A Society of Atheists:

If I'm not mistaken, then in the recent past Dr. Robertson brought up the question of what a society of atheists would really be like.  When I heard that question, I was reminded of a guy named George Hrab.  Now, Hrab is a musician and a damn good one.  Besides that, he is also an outspoken atheist and a podcaster.  I was listening to his podcast one time when he responded to a letter of fan mail.  The listener's question was something to the effect of: Don't we need religion in order to instruct us on how to live morally?  Hrab maintained that the answer is quite simple—that harmful actions are avoided for their negative consequences.  One commits no crimes in order to stay out of prison, and one is helpful for others so that others might treat him or her the same way.  You catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  In this way, narcissism drives the atheist to behave morally, because s/he does good deeds for his or her own good.  Following that logic, a society without religion would consist of people doing good for others for the sake of making it more likely that good will be done to them.

It took me a few years, but I finally realized what I don't like about that argument.  I think that, in that reasoning, there's an inherent (false) assumption about equality of status among people.  Hrab's idea fails to take into account one important, however unfortunate, fact of life: power.  If you have enough power and you wrong the right people, then this immoral behavior could go without any negative consequences for the powerful party.  For example, if Arnold Schwarzenegger mercilessly beat me to a pulp, then I would not be in any position to exact any revenge on him.  I am not strong enough to physically retaliate.  Even if I were to pump myself up for years (ironically using Arnold's own workout regimen and obsessively watching his movies to drive my lust for vengeance), no amount of time on the Bowflex could get me close to Arnold, because he also has political power.  As the governor of California, he must have a lot of security to defend him. I'm sure the man has some sort of weakness (Chuck Norris?), so maybe this isn't the best example, but I hope I'm getting my point across.

Corporate people in corporate suits find ways to exploit people on the other side of the world, and those impoverished workers will probably never have a chance to make their oppressors pay or even make their voices heard.  With enough power, it is possible to act in a morally reprehensible manner without suffering any backlash from your fellow man.  Such worldly wrongness makes many people flock to ideas like karma, the reassuring belief that those bad people will get what's coming to them before long.  If the villains die peacefully on their mountains of blood money, then some believe that their souls are burning in hell, while others figure they were reincarnated as a grasshopper or something, so they got what they deserved.  But now I've deviated from the belief system of atheists.  Here's a question: Is it possible to be an atheist and yet believe in karma?  Karma is hardly the same as God, but it is a supernatural or otherworldly force.  I wonder if that defies atheism.

For the time being, those are my thoughts on the subject.  Side note: As I wrote this post, I listened to Dr. Robertson's soundtrack for the course.  It made for some interesting listening.  I often enjoy making mixes and playlists myself.  Perhaps in the near future I'll make my own soundtrack for this course, as I interpret it.  Or, instead I might make an opposing playlist centered around belief, theism, and credulity.  If I have enough time, maybe I'll do both projects.  You'll see the track lists on this blog if I create them.

Comments

[Randy Robertson]

Whatever one's position on an atheistic society, most thinking people would conclude, with you, that Hrab's argument is badly flawed. Morality--even secular morality--cannot be reduced to self-interest.