May be being nice is better for survival (not sure how you can prove this really) … but nevertheless it’s not immoral … at worst they’re just doing it wrong

    Like

Leave a reply to shimauma Cancel reply