The Contribution of Atheists to Moral Philosophy and the Practice of Morality
By
Naseer Ahmed, New Age Islam
6 March
2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Al-Fârâbî Even Cast Doubts On The Character Of
Revealed Religions And Opines That The Prophets And The Revealed Religions
Articulate The Same Insights That Philosophers Express In Their Teachings. The
Prophets Simply Use The Method Of Symbolization To Make This Wisdom More
Approachable To Ordinary People. In His Opinion, Therefore, The Prophets Were
Philosophers, Who Used The Framework Of Religion To Make Their Ideas Acceptable
To The Common Man.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
In my
article: The Progression from Religious Morality to Secular Laws and the Danger of
Regression of Religious Morality into Bestiality,, I have discussed the contribution of the
moral philosophers in taking descriptive morality from religion and making it
normative. They did this by taking into account empirical proof of the benefits
to society from practising the moral code as a religious duty for thousands of
years, and its importance in the survival and propagation of the species. They
helped make descriptive morality become acceptable on a rational basis by
explaining the underlying principle of every moral rule which then became the
accepted norm on a rational basis.
For
example, the golden rule in every religion is the reciprocity rule, “Do unto
others as you would have them do unto you.” Or “One should not treat others in
ways that one would not like to be treated”. The atheist philosopher Immanuel
Kant universalized it by rephrasing it as “act only in accordance with that
maxim through which you can at the same time will that it become a universal
law” and called it the supreme principle of morality. In lay terms, this simply
means that if you do an action, then everyone else should also be able to do
it.
Many of
these philosophers were atheists, and indeed their motivation stemmed from
trying to make religion irrelevant. This is not some modern phenomenon but even
the 11th-century Muslim philosophers and before that, the Greek philosophers
were engaged in the same. Al-Fârâbî even cast doubts on the character of
revealed religions and opines that the Prophets and the revealed religions
articulate the same insights that philosophers express in their teachings. The
prophets simply use the method of symbolization to make this wisdom more
approachable to ordinary people. In his opinion, therefore, the Prophets were
philosophers, who used the framework of religion to make their ideas acceptable
to the common man.
As De Bono
would say, every valued creative idea has to necessarily be logical in
hindsight. If it were not so, we would reject it as without value. As the
creative idea is logical in hindsight, we are tempted to think that it should
be equally accessible to logic in foresight. This need not be so. What chance
does an ant on the trunk of a tree have of reaching a specified leaf? At every
branch, the chances diminish. In an average tree, the chances are one in eight
thousand. Now if we have an ant sitting on a leaf what are the chances of
reaching the trunk of the tree? There is no forward branching in the journey so
the chances are one hundred per cent. It is exactly the same with creative
ideas. Once the idea has been reached then it is logical and obvious in
hindsight. But reaching the idea is a different matter. De Bono’s argument
covers the creative ideas of human beings which immediately appear logical in
hindsight. Moral principles are not like that. They do not immediately become logical
in hindsight but take a very long time of practising them for their benefits to
become clear. Each principle is also counterintuitive as it is against the
nature of man.
It is a
fact that no moral precept has come out of secular thinking and all moral
precepts have come from only Religion. One just has to read the history of
moral philosophy starting from 600 BCE to date and the works of every great
moral philosopher to confirm this. Or one has simply to go through the
arguments on any moral issue to understand how impossible it is to agree on
anything to do with morality, left to ourselves. We cannot even agree on a
definition of terrorism simply because any workable and reasonable definition
makes every nation a state sponsor or supporter of terrorism.
So, why is
it that when almost everyone lies and cheats if the temptation is high and the
probability of getting caught low, ill-treats and oppresses weaker people at
least to the extent of bargaining with them their wages or price of the goods
and services they sell, do not feel the same pain when people from among the
“enemy” suffer a calamity, and yet nobody questions the simple moral rules of
do not lie, cheat, oppress, or kill? Now you can imagine the difficulty the
same people would have had accepting these same rules if the rules did not
exist. So, how did these rules come to be accepted universally? That is the
supreme achievement of religion. The basic moral rules from religion have
permeated society and come to be known as the “natural law” and are equally
accepted and followed by the theists and the atheists.
The
contribution of moral philosophers in making morality normative must be
acknowledged as a great achievement of humans even though it may have been
motivated by atheist tendencies. As far as moral tendencies and sensitivity are
concerned, many atheists are superior to the majority of theists. Being
rational in their approach, and with moral precepts learnt early in their
childhood from their parents and environment which helped internalise these to
become instinctive, they are less likely to be misled by religious bigots into
bestiality.
Great
literature has contributed more to sensitizing us to human suffering, pain,
oppression, discrimination based on colour, gender, social position etc. and in
turn promoting moral behaviour than any religion. Many of the authors may have
been morally sensitive atheists. Poets are known to be particularly sensitive
to human suffering and pain and almost every Urdu poet is an atheist.
However,
atheism can cause a complete collapse of all moral values. Moral relativism is
the small crack through which a wedge could be driven to bring down the moral
edifice. The thesis that the truth or justification of moral judgments is not
absolute, but relative to the moral standard of some person or group of persons
is the proverbial wedge.
Consider The Following Story from Jonathan
Haidt’s Book ‘The Happiness Hypothesis’
“Julie and Mark are sister and brother. They are travelling together in
France on summer vacation from college. One night they are staying alone in a
cabin near the beach. They decide that it would be interesting and fun if they
tried making love. At the very least, it would be a new experience for each of
them. Julie is already taking birth control pills, but Mark uses a condom, too,
just to be safe. They both enjoy making love but decide not to do it again.
They keep that night as a special secret, which makes them feel even closer to
each other.”
Do you
think it is acceptable for two consenting adults, who happen to be siblings, to
make love? Haidt goes on to argue that there is no valid rational argument
against it since Julie is unlikely to conceive, their relationship is likely to
become closer, the act is kept secret, and they are unlikely to repeat it.
Does not
everything start in small and safe ways and eventually become an epidemic? The
absolute law of morality or the categorical imperative, therefore, has value.
Morality based on rational thinking cannot take us beyond acting out of the
hypothetical imperative.
The dangers
of moral relativism are underestimated. Children outgrow their incestual and
homosexual urges and are helped in no small way by the sexual mores of society
and religion-based taboos surrounding incest and homosexuality. Remove these
and we already see homosexuality becoming far too common. This is not because
what was hidden earlier is now coming out into the open, but a case of many who
otherwise may have reoriented themselves after experiencing the childhood
urges, are now indulging in it as it is no longer considered immoral. It is a
matter of time before incest becomes both common and acceptable. The population
growth rate of the ‘developed world’ is below maintenance levels. With
homosexuality and incest becoming common, it can reach dangerously low levels
and societies can self-destruct.
Moreover,
without the social and religious taboo on incest, the home ceases to be a haven
safe from sexual predators. The cases of psychological damage caused by sexual
abuse of children and adolescents are far too serious and too many to allow us
to be complacent.
Philosopher
Fredrick Nietzsche declared that God is dead.
If God is dead, then morality is a matter of personal choice. The root
of a person’s denial of God is often also the root of his moral depravity. It
is far too uncomfortable for a morally depraved person to believe in God. It
causes too much cognitive dissonance which is painful.
What Has Psychology To Tell Us About Human
Nature?
Dan Baston
at the University of Kansas devised a clever study to make people make moral
choices unobserved, and his findings are that 90% of people are moral
hypocrites and are unaware of it. They will cheat if they think that they can
get away with it. My guess is that more than 99% fall in this category and some
are simply less enterprising and need more time to feel comfortable enough in a
new environment (such as provided by the test), to start cheating.
Religion
Based Morality
Religion
promotes absolute transcendental values. The relativity of values has led to
vulgarity and obscenity, to the widespread use of alcohol and of drug
addiction, to making homosexual relations common, and to the breaking down of
barriers for incest. “Human dignity and the nobility of character are based
upon permanence and stability in the moral order.”
Atheists
are oblivious to religion as the source of all original moral precepts which
have shaped the notions of morality in their society and in themselves.
Although there are outward signs of decline in religion, notions of morality
derived from religion still govern the lives of people. Moral precepts and all
great ideas are logical in hindsight. These ideas are therefore accepted by
all. An atheist may reject religion but
he will not reject good moral precepts irrespective of their origin. Because
these ideas have become self-evident in hindsight, people tend to think that
these ideas have always been there or are a result of human thinking. Moral
precepts owe nothing to philosophy or literature although both have contributed
handsomely to promoting religious morality. The earliest writers and
philosophers have openly used religious language and symbolism. For example,
Shakespeare while talking about the quality of mercy as an attribute of God
Himself.
Religion
besides giving us transcendental moral values has inspired great art,
literature, music and architecture and has undoubtedly been a great civilizing
influence. It is also recognised that many of the great artists, writers,
poets, musicians and architects may have been atheists acting under moral impulses
while being oblivious to the source of all moral principles.
Religion
has undeniably had a civilizing influence on society and without it, we would
have remained barbarians. The weakening of the influence of religion and of
absolute moral values that go with it, and the growing trend of moral
relativism, will lead us into an enlightened form of barbarianism but
barbarianism nevertheless. Technology may help us with surveillance and to
ensure compliance with manmade laws, but can it be a substitute for voluntary
compliance with absolute ethical and moral values, to the inner peace and
serenity that goes with it, and the higher meaning it gives to life?
There is a
good side to atheists which has contributed immensely to promoting moral values
and there is a destructive part which is bent upon destroying the very
foundations of morality. There is a good side to religion which make the
sincere followers who are also sensitized by philosophy and great literature to
be among the best and there are the unthinking bigots who have made immoral
principles their religion and have become a threat to peace and harmony.
Good people
must learn to work together, and espouse good causes rather than be at
loggerheads with each other. While atheists can excel in giving voice to the
oppressed, it is only the theists who excel in the practice of morality simply
because their threshold for resisting pain and suffering while espousing moral
causes is far greater than that of atheists. This is because for them their
values are absolute and not negotiable. The atheists are more pragmatic and
have a point beyond which they will not go for their values. This is why it
would be difficult to find among the atheists a counterpart to Mahatma Gandhi,
Mother Teresa or Martin Luther King.
-----
A frequent contributor to NewAgeIslam.com, Naseer
Ahmed is an Engineering graduate from IIT Kanpur and is an independent IT
consultant after having served in both the Public and Private sector in
responsible positions for over three decades. He has spent years studying Quran
in-depth and made seminal contributions to its interpretation.
URL: https://newageislam.com/interfaith-dialogue/atheists-moral-philosophy-practice-morality/d/129254
New Age Islam, Islam Online, Islamic Website, African Muslim News, Arab World News, South Asia News, Indian Muslim News, World Muslim News, Women in
Islam, Islamic
Feminism, Arab Women, Women In Arab, Islamophobia
in America, Muslim Women
in West, Islam Women
and Feminism