Guest Author - AJ Hill

Sooner or later every atheist or agnostic hears the comment: “Without the Bible or the Koran or some other holy book to set standards of good and evil you can’t have valid ethical or moral principles.” It’s a condescending statement and it discourages constructive debate, so it’s a good place to start a discussion of atheism and agnosticism. Most of us know that the criticism is baseless, but for those who have recently begun to question religious faith and are looking for a spiritual alternative, it may raise troublesome doubts. Is it possible to devise a satisfactory system of ethics without the prescriptions of conventional religion?

The answer is a resounding “Yes!” From Aristotle and Marcus Aurelius to Einstein and Bertrand Russell, pagans as well as nonbelievers have produced moral systems that compare favorably with the best that modern religions have to offer. In fact, rational ethical systems are often preferable to traditional religions, most of which contain arbitrary or contradictory precepts, some of them blatantly immoral. Christians may point with pride to the Ten Commandments, for example, but the Bible also includes embarrassments such as its endorsement of slavery or the absurd and brutal punishments prescribed in Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Muslims call Islam a “religion of peace” in spite of frequent references to jihad or “holy war” in the Koran.

Finding flaws in doctrinal religion is easy and tempting too, if you’ve been condemned as a sociopath, because you reject superstition, or threatened with the fires of perdition, because you won’t genuflect to imaginary deities. However, this kind of fault-finding doesn’t help to create consensus about effective morality, which is – or should be – one of our primary goals in human society, whether we’re atheist or faithful.

It’s far more productive to consider the ways in which each person can create her own ethics: What moral axioms are useful as starting points? How can these be justified? What criteria apply to ethical systems? How have these questions been addressed by philosophers, scientists, and writers in the past? One of the most fascinating results of such an endeavor is the discovery that the same basic principles can often be found in secular ethics and the more humane religious doctrines. A case in point is the aptly named “Golden Rule”, which appears in almost identical form in sources as diverse as the “Sermon on the Mount” (Matthew 7:12) and the teachings of Confucius (Mencius VII.A.4)

We should bear in mind that religious adherents regard articles of their faith as self-evident and irrefutable. Debating them about issues like the existence of God thus becomes a polemical dead end where, to use a boxing metaphor, at the end of the contest we may have won on points, but our opponent will still be standing. It’s crucial not to allow such pointless disputes to distract us from our efforts to devise effective rationales for living. If you have lingering doubts about religious dogma, then by all means cast yourself into the fray, but otherwise don't waste your time trying to convince those who will not be persuaded.

The Atheist/ Agnostic site at BellaOnline is intended primarily to be a haven for those who find faith based ways of thinking inadequate, a place where empirical and rational approaches to the questions that confront us are encouraged, and a refuge from the endless, unproductive squabbling that too often ensues, when religion and science collide. As the editor I hope to create a learning environment for everyone who visits the site – both believers and nonbelievers - as well as for myself. We atheists may have come to our philosophy as a way of escaping what we dislike about religion; but we can only be happy, if we create better alternatives now that we’re here.