Religion
for atheists 3 – Kindness*
How do we promote kindness and other
desirable public and private behaviours?
Consider these remarks from atheist
philosopher Alain de Botton about religion and ethics: Religions, on the other hand, have always had far more directive
ambitions, advancing far-reaching ideas about how members of a community should
behave towards one another. (p71)
And again: Christianity never minded creating a moral atmosphere in which people
could point out their flaws to one another and acknowledge that there was room
for improvement in their behaviour. (p85)
De Botton is here acknowledging that theistic
religion has a natural affinity for moral guidance. This arises from the
ethical thinking of theistic faiths that naturally give rise to ethical values that
are tied to the deity rather than to the devotee. Whether right behaviour is
thought of as a means of earning divine favour, avoiding the wrath of judgement
or being thankful for divine mercy, it is there. Ethics and theism go hand in
hand.
Thus Christian theism. In one of the
clearest passages on Christian ethics Paul writes: I urge you therefore brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your
bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God (Rom 12:1). The
following words tell us what it means to ‘present your bodies’ as they talk
about hating evil, loving enemies, showing mercy to the needy, being good
citizens, avoiding sexual immorality, bearing with the weak and so forth. This is typical Pauline material. Clear
moral values are founded on the character and deeds of God (and especially on
his mercy in Christ to put sin to death) and translated into behavioural
imperatives and urgings.
There has been recent debate as to whether
there can be good ethical systems without a religious base. Some atheists have
asserted that religion is not needed to make people good. De Botton is among
their number, although he is aware that the path is difficult. Thus he acknowledges
that atheism has a problem that begins with ... A key assumption of modern western political thinking is that we
should be left alone to live as we like without being nagged, without fear of
moral judgement and without being subject to the whims of authority. Freedom
has become our supreme political virtue (p70). And that means a fear of
state-sanctioned criticism of human follies, lest the opprobrium of ‘nanny
state’ be drawn.
However, he sees the problem as lying
deeper than a reticence in secular moral education but as consisting in doubt
regarding the very foundation of ethics. Thus his note that scepticism leads to
a ... persuasive doubt that anyone could
ever be in a position to know exactly what virtue is, let alone how it might be
safely and judiciously instilled in others (p73) and ... at heart no one any
longer knows what is good or bad (p78). He later faces the necessary
recognition that, for atheists, that we
are the authors of our moral commandments (p80).
Where then for secular ethics? Why, in the
absence of God, should I be kind to my neighbour, stranger and enemy,
especially if being kind counters my self-interest?
De Botton want to have ethics and public
moral instruction but is caught between the absolutising of freedom and the
scepticism of DIY moral values.
Let’s note his suggestions for moral
improvement and then think about what lies under them:
1.
Despite the above
uncertainties, parents have no trouble setting moral standards for their
children, admonishing their observance and reinforcing it with a behavioural
star chart and promised rewards.
2.
Is there place for a gentle
reminder to adults through some kind of adult star chart? (p75).
3.
Real freedom should be
compatible with being harnessed and guided. (p78)
4.
A secularised understanding of
original sin allows us to admit to and attempt to rectify our species-wide
faults as we inch towards moral improvement. (p82)
5.
Public spaces are already not
neutral as libertarians argue they should be. Rather they are typically covered
with commercial messages that attempt to manipulate our minds and behaviours.
Why not use such spaces to give gentle reminders of virtues such as kindness?
(p87-88)
6.
Just as Christianity parades
its positive role models so A well-functioning
secular society would think with similar care about its role models (p95).
De Botton states the assumption
undergirding these as follows: … it is in
the end a sign of immaturity to object too strenuously to being treated like a
child. The libertarian obsession with freedom ignores how much of our original
childhood need for constraint and guidance endures within us, and therefore how
much we stand to learn from paternalistic strategies (p95).
The assumption here is that the human
problem is fundamentally one of incomplete development or immaturity and thus
the solution lies in paternalistic restraint to protect us from one another’s
immaturity and providing reminders of morality to help nudge us to moral
behaviour.
Is immaturity really the human problem? If
so, we might expect immoral behaviour to be less common as people age and are
better educated – for their maturity would lead them to better behaviours. On
the other hand, the worst of immorality would be found among the young and
poorly educated. The Duke of Wellington had a wise saying on this: educate
people without religion and you make them but clever devils.
At this point Christian theism gives a very
different diagnosis of the human condition and it lies with Scripture texts
that De Botton himself cites (Ps 51; Rom 5:12, p82). Our root problem does not
lie in immaturity or being deprived of moral education, but in a sinful nature
arising from our rebellion against God. Likewise, the root solution does not
lie in billboards exhorting kindness, but rather in the kindness of God who
provided his Son as a sacrifice to lift the penalty of sin and to break its
power (Rom 3:21-26).
In essence De Botton leaves us with a moral
code resting on our own authority and moral improvement resting on our underlying
capacity for learning and maturity. In removing the spiritual base of religious
ethics and its motives for right behaviour he has done more than remove
religious mythology. He has left morality without motivation and foundation.
Yet again, De Botton’s attempt to harvest
the good fruits of religion without embracing its spiritual roots looks thin
and we are left wondering if it was worth the effort.
* This post is a response to chapter three
of Religion for Atheists by Alain De
Botton (Hamish Hamilton, 2012).
