A good friend and I were recently discussing athiesm - it was a fabulously one-side conversation due to some technology problems with our cell phones - and I got to thinking: are athiests inherently untrustworthy, evil, violent, self-motivated enemies of the state and humanity?
What immediately sprung to mind was that far more people have been killed to a religious end than by athiests. Then I thought: wait, what about Lenin and Stalin and the atheistic Soviet state? Then I thought: what about Hitler?
An amazing thing happened then. Into my mind, quite without prompting, sprung the thought: of course Hitler didn't believe in God; no religious person could have done that!
Well, why did I think that? Is it possible that I also equate morality with religious belief at some level? The answer is: of course! We are all products of our environment. That doesn't change the fact that killing for the sake of Christianity has happened in the past, present and, most unfortunately (and probably) in the future. But, does it mean that athiest have to somehow make up for their lack of religious belief?
Let me post a question. Which is worse: killing for the sake of religion or killing for personal gain? Before you give me the whole "religion is an excuse used by the powers-that-be" defense, let me say that I don't disagree with that. I'm asking for a gut reaction. A public reaction. I think you'll find even yourself saynig that one has more merit. Maybe not.
So, you're an athiest. Does that mean you have a greater obligation to behave morally? OH, that does beg the question. What is moral behavior? Let's start with the basics of killing, stealing, and...well, let's start with that. Is it more or less likely that a religious person would kill or steal? We'd have to check some major crime stats and a couple of social surveys for that. Someday, perhaps. But let's say that, if the majority of Americans have some belief then a good deal of them commit crimes of this nature. Ok, that's a lame argument.
Here's the deal: think about the question. I'll think about the question. Feel free to post a response. I'm really curious. Life is good and beautiful at times, with or w/o religion. Evil happens, with or without religion. What's the real point?
3 comments:
Killing for religion IS killing for personal gain.
Assumed self-preservation is the motivating factor for serving a higher power -- do what it takes to have a nice afterlife. The rest of us do good (or not) because it makes us feel good.
With or w/o religion, one manifests concern for and devotion to oneself.
Athiests often say that believers are motivated by self interest or preservation. I was raised in a religious background (southern baptist, no less) and don't ever recall feeling that my preservation (future life) was at stake. Then again, I ended up an athiest.
The more I think about it, religion seems benign unless motivated by a political agenda.
Then athiesm is benign unless motivated by a political agenda. As long as we aren't running for office, then we don't have to put on a good face for the media. (Does the question change if athiests aren't a group, but merely a bunch of free-willed individuals?)
In the end, we all have to anwer to ourselves.
Post a Comment