Can Atheists be Moral?

The short answer to this question is, "it depends on what you mean by moral and morality."

If by moral you mean, "adhering to virtue in the sense of objective good and evil" then no, they can't.  They don't believe in objective good and evil, so that sense of morality is a non-starter.  Atheists, in refusing any authority other than the convention of man, don't believe in objective right or wrong, or good and evil, so that definition of morality simply can not apply to someone who doesn't accept the premise.

If by morality, you mean, "following the laws of the land and practicing ethical behavior as defined by their context" then sure, atheists can obey the traffic laws and show up to work on time just like anybody else.

The problem is that the word is used in both senses, which causes confusion and people on each side of the definition argue without regard to the multiple and vastly different uses of the word.

Example:

http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/01/07/sarah-palin-secular-atheists-secular-theists-cant-be-moral.htm

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend and Austin Cline take issue with Sarah Palin's stance that, "morality itself cannot be sustained without the support of religious beliefs."  But what they are disagreeing about ultimately, is the nature of good and evil and the ultimate definition of morality.

Neither of them accepts Palin's definition of morality as given by God and not simply derived by the thoughts of people and legal systems of government.  My point is that if they don't accept morality as ultimately extra-natural in cause, then of course they won't be "moral" according to that definition.  What they are doing is using "moral" in a different way, and saying, "look - we're moral and you're wrong to say that we aren't."

But changing the definition changes the whole nature of the argument and claim.

The behavior actually seen or observed from both perspectives can overlap, but ultimately the disagreement is in the nature of good and evil and their connection with morality, and how this is defined.  Unfortunately, the standard dictionary definitions are of little help:

http://www.dictionary.net/morality

We still have the problem of what makes right "right" and what makes wrong "wrong" and who ultimately decides this.  I think Dosteovsky makes a strong point in The Brothers Karamazov when he says, "If there is no immortality, then all things are permitted."

If life simply ends at the grave, then what difference does it make if you live as monster or a saint?  The answer to that is "very little."  Sure Stalin killed millions, but they would have died eventually anyway.  Morality has had a religious underpinning for thousands of years, if you take that underpinning away, then it becomes necessary to answer the question, "why be moral at all?"

It isn't that the question can't be answered without a religious context, but it certainly becomes more problematic, in that Bob's definition of morality has no more weight than Steve's does, and they might disagree.

Austin says, "Saying that you can't be moral without being religious is no less bigoted than saying that a person can't be moral without believing in Jesus."

It isn't bigoted to disagree about the nature of good and evil.  But then, Austin is really quick to pull the bigot card, without actually addressing the nuance of the actual issue at hand.  Anyone who disagrees with him is a "bigot", as he regularly diplays in comment responses.  Which ironically, is extremely bigoted behavior, but nevermind.

To say that someone can't be moral according to Palin's definition of moral without being religious is simply being accurate, not bigoted.

One other thing, the Austin Cline article, which is arguing for a strict separation of church and state, with no mention or influence from private life into public political life, actually dares to mention Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address.  This address is etched into stone at the Lincoln Memorial, and it should be.  I simply cannot believe that someone would reference or attempt to quote from this particular speech in support of not mentioning God, or anything related to God in public political discourse.  It is beyond idiotic.  Link to Lincoln's Second Inaugural Address and the full text of that speech is below. 

http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres32.html

AT this second appearing to take the oath of the Presidential office there is less occasion for an extended address than there was at the first. Then a statement somewhat in detail of a course to be pursued seemed fitting and proper. Now, at the expiration of four years, during which public declarations have been constantly called forth on every point and phase of the great contest which still absorbs the attention and engrosses the energies of the nation, little that is new could be presented. The progress of our arms, upon which all else chiefly depends, is as well known to the public as to myself, and it is, I trust, reasonably satisfactory and encouraging to all. With high hope for the future, no prediction in regard to it is ventured.
On the occasion corresponding to this four years ago all thoughts were anxiously directed to an impending civil war. All dreaded it, all sought to avert it. While the inaugural address was being delivered from this place, devoted altogether to saving the Union without war, urgent agents were in the city seeking to destroy it without war—seeking to dissolve the Union and divide effects by negotiation. Both parties deprecated war, but one of them would make war rather than let the nation survive, and the other would accept war rather than let it perish, and the war came.
One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war. To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it. Neither party expected for the war the magnitude or the duration which it has already attained. Neither anticipated that the cause of the conflict might cease with or even before the conflict itself should cease. Each looked for an easier triumph, and a result less fundamental and astounding. Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God, and each invokes His aid against the other. It may seem strange that any men should dare to ask a just God's assistance in wringing their bread from the sweat of other men's faces, but let us judge not, that we be not judged. The prayers of both could not be answered. That of neither has been answered fully. The Almighty has His own purposes. "Woe unto the world because of offenses; for it must needs be that offenses come, but woe to that man by whom the offense cometh." If we shall suppose that American slavery is one of those offenses which, in the providence of God, must needs come, but which, having continued through His appointed time, He now wills to remove, and that He gives to both North and South this terrible war as the woe due to those by whom the offense came, shall we discern therein any departure from those divine attributes which the believers in a living God always ascribe to Him? Fondly do we hope, fervently do we pray, that this mighty scourge of war may speedily pass away. Yet, if God wills that it continue until all the wealth piled by the bondsman's two hundred and fifty years of unrequited toil shall be sunk, and until every drop of blood drawn with the lash shall be paid by another drawn with the sword, as was said three thousand years ago, so still it must be said "the judgments of the Lord are true and righteous altogether."
With malice toward none, with charity for all, with firmness in the right as God gives us to see the right, let us strive on to finish the work we are in, to bind up the nation's wounds, to care for him who shall have borne the battle and for his widow and his orphan, to do all which may achieve and cherish a just and lasting peace among ourselves and with all nations.

Abraham Lincoln seems to draw a connection between theism and morality.

I think if you want to actually argue this point, you should take him on, in addition to Palin and see what happens.  It's easy to criticize someone who is popular this week, and whom much of the media hates, it is slilghtly harder to criticize someone who is widely acknowledged as the best President ever.

Austin Cline is a Liar

But at least he is consistent.  He lies when it suits his agenda, actively censors dissenting comments and will even go so far as to implicitly defend child pornography and human trafficking to attack Christianity.

The title of the article in question is, "Pope Benedict XVI: Its Not Our Fault We Raped Kids"

http://atheism.about.com/b/2011/01/02/pope-benedict-xvi-its-not-our-fault-we-raped-kids.htm

Source of the actual Pope's statement is here:

http://www.catholicculture.org/culture/library/view.cfm?recnum=9486

I would definitely not consider myself a defender of the current Pope and I'm not Catholic.  I do believe that he is misrepresented and lied about both in the press and in criticisms of his speaking and he is treated unfairly.

Remember his "anti-muslim" speech in Germany in 2006?  Where he was accused of saying that Islam is a violent religion unfairly?  Something didn't seem right to me, so I looked up the actual speech.  I was shocked to find what he actually said.

http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2006/september/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20060912_university-regensburg_en.html

He is saying the opposite and calling for a reasoned dialogue between faith and other views of the world.  The religion of peace, in protest, bombed a few churches and set things on fire.  Austin is doing the same thing here, except using words instead of dynamite.

This is especially pernicious, because he clearly knows better.  I'll limit this to two glaring problems.

1) The implied "quote" from the Pope is inaccurate and libelous (below bold emphasis mine)

What the Pope Actually said was, "We were all the more dismayed, then, when in this year of all years and to a degree we could not have imagined, we came to know of abuse of minors committed by priests who twist the sacrament into its antithesis, and under the mantle of the sacred profoundly wound human persons in their childhood, damaging them for a whole lifetime."

And, "Her garment is torn – by the sins of priests. The way she saw and expressed it is the way we have experienced it this year. We must accept this humiliation as an exhortation to truth and a call to renewal. Only the truth saves. We must ask ourselves what we can do to repair as much as possible the injustice that has occurred. We must ask ourselves what was wrong in our proclamation, in our whole way of living the Christian life, to allow such a thing to happen. We must discover a new resoluteness in faith and in doing good. We must be capable of doing penance. We must be determined to make every possible effort in priestly formation to prevent anything of the kind from happening again. This is also the moment to offer heartfelt thanks to all those who work to help victims and to restore their trust in the Church, their capacity to believe her message. In my meetings with victims of this sin, I have also always found people who, with great dedication, stand alongside those who suffer and have been damaged. This is also the occasion to thank the many good priests who act as channels of the Lord’s goodness in humility and fidelity and, amid the devastations, bear witness to the unforfeited beauty of the priesthood."

And finally, "We are well aware of the particular gravity of this sin committed by priests and of our corresponding responsibility."

He isn't making excuses and his statements are clear in acknowledgment and responsibility for deplorable acts.  This doesn't undo the actions taken against children, but to say the Pope is claiming that it wasn't done or that it "wasn't their fault" is like saying the current German government is denying the Holocaust.

The problem with a claim like Austin's, is that it is completely false.  He is lying about what the Pope is saying, there just isn't any other way to say it.

2) Austin misquotes the Pope, then tries to attack something he didn't ever actually say.

Pope's statement, "There is a market in child pornography that seems in some way to be considered more and more normal by society.

The psychological destruction of children, in which human persons are reduced to articles of merchandise, is a terrifying sign of the times. From Bishops of developing countries I hear again and again how sexual tourism threatens an entire generation and damages its freedom and its human dignity."

Austin's response, "Well, I suppose that in order to be fair I should allow for one narrow sense in which Benedict might have something approaching a point: it does seem to be treated as more and more normal by society for children to be sexualized to a growing degree. We see sexualized clothing and attitudes marketed to younger and younger kids -- especially younger and younger girls. That isn't the same as "child pornography," though, and I don't think it would be legitimate to treat that as a valid intended meaning behind his words."

Um, I don't think we're talking about Target and junior high girls showing their midriff, or the words "hot stuff" across the bottom of sweatpants, intended for pre-teen girls.  I think the Pope is talking about internet child pornography, which is more rampant than it has ever been, sexual tourism, human trafficking and the abuse of underage females for a fee.

http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/sextour.html

This is a devestatingly serious issue in the world today, and if you look at the numbers, much more prolific than the handful of priests who have been abusive.  This isn't seeking to dismiss or deflect from the inappropriate and criminal behavior of priests.

But we're not talking about America, we're not talking about the mall and Calvin Klein ads.  We're talking about the (in many cases) forced rape of children happening 30-100 times a week per child for money.

I wonder why Austin is deflecting the actual comment away from the real issue at hand.  Is he really defending the practices of sexual tourism as a red herring and not really all that bad?  Is this another case of Christianity with its ridiculous sexual standards of conduct trying to interfere with the freedom of free thinking people?

Or is he just using a very emotionally charged topic, to take an unfair and cheap shots at a religious leader for his own agenda and ends? 

He can do that if he wants to... but don't call it reasonable, logical, or correct in any forum.

I would think that human sex trafficking would be one thing that even a New Atheist like Cline would agree is bad.  And if in agreement that a serious human rights issue is bad and should be stopped, why would he try to deflect or diminish the attention drawn to this, even by someone he ultimately disagrees with?

Does he hate theism and the Pope so much, that he is willing to implicitly support human trafficking for the sake of a cheap shot?  That's disturbing, especially for someone who claims to value skepticism and clear thinking as a force for good in the world. 

When propaganda for your cause becomes more important than saying, "child pornography and forced sexual tourism is wrong" then you're out to lunch.