Study Confirms Atheists Just as Ethical as Churchgoers
The old canard that people who do not believe in a "Supreme Being" are untrustworthy, without morals, and unethical has received yet another rebuke.
According to a new study published in the journal Trends in Cognitive Sciences, Atheists are "just as ethical as churchgoers," and religion is only one way through which people can manifest a moral code. Dr. Marc Hauser of Harvard University reported that his research team was investigating the foundations of moral behavior and religion.
"The research suggests that intuitive judgments of right and wrong seem to operate independently of explicit religious commitments," said Hauser.
Dr. Ed Buckner, President of American Atheists, said that the study should help dispel one of the many great lies about non-religious Americans.
"Nearly 13% of the US population, according to surveys, have 'no religion'; that's about 40 million people," said Buckner. "Surveys indicate, however, that a near-majority of people would not support an otherwise qualified Atheist candidate for public office and falsely believe that 'there are no Atheists in foxholes.'"
Both perceptions are incorrect. "At least a few TV preachers and other demagogues almost certainly and knowingly encourage these misunderstandings, intentionally lying to shore up their own power and prestige. Atheists are already serving in government, the armed forces, and the professions (even in the clergy); most just don't openly advertise the fact that they have no religious beliefs," added Buckner.
Dave Silverman, Vice President and Communications Director for American Atheists added that the study discussed whether religion was an evolutionary adaptation which contributed to group solidarity and social cohesion. "It's a fascinating question that may never be resolved," said Silverman. "The point remains, though, that you can, indeed, 'be good without a god. In fact, you can be excellent!' The ethical actions of millions of Atheists, Freethinkers, Secular Humanists and other non-religious people are proof of that."
The study is available at http://www.cell.com/trends/cognitive-sciences
Sign up for the OV Daily Newsletter
OV Social
Maybe this is throwing a cat among the pigeons, but I'd like to point out that lack of belief in God does not correspond to having no basic for an ethical system --- but there are better proofs of this than the case of Atheism. Taoism, for example, is not recognisable as atheistic in the the common Western sense of the word, but it has no Western-comprehensible concept of "God" -- yet it does quite well at presenting a comprehensive system of ethical beliefs and values. The same can be said of some of the more austere flavours of Buddhism. Proof right there that belief in a personal supernatural intelligence is unnecessary for ethical behaviour.
is that not only are atheists usually as ethical as their religious counterparts, but that many of them believe in an objective moral base. So, they're not relativists. Which means that they've at least thought a little bit about their ethical system. Which is something that's necessary for me to take it seriously. Call me a philosophical snob if you will...
Of course most of us have an inherent desire to be "good", it was put in us. Not believing in God doesn't mean He doesn't have an impact in our lives, He made us in His image. even if we don't want to acknowledge it.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
Or that the basis of our moral code is found in the genetic code. Moral/ethical individuals are better able to operate in a group environment , and so are selected for in social species.
The fact is that christians can't imagine a being greater than themselves. Christians don't believe in god . They believe they are god. The god of the bible has the personality of a psychopathic three year old.
Consider the story of Lot. After years of unerringly faithful service, what's his reward? After being turned into the streets homeless , god murders his wife . Or how about Job? What was his reward for being the most faithful of the faithful? God cuts a deal with a fellow psychopath to have him tortured in a manner that would make Stephen King ill. Or how about the one where a group of children tease one of his lesser servants about his receeding hairline? God sends bears to tear the little ones to bloody shreads. I'll bet that gave baldylocks a warm fuzzy feeling and plenty of pleasant dreams. And what is the ultimate reward for this god's subjects? To become its slaves, groveling at its feet, singing it praise, for all eterinity. With gods like that, who needs devils?
Are people naturally good? Far from it. The human animal is the most violent, avaricious, cruel, ruthless and blood thirsty animal this tired old world has ever seen. Man is so fantastically, insanely, violently dangerous that he is actually an ever present threat to the survival of his own species. What passes for "morals" are rules of engagement. For every individual transgression against the pack, or a member of the pack, a certain level of violent force is prescribed by the pack in retaliation. The violence perpetuated by the pack may range from confication of belongings, to capture and forced removal from the pack, to death . What passes for morals is an uneasy truce, based on informed self interest, that exists solely as a mechanism to avoid pack violence.
So, what exactly is this god created in the minds of men? It's the incarnation of the blackest depths of man's heart in envisioning himself in a role where he is free to inflict violence on the pack while being immune from pack retaliation. Drown a world, murder a son , pimp out a wife, torture a friend, rend and murder children, reward good faith with bad, you name it. Man will worship his vision of an incarnation of pure evil. Not all men, but the vast majority will be those such as yourself.
I always enjoy a non-believers interpretation of the stories in the bible . They always seem to miss the the moral of the story and come away with "God hates us and is an egomaniac". People don't accept Christ because they want to be God-like, but rather because they can NEVER(even after accepting Christ) measure up to God and His expectations. What else is funny is when they go to some anti-christian website and get someone elses' tidbits and try to pass them on, like believers have never read the bible.
Most humans want to be "good". They want to help, they want to be important to others, they want to make a difference. Those that aren't good seem to have childhood issues or science tells us that they have some kind of chemical imbalance.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
RE: "they want to be important to others... seem to have childhood issues or science tells us that they have some kind of chemical imbalance"
Thank you for making my case for me. Crazy people on ego trips about covers it. People claiming to know the mind of god are like cows claiming to know calculus. It's pure, unadulterated arrogance rooted in the need of unbalanced persons to feed their fragile egos. Farmer Jones' cow goes to the herd and claims to know calculus. The herd is just ever so impressed, even though Farmer Jones' cow's only major accomplishment in life is to turn grass into manure.
"prophetic AND egomaniacs"
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
I'm guessing that you're trying make the "prophets" of the bible out as those that are trying to be important, and are "bad" in trying to reach that goal. The problem with your argument is that they had to prove thier "prophethood". People were stoned for claiming to be of God when they weren't, so there went the "bad" ones.
Also, those that actually did prove themselves with fullfilled short term prophesies(with the help of God) wouldn't have been able to be prophetic, nor egomaniacs, because according to you, God is a "physcopathic 3 year old" that surely wouldn't tell the future to anyone He thought was a competitor.
I don't follow anyone, because those that appear to be on the same path usually end up just getting in my way.
“I'm guessing that you're trying make the "prophets" of the bible out as those that are trying to be important, and are "bad" in trying to reach that goal. The problem with your argument is that they had to prove thier "prophethood". People were stoned for claiming to be of God when they weren't, so there went the "bad" ones.”
So the way to determine which prophets are actually speaking for God is by how many people agree with what they say?
“Also, those that actually did prove themselves with fullfilled short term prophesies(with the help of God) wouldn't have been able to be prophetic, nor egomaniacs, because according to you, God is a "physcopathic 3 year old" that surely wouldn't tell the future to anyone He thought was a competitor.”
Or we only remember the ones who guessed correctly… or those whose prophecies were enigmatic enough that they could be interpreted as correct.
Remember people have believed prophets throughout recorded history , from most (all?) religions. The Greeks had Delphi, the Norse had their skalds, the Native Americans had their medicine men… all across the globe people have claimed to tell the future, and throughout history people have believed some of them.