asked and answered
Michael Gerson ruminates on the subject of “What atheists can’t answer” at WaPo. Gerson poses a dilemma (“How do we choose between good and bad instincts?”), posits a theist answer (“We should cultivate the better angels of our nature because the God we love and respect requires it.”), and then claims “Atheism provides no answer to this dilemma.”
This statement is true to the extent that atheism is simply the absence of belief in a deity. The field of secular humanist ethics (or morality, if you prefer) does provide an answer through its reality-based methodology for evaluating behavior. Gerson’s claim that although “Atheists can be good people,” they provide “no objective way to judge the conduct of those who are not” is false, and resoundingly so.
His preferred system of ethics—one based on religion—is anything but objective, as it relies completely on a series of subjective choices: the selection of a set of holy writings; their preservation, compilation, translation, and interpretation. Without the capacity for emendation, this would-be objective source of ethics is incapable of responding to its own inevitable imperfections. Humanism, however, is strong where religion is weak: it is based on real-world empiricism, which is the only way to evaluate (and correct) the competing ethical systems borne of rival religions.
Kazim responds similarly in “What theists don’t ask” at Atheist Experience:
Belief in a higher power simply adds a level of arbitrary abstraction to your moral decisions. You are no less likely to commit acts of atrocity, only now you are free to attribute these actions to the deity of your choice. Instead of picking your morals, you are picking your god, as well as your interpretation of what the god wants. […] …the question of "Where do you atheists get their morality?" is easily answered: "It's probably about the same place YOU get your morality, since it clearly isn't from God."
Amanda Marcotte supplies the snark in “How to be nice after you quit believing in Santa” at Pandagon:
I do love the idea that we’re unanchored and bereft of any way to construct a morality without making up a god or gods and having them tell us what to do. Why not cut out the middleman and just simply hammer out morality on our own? Why hasn’t anyone else thought of that? Maybe we could start a new field, a new way to approach life and morality outside of theology. Call it “philosophy”, maybe. “Ethics”, perhaps. Surely human ingenuity could think of something.
Gerson’s conclusion, which likens atheism to “liberating a plant from the soil or a whale from the ocean” and complains that “In this kind of freedom, something dies” is especially ludicrous. In recognizing death’s reality—and facing it without fairy tales—atheism’s only casualty is illusion. Living without a celestial Santa Claus is a truly liberating experience, as I hope Mr Gerson will someday realize.
update (8:35pm):
Daylight Atheism has a very thoughtful response to Gerson, long on reasonableness and short on confrontation. Well done!