Can you be an atheist and an environmentalist?
Note from the author: Due to the fact that this article has often been misunderstood by commenters, please read the following carefully. I would like to clarify that: a) Atheists can act as morally, or even more morally, than theists. b) Many atheists live very moral lives. c) Atheists CAN be environmentalists. Many atheists, and theists, are also concerned for preserving the environment. d) The point of the article is not pragmatics (how people act) but epistemology (how we know how to act). In other words, if a person believes we ought to “save the Earth” (ie, it’s not just my own personal preference, but that everyone should do the same) then this is not just a subjective opinion, it is an objective moral imperative. It is not a mere observation of how things are; it is an observation of how things ought to be. This being the case, we should ask the question: What is the foundation for objective moral laws without an authoritative (ie, non-subjective) law-giver? That is the point of the article. I, a former atheist, am not suggesting that an atheist cannot be an environmentalist; rather that I think there is no valid rationale for objective moral values without God.
Ask anyone “Should we protect our environment?” and almost without exception they will answer yes. Thousands of square meters of forest area are lost to deforestation every second around the world: A total of 20,000 hectares per day, equivalent to an area twice the size of Paris. [1] Who would say that we shouldn’t be at all concerned about air pollution, animal rights, or the permanent destruction of our planet’s rainforests?
The trickier question is why we should be so concerned.
Why save the Earth?
It may seem like an absurd question, because concern for our natural environment seems so obvious, and … well, natural.
“Naturalism” is the worldview that the natural world is all that exists: Nothing that cannot be explained physically and via scientific experiment exists. But if the natural world is all there is, what’s to stop human beings from doing what comes naturally to them? If humans are merely animals, essentially no different than cats or monkeys, shouldn’t humans just do what’s natural, including wreck the environment if that’s what they “naturally” do? Where does responsibility to the Earth come in?
When we say we “should” do this or that, it implies a moral responsibility: That a particular action is morally preferable, or, on the other hand, morally deplorable. But this is exactly what naturalism does not allow for. There is no “ought”, there only “is”. If we are merely animals, what we call morality is merely an illusion, for a moral law requires some sort of outside standard, which is exactly what’s missing in a naturalist view of the world.
Where morality comes from
Contemporary philosophers struggle with the issue of morality when they approach it from a naturalistic perspective. Atheist philosopher Michael Onfray for example says our society is not truly secular, it is actually more like secular Christianity, and that without God we can be free to devise our own morality. He concludes that the basis for our understanding of what is moral is rooted in God’s existence.
The argument could be stated something like this:
- Real moral laws exist. We are obligated to do good and avoid evil.
- Either the atheistic (God doesn’t exist) or the theistic (God exists) conception of reality is correct.
- But the atheistic view is incompatible with the existence of real good and evil.
- Therefore the theistic view of reality is correct; God exists. [2]
Naturalism is incompatible with morality. Philosopher Greg Koukl gives the following illustration:
One evening in the middle of a Scrabble game, you notice the phrase “do not go” formed in the random spray of letter tiles on the table. Is this a command that ought to be obeyed? Of course not. It’s not a command at all, just a random collection of letters.
Commands are communications between two minds. Chance might conceivably create the appearance of a moral rule, but there can be no command if no one is speaking. Since this phrase is accidental, it can safely be ignored.
Put simply, a moral law requires a moral law-giver. In atheism, no moral law-giver exists; therefore there can be no real moral laws.
Can you be an atheist AND an environmentalist?
So this helps explain why there is (or should be) internal tension for the atheist environmentalist. This does not mean an atheist cannot, in practical terms, be moral and/or an environmentalist; of course a person may be both. But it leads us to question where the grounding for such a combination could possibly come from.
On one hand they (or you?) believe that the wanton destruction of our natural environment is wrong. And it is wrong. Not just wrong in the sense of “I don’t personally like it” but in the sense of being objectively wrong.
But on the other hand, there’s no grounding for such a belief in objective right and wrong apart from belief in God. Greg Koukl continues:
If I stood at an intersection and put my hand up, cars might stop voluntarily, but they’d have no duty to respond. They could ignore me with no fear of punishment because I have no authority to direct traffic. If, on the other hand, a policeman replaced me, traffic would come to a halt.
What is the difference between the policeman and me? My authority is not grounded. It doesn’t rest on anything solid. The policeman, however, represents the government, so his authority is justified.
Standing firmly in mid-air
Without God claiming an objective moral rule loses its grounding because there is nothing (no one) to give it legitimate authority. You lose your grounding: It’s like trying to stand firmly in mid-air:
A moral atheist is like a man sitting down to dinner who doesn’t believe in farmers, ranchers, fishermen, or cooks. He believes the food just appears, with no explanation and no sufficient cause. This is silly. Either his meal is an illusion, or someone provided it. In the same way, if morals really exist, as I have argued, then some cause adequate to explain the effect must account for them. God is the most reasonable solution. [3]
Something to think about
If you believe that destroying our Earth is wrong, really wrong, this necessitates belief in objective moral values, which in turn necessitates the existence of a God to provide the grounding for moral laws. Think about this, and please continue to think about some of the resources for further reading listed below.
Notes & Further Reading:
[1] “Net forest loss 20,000 hectares per day”, Cited 20 March 2008.
[2] Adapted from Peter Keeft, “Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God” Cited 20 March 2008.
[3] Gregory Koukl, “Evil as Evidence for God” Cited 20 March 2008.
Gary, thank you for pointing our that statement in the article. It did not accurately communicate what I wanted to say, so I removed it. Clearly a person can hold atheist and environmentalist beliefs concurrently; my objection was not to that fact, but to how objective morality could be grounded in an atheistic worldview.
Re “red herrings” and the Bible, I was not saying that those parts are irrelevant, just that they do not directly pertain to the particular argument being made. (The moral argument doesn’t depend on the Bible, after all, it’s just referring to God’s existence.) Differences in opinion about the Bible do not negate absolute moral values, it only proves that people have different opinions about what is actually true.
For example, in your second paragraph first you say that “the moral law-giver in question is morally wrong,” and then “objective moral values do not exist.” Which is it? How can someone be morally wrong if objective moral values do not exist? The most you could say (if all morality is subjective) is that you don’t personally like their views, but to say the other person is actually wrong requires objective moral values. On one hand you think some parts of the Bible are objectively morally wrong, but then on the other you don’t seem to believe objective moral values exist? This is exactly the kind of internal tension I mentioned in the original article.
Re the moral argument, you have demonstrated that the argument is logically valid. Validity, when speaking about a deductive logical argument, refers to the structure of the argument. An argument is valid “if and only if it takes a form that makes it impossible for the premises to be true and the conclusion nevertheless to be false.” The argument I provided (and the two arguments you came up with) are all valid arguments. An argument can have two untrue premises but still be a valid argument since validity only refers to the structure of the argument. However, to be true, an argument must be both valid and sound. An argument is sound if and only if all its premises are true. See here for more extensive definitions of validity and soudness: Validity and Soundness @ the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
In the two arguments you provided, the problem is not that they are circular. A circular argument would be saying something like “I like chocolate ice cream because it’s my favorite kind.” The problem with the two arguments is that the first premise is unsound because it is a non-sequitur, ex the existence or not of Santa Claus has nothing to do with the existence of moral values.
So because the moral argument is valid (Dr Craig has debated many top atheist philosophers and I don’t recall any of them saying the argument is not valid), to disprove it, either premise 1 must be untrue, or premise 2 must be untrue, or both must be untrue. Which do you believe are untrue? Regarding premise 1 (“If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.”) Dr Craig explains some of the reasons to believe that it is true in this video: How do you know objective morality is based on God?.
Re premise 2 (“Objective moral values and duties do exist.”), I’m not sure whether you believe certain things are really right and wrong. Sometimes you say that such-and-such is actually morally wrong, but then you claim that “absolutes” don’t exist. Ex, is “killing babies for fun” really wrong (ie, objectively morally wrong), or is it just a subjective opinion? It cannot be both. If it is objectively morally wrong (in that case, it would be false to say “killing babies for fun is okay”) then objective moral values exist. If it is not objectively morally wrong, then there’s nothing wrong with killing babies for fun.
(Aside: The existence of objective moral laws doesn’t mean how we behave does not depend on the circumstances: Our behavior necessarily will depend on many variables. But talking about making a “right” moral choice in a moral dilemma based on those variables only makes sense if there exists a correct choice to make in the first place.)
If you’d prefer to read an article rather than watch a video, Dr Craig has an article here explaining the argument: No God? No Good
Hopefully this has at least clarified my position and the argument being made.
Mr. Hewer,
Thank you for your response. You mentioned in your reply “I, a former atheist, am not suggesting that an atheist cannot be an environmentalist,” yet in your article, you clearly state “it seems as though a person can be an atheist, or be an environmentalist, but not both.” This is a sentiment I wanted to point out as being obviously wrong, having no basis in actual fact or practice, and is actually rather rude. It’s no less ridiculous than saying you can either be a Christian or you can be right-handed, but not both. I know of no atheist, agnostic, free thinker or secular humanist with anything less that a healthy respect for nature, the environment, and life.
Your argument on objective moral laws is also worth refuting, and you mentioned I had failed to do so. My point in listing moral issues with which I do not agree was that the moral law-giver in question is morally wrong. Therefore, objective moral values do not exist. Morals, values and virtues are invariably subjective.
As far as proving the existence of God through your “objective moral values” formula, let’s test it by integrating a variable:
1. If Santa Claus does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, Santa Claus exists.
This may seem a trite twist of words, but in effect, it amounts to the same. That’s the flawed logic to which I was referring. Circular logic always proves itself. You can replace God with anything and the formula remains no less inviolate. The setup reflects a predisposed bias.
Further, this argument is based entirely on the assumption that morals do, indeed, come from supernatural sources. Let’s see what else does:
1. If God does not exist, cats and airplanes do not exist.
2. Cats and airplanes do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
Again, circular logic = failed reasoning.
If the “red herrings” (eg. specific Bible quotes) you mentioned are, in fact, irrelevant, then what parts of the Bible are relevant? Are we free to pick and choose which parts of the Bible are applicable to modern life? Most people do, which is why we have over 30,000 denominations of Christianity alone, not to mention the variations on other Abrahamic faiths. Doesn’t that also negate absolutes (eg. objective moral values)?
Gary and Daniel, thank you for taking the time to comment. However since many people seem to be misunderstanding the point of this article, I’ve added a preface to it, which I have copied here:
[ I would like to clarify that: a) Atheists can act as morally, or even more morally, than theists. b) Many atheists live very moral lives. c) Atheists CAN be environmentalists. Many atheists, and theists, are also concerned for preserving the environment. d) The point of the article is not pragmatics (how people act) but epistemology (how we know how to act). In other words, if a person believes we ought to "save the Earth" (ie, it's not just my own personal preference, but that everyone should do the same) then this is not just a subjective opinion, it is an objective moral imperative. It is not a mere observation of how things are; it is an observation of how things ought to be. This being the case, we should ask the question: What is the foundation for objective moral laws without an authoritative (ie, non-subjective) law-giver? That is the point of the article. I, a former atheist, am not suggesting that an atheist cannot be an environmentalist; rather that I think there is no valid rationale for objective moral values without God. ]
You have stated that the argument put forth in the article is “absolutely ridiculous … a sickening marriage of arrogance and ignorance … using false logic … no basis in fact.” Yet you have done nothing to refute the argument, and raised a number of red herrings (which I could comment on, but I have already done so in previous comments, and most are either untrue or irrelevant). I don’t doubt that you behave morally in many ways, and for that I commend you and respect your commitment, but that’s not the point here at all. The argument is that if objective moral laws exist (such as “destroying our Earth is wrong” or “humanity itself is a goal worth working toward”) then those objective moral laws require a moral law-giver. In other words (in philosophic terms):
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist.
3. Therefore, God exists.
That is a valid argument; so one of the two premises must be proven false in order to disprove it. There is a video by Dr William Lane Craig here which explains the argument more fully.
Hopefully this at least helps explain the argument.
Belief in a deity does not create morality. The ancient Aztecs believed their deities required continuous human sacrifice in order to preserve the universe. Yet we now recognize this as amoral.
Also, up until the last 200 years or so, passages in the New and Old testament were used to support slavery (http://www.religioustolerance.org/sla_bibl2.htm), and torturing/killing witches ( Exodus 22:18 ). Within 50 years of coming to America, the Puritans started crushing people between boulders for being witches. You can see why England was happy to be rid of them.
Are you kidding me? I love my planet! I’m actually dubbed the Office Hippie because I sort my recycling at work — and, to my knowledge, I’m the only atheist in the entire office.
But regardless, this article as absolutely ridiculous. “If you believe that destroying our Earth is wrong, really wrong, this necessitates belief in objective moral values, which in turn necessitates the existence of a God to provide the grounding for moral laws.” This statement is a sickening marriage of arrogance and ignorance. Darren Hewer is using false logic to make sweeping assumptions about humanity that have no basis in fact, whatsoever. He would do well to sit with a happy free thinker and actually learn something not only of the human condition, but of the myriad sources of human morality.
I hold myself, my friends and my family to a higher moral code than what the Bible would have us be. I disagree with the Bible (and with God) on many moral issues: dictatorships, slavery, the subjugation of women, the mutilation of children’s genitals, torture and murder for perceived offenses, from homosexuality to gathering sticks on a Saturday, etc., etc. Yet I donate monthly to St. Jude’s Children’s Hospital and to Amnesty International not because I hope for Eternal Reward but because humanity itself is a goal worth working toward.
Lastly, aren’t Christians predisposed to neglecting the Earth? Does the Bible not say “Anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God” (James 4:4)” Aren’t the plants and animals here merely for the use of Man? (Genesis) Why even bother worrying when Jesus Himself advised “Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about itself” (Matthew 6:34)
Lose the superstition and everything else in life comes up a whole level in beauty, importance and wonder.
John, thank you for your comments. I’m familiar with evolutionary explanations of morality, but find them insufficient. See for example the article Evolution Can’t Explain Morality.
Although you say I should “Think before you speak” you’ve made several claims about Christian belief which are entirely untrue. For example, “religious people are more destructive of the environment” and “There isnt anything in the bible about keeping the earth clean.” In fact the first chapters describe God’s creation of the Earth (the fact God created it is a good enough reason to respect and take care of it) but also instructions to care for it. See for example the article Is Christianity anti-Environmental?.
Moreover, I think the existence (or non-existence) of an afterlife should be a huge positive incentive to take care of the Earth. Given that doing so is a good thing (that both atheists and theists agree about) it would seem to matter a lot more if you have an afterlife to consider your behavior. If a person is annihilated (ceases to exist) upon their death, it would seem they would care a lot less about their actions than if they had an eternity to think about them … this is in fact why I think any naturalistic system of morality is innately inferior to a theistic system: “Human beings rightly crave justice, and any system of morality that is unjust would be by definition immoral. But if there is no afterlife (and therefore no final accountability for a person’s actions), then life itself is ultimately unfair since good deeds will often go unrewarded and bad behavior will often go unpunished. Therefore, only a moral system that includes an afterlife (and by implication, God) where justice regarding a person’s actions can be appropriately meted out can be just. Any moral system that does not (viz. atheism) is immoral and therefore deficient.” Just to be clear, I will say again that many atheists live much better moral lives than many theists. But here I am referring to the worldview, the rationale behind those actions. Which makes the most sense?
I see youre not familiar with evolutionary psychology? It explains how morals evolved over time to facilitate group living.
Anyways, i find it quite interesting that you claim atheists are immoral because we are just animals. We dont believe in an afterlife. This life is all we have. Why would we destroy the environment we live in? We still live in it dont we?
I find it to be the opposite, that is, religious people are more destructive of the environment. God will provide will he not? There isnt anything in the bible about keeping the earth clean, so it wont affect you getting into heaven so why do you care? When you die you go to paradise, so if the earth is polluted, thats only 100 years of discomfort compared to eternity with God.
Think before you speak. Youre making people look bad.
Hi everyone, it seems like we’re going to get a bunch of comments on this article today (must have been linked somewhere or been passed around) so I thought I should respond just to clarify things a bit.
Pombo, in the article I state that “This [grounding of morality problem] does not mean an atheist cannot, in practical terms, be moral and/or an environmentalist; of course a person may be both.” So just so there are no misunderstandings, I acknowledge that an atheist can behave just as morally (or even better) than a theist. There’s no question about that. I apologize because I should have been clearer and stated that explicitly.
The question is, when a person who does not believe in God states that “We should do ___” or “You shouldn’t ___” where does that moral imperative come from? Where is the foundation for such a statement? If there is no such thing as objective moral truths, how could anyone say another person “should” do anything at all? And if there are objective moral truths, where do these truths come from? For example, is “a single life is best lived with a community” your personal opinion (in which case, it’s merely opinion which others are free to ignore it) or is it a moral law which is objective, thus requiring a moral law-giver?
This is not an issue of hate. There is nothing hateful in the article. As I’ve said, the point is not whether atheists can behave morally. Clearly atheists can behave morally, as I did (well, I tried) when I was an atheist. The question is where does such moral behavior find its foundation. As a Christian, if I really believe that the Christian faith is true, the most loving thing I can do is try to help others reconsider their own worldviews in light of what I believe is true.
Dale, what most Christians you know think about the matter doesn’t really concern me. Many Christians are dumb, just like many atheists are dumb. (Idiocy is an equal-opportunity affliction.) The important thing is what makes sense, not what “most people” believe.
Appealing to evolution as a solution is really no solution at all. As Dr Michael Ruse, an atheist philosopher, says: “Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth…. Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, [ethics] is illusory.” So from this perspective, morality as we think about it is just an illusion.
The important point is that if morals just come from people (or are merely illusions) then they are entirely subjective opinions. That means that nothing is really right or wrong. So rather than saying that protecting the Earth is a good thing (which all of us seem to agree is true) all we could say is “I like protecting the Earth” in the same way we say “I like ice cream.” Saying something like “We ought to protect the Earth” would make no sense; it would be like saying “We ought to like the color blue.” However, if objective moral values do exist and are grounded in God’s identity, then the appeal to the law “We ought to protect the Earth” makes sense if it was grounded in the moral law-giver.
On the concept of moral relativism (the idea that there is no such thing as objective moral truth, that people just make it up for themselves) see here for a thoughtful discussion: What is Moral Relativism? Regarding the existence of objective morals without God, see for example Does Morality Point to God?. A brief summary of the argument (which in this article I am merely using the hot-button topic of the environment to illustrate) can be read here: Is it Possible to be Good Without God?
Hope this helps clarify the position of the article.
Theists do you ever wonder why atheists are upset. It’s strawmen articles like this. I know you mean well Darren, but you’ve basically announced that I don’t have morals, which is insulting.
Let me turn it around on you so you might see how insulting it is to assume on another’s behalf:
A believer has no reason to care about the environment, since the rapture will soon be upon them and the long term keeping of Earths resources is unnecessary. Nor do believers have true morals since they only follow written traditions without thought of context and how society has changed. Including among them, forced marriage, conditions for human slavery, child genital mutilation, and the stoning to death of homosexuals.
Do you see the above Darren? That’s how the blame and propaganda can be shifted to blame others. There is so much blame and hate these days. Are you not a Christian to love the differences in others? Let’s not have divisions where there need not be any, namely the proper care of our planet’s long term health.
Contrast that the atheist must realize that Earth may very well be the only source of life they have. If future generations are to succeed, resources must be properly managed as best as possible with the needs and wants of the world community. The atheist in realizing that a single life is best lived with a community is sensitive to the needs and wants of other people and uses empathy and reason to guide their social policies.
You entire premise is faulty. Morals come from people, who then codify them into religions so that religious people can claim morals come from religion. But religious folks are just making things up along with everyone else, they pick and choose from their own scriptures, and they choose their own scriptures in the first place for the morality described therein. So you see, all morality comes from the same place, which is evolution.
Moreover, many a Christian I know assumes all environmentalists are atheists, and that no true Christian would ever be an environmentalist, so you’re not much aligned with your own people.
Huh…I thought I commented on this article ages ago, but I guess I only did it in my head.
The thing is, it’s not just about what I want. There are other people in the world, and it is reasonable and rational to assume that they want things too, at least as badly as I want things. Reason compels me to admit that everything else being equal, they should get these things, as much as I should get the things I want. And if each of us has to give up a little so that as many of us as possible can get the things we want–the things we agree we deserve–that too is rational and fair.
There are many significant ways in which I am different from a shark, or a tree, or a coral reef. I have trouble figuring out what goes through their heads (or rudimentary nervous systems, or basic photosensitive cells), what would fulfil them in the ways that I enjoy being fulfilled. There are times when our interests will be at odds with each other. But it is rational to assume that, at minimum, they share my basic wish–what other human beings agree is my right–to live unmolested. And whenever that is possible, there is no good reason for me to deprive them of it.
“They confirm the point of the article; that if there is no real objective right or wrong, “I don’t personally like it” is the only valid reason for doing it”
I’m sorry I was adressing what -I- thought the point of the article was:
“a person can be an atheist, or be an environmentalist, but not both”.
1) “There’s no necessity for me to do it… I’ll be dead by the time any real effects are felt”
There is a problem with that argument. If the people of every era took that attitude towards the environment or, in fact, nearly any issue from the economy to civic development to technological advancement, they would all have suffered far more than if they had taken care of their problems with an eye towards the future. Something similar is illustrated by a famous thought experiment known as the prisoner’s dilemna (http://prisonersdilemma.groenefee.nl/); as with the various societies, the the two individuals may win when they take advantage of the other’s generosity, but on a larger level, that behaviour is actually the worst choice.
2)”There’s no justification to try to convince someone they should do it. (“should” implies a moral standard”
There is no reason for “should” to imply a moral standard: if you tell someone that they should get their engine checked if they want to avoid a break-down, you’re not appealing to morality, but rather their desire to avoid a breakdown. Environmentalists can do the same thing by appealing to the things that people already value: clean air, clean water and the well-being of their children.
“a person could say “I don’t give a flying fart about the environment, I’ll be dead by the time any real effects are felt so why would I care about it?” and that would be equally (equally notice) as morally valid as the alternative. That the two opposite perspectives could be morally equivalent seems misguided, to me at least.”
Only if you define moral as “having the approval of God” instead of “that which benefits other people”.
Wallaby07, thank you for your comments. They confirm the point of the article; that if there is no real objective right or wrong, “I don’t personally like it” is the only valid reason for doing it. But that also means that 1) There’s no necessity for me to do it, 2) There’s no justification to try to convince someone they should do it. (“should” implies a moral standard) If there is no real right or wrong, then a person could say “I don’t give a flying fart about the environment, I’ll be dead by the time any real effects are felt so why would I care about it?” and that would be equally (equally notice) as morally valid as the alternative. That the two opposite perspectives could be morally equivalent seems misguided, to me at least.
(Edit)
“Devastation” not “Devestation”
“On one hand they (or you?) believe that the wanton destruction of our natural environment is wrong. And it is wrong. Not just wrong in the sense of “I don’t personally like it” but in the sense of being objectively wrong.”
Actually, “I don’t personally like it” is a perfectly valid reason to be an environmentalist. People don’t need to believe that a supernatural being dissaproves of ecological devestation in order to realize that its consequences will be unpleasant for them.
Great point. I’ve been giving this issue some thought too lately. I can’t really see why an atheist would not just live hedonistically, a la Oscar Wilde, since sans God, there is no moral code we should live by.