HOW CAN I BE MORAL IF I DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD?
by Michael Anthony Ricciardi

    Let's just get this out in the open now: I do not have any faith or belief in any personal deity--one that dispenses grace, goodness, and/or miracles according to ‘his’ or ‘her’ will. I do not acknowledge any ‘supernatural’ agent or agency that intentionally intervenes in human affairs (like say, one that chooses sides in a war), or selectively answers peoples' prayers. I do not and can not abide any willful deity that plays with tornados and trailer parks. I do not support or espouse any formal, organized religious notion or expression of any such 'god'.  
   I acknowledge only a creative principle at work in the Universe. I also acknowledge a wish fulfilling tendency in the human mind, a desire to be part of some greater whole or purpose, which is the outgrowth, or by-product, of our unique self-awareness and knowledge of our eventual death and decay. This is all that the evidence of my perception and experience allows. What is not forbidden is compulsory.
  There are many labels that others use to describe a person such as me. Unlike religious labels, labels for non-religious persons are about what he/she does not believe in, or does not possess (such as in the word agnostic, meaning 'no knowledge’). Implicitly, the non-religious (non-theist) person is viewed as being in deficit.* Although I have personally used such terms to simplify social discourse, no such label adequately, or truthfully, describes what I do ‘believe in’. But these label issues are not the central point of this writing.
  The main point is that non-religious, or non-theistic, persons are implicitly viewed, by many of our more devout brethren, as morally deficient. For, to the religious person, Morality issues from the expressed will of god, as documented in a given religion's holy book or books. Insofar as a religion presumes to embody god's will (as defined by that religion), religion claims to be the source of morality, and thus of 'the good'. To the pious, to be without religious belief, is to be 'immoral'. Science itself is held up as an example of an activity devoid of god, and therefore devoid of morality. This viewpoint is illustrated best by a discussion I had with a Christian acquaintance many years ago. At some point in our conversation, perhaps in exasperation, I confessed that I did not believe in any 'god', as previously described. He took a moment to digest this information, and then asked me in all sincerity: 
   	"Well, how can you be moral if you don't believe in God?" 
   His question, I believed, was not meant as an exclusively Christian question. To my acquaintance, it seemed that any religion's god would be preferable to no god at all. Only this belief made me morally redeemable in his eyes. Despite feeling a bit insulted by this naïve interrogative, my acquaintance had in fact touched upon a significant issue in my 'existential quest'. For, it was indeed a question that I had been quietly asking myself since that day I walked out of church when I was seventeen years old. 

  What follows then, after much time to reflect, is my response to this question:

  The answer, my theistic comrade, lies within the very religion you embrace. In the gospel of Matthew, the person calling himself 'The Son of Man' enjoins his followers to 'do unto others as you would have them do unto you'. Biblical scholars sometimes refer to this as the 'law of reciprocity'. Common folk know it as The Golden Rule. Whichever, it embodies the fundamental basis of moral conduct: reciprocal beneficence. Without any reference to 'god', the golden rule instructs us to treat others the way we wish to be treated, that is, in kind. A young child easily understands the meaning of this law: don't poke Tommy in the eye, or steal his toys, because you wouldn't want Tommy to do this to you. It is a remarkably objective, humanistic dictate. 
   A religious scholar might point out that the Law of Reciprocity as expressed by Jesus is merely an expanded recapitulation of the second commandment: love thy neighbor as thyself, and that the first commands us to worship (i.e., 'love') the one God. True, and yes, of course, we should expect a ‘high priest' (in this case, Moses) of any religion to put his god out there first, demanding absolute faithfulness, otherwise, they’re ‘out of business’, so to speak. But the second commandment is none the less a separate commandment and it stands on its own. 
   I will ask at this point, apart from the belief in god itself, what moral behavior is not covered by this reciprocal rule? Is god--any god--required for the understanding and practice of reciprocal beneficence?
   A religious moralist, might protest this by asserting the origin of this reciprocity rule to be the Christian religion--a belief system preached by Jesus of Nazareth, whom some called the Christ. Such a person might question the validity of embracing the message, but denying/rejecting the 'messenger', as though it were a 'package deal', somehow. To this I would respond, once again, with words from the Christian gospel: 'There are those who say 'yes' to god, but they do not do his will, and there are those who say 'no' to god, and yet do his will'. Here we are given scriptural evidence that faith in god is not required; that someone can say 'no' to god (as in the word 'atheist'), yet still manage to fulfill this god's will (and we would need to presume here that a given god's will is just and benign). Still, this might be construed as mere sententious cleverness and an avoidance of the 'we said it first' objection. So then, let us explore the historical basis of this law of reciprocity a bit further, a bit deeper.
   Nearly fifteen centuries before the Son of Man walked the earth and preached forgiveness, an 'old master' from the province of Lu in southeast China, preached a social philosophy he called jen, or 'love for all'. His name was Master Kung, also known as Kung Fu Su (or 'Confucius'). Master Kung expressed jen in this way: what you do not want done to yourself, do not do to others. This would seem to be a 'negative' phrasing of the same law expressed later by Jesus. Some philosophers will assert the superior phrasing of Master Kung's version, in that in does not offer a 'loop hole' for masochistic personalities. Regardless, Kung Fu Su became the greatest 'secular' lawgiver of early Chinese civilization. In the West, his name is synonymous with 'wisdom'. His philosophy spawned 'ten thousand rules' (no doubt the reason he would become despised) for proper courtesy (li) and conduct in all situations and circumstances--not unlike how the ten commandments spawned the myriad proscriptions of the Mosaic code in Judaic culture. 
    That a profoundly simple injunction could evolve into such a complex system of rules, is perhaps indicative of a broader natural law that some religions choose to ignore. But I digress…
   And let us not forget those ancient Greeks (the architects of modern secularism), who thought of nearly everything first. From these ancient thinkers comes the word agape, which means 'universal love', as distinct from eros, which is sexual love. Agape was an extension of familial love to a 'family of man'. It was the basis of 'the good' as experienced in societal being.
   Jesus was a wise teacher, and I believe he spoke the way he spoke for a good reason. Perhaps he understood that even within the same religious culture, there are always religious disagreements. And there will always be others--foreigners with strange philosophies--who will not believe what you believe, may even disbelieve…and so, he made his pitch for social (and political) morality in decidedly human terms -- as if to say “Hey, this is just between us folks…”
   So then, if ever I am asked again: ‘How can you be moral if you don't believe in God?’, or some such religious incredulity, I have my reply: 
   I practice the Golden Rule…care to join me?

Michael Anthony Ricciardi

* There is a recent reversal of this bias, found in the scientist-promoted label 'brite'…a term implying that those not agreeing with the brite view are 'dim'.

wc: 1377