God in America

I’m a member of the Counsel for Secular Humanism. The last newsletter I received from the counsel was advertising a debate schedule for November 2 in Chicago on “whether believing in the existence of a god affects the nation in any moral, social or political sense. “

The main participants will be Edwin Kagin, the legal director of American Atheists, and William Lane Craig. I’m familiar with William Lane Craig and I suspect that Kagin is about to get his clock cleaned. You see Kagin probably expects an honest exchange and I'm not all that sure that Craig will let himself be shackled by little things like truth and honesty.

I remember one lecture by Craig, where he reeled off the handful of documents providing possible historical evidence that Jesus of Nazareth actually existed, and then declared that all historians accepted them as incontrovertible proof that Jesus of Nazareth lived, taught and died in Palestine in the first century. This was a statement which I knew to be untrue and which I was pretty sure Craig knew was untrue as well. If Craig didn't simply mispeak, then it was a lie that he was hoping his audience would accept as fact.

This is the Eusebius approach to theology and evangelicalism which believes that lying for the benefit of the faith is ok. In other words, the end justifies the means. This only works if the flock never learns, or never accepts, that you lied to them. With modern communications, more, and more, religion has to rely on the latter to keep the faithful in line. It’s really too bad that humans are so good at self delusion. If they weren’t, religion would be an endangered species. But would that be a good thing?

That gets us back to the original question; does believing in God affect the nation in any moral, social or political sense? I don’t see how anyone in his right mind could answer that question in the negative. Of course it affects the country morally, socially and politically.

The easiest one is socially. The local church is still a focus of social activities in many places and there is nothing wrong with this. Humans are social animals and contact with other humans is something that most people need and relish. Of course a secular social club would work just as well, but sometimes you just can’t fight tradition. Are the social activities used to foster church dogma? Maybe, but I doubt that’s the objective. In other words I don’t think there are ulterior motives here.

As for politically, DUH, do you think that we would be fighting as much over things like abortion access, stem cell research and gay marriage if there wasn’t a belief in God? I’ll grant you that one can believe in God without getting all wrapped up in religion, and the claims of religion to speak for God, but that’s usually not the case. Most people equate their religion with God. I would say that right about now the belief in God, and religion, is one of the driving factors in the political spectrum of the United States.

That brings us to morally. The faithful would argue that it is morality that defines the political position. The faithful would say that they take the political positions they take because they’re concerned about “moral values.” I’ll concede that, but I want to talk about something else, I want to talk about the question of whether the removal of the belief in God would affect the moral behavior of the country.

Unfortunately I have to say yes, I believe that it would. I’m well aware that there is no current difference in the morality of religious folks and secular folks; as a matter of fact some surveys indicate that secular individuals are MORE moral and ethical than religious people. However I’m also aware that the current pool of secular individuals represents the highest strata of education and intelligence in the population.

Most of the intelligent and educated are people who would probably adhere to the philosophy of Diogenes and Plato that virtue is its own reward. Obviously there are exceptions to this rule but it clearly applies in general. But what about the lower portion of the bell curve? I don’t think it’s unfair to say that, even today, most crime is associated with that portion of the population that has the lowest intelligence and the least education. Much of the reason for this is economic rather than moral philosophy but the overwhelming majority of people that are economically deprived (that’s a euphemism for poor) are also morally beyond reproach. I’m willing to bet that most of them are strong people of faith too. If you removed their faith, would they still be moral?

Seneca the Younger said “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” Napoleon observed that “Religion is what keeps the poor from murdering the rich.” Both are implying that religion helps hold the lower orders in check and therefore provides a benefit to society. If one removed the belief in the authority of God and the fear of punishment after death what would happen? I’m not sure that I can answer that question completely but I suspect that it would remove the constraints that are currently holding a portion of the population in check.

One more quote, this one from Polybius.

"Since the masses of the people are inconstant, full of unruly desires, passionate, and reckless of consequences, they must be filled with fears to keep them in order. The ancients did well, therefore, to invent gods, and the belief in punishment after death."

It’s rather a depressing thought that something as irrational as religion may have a value to society that we can’t do without isn’t it?