Do Atheists Sin?
What I mean is, do they struggle with not being able to live up to a moral standard? Do they feel Paul’s tension within them:
We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me.
Or, is there no struggle for them. Do they simply consider whatever they do as “good”? Is there no “good” or “bad” so that it is not even an issue? I don’t know. I am sure it depends on which atheist you talk to.
But I struggle. I also know I would struggle if I were an atheist, that is, unless I were to abandon all effort at a “moral” life. Then, I suppose, the struggle would be over, or rather, lost.
Of course they sin in the absolute sense. Of course I do too. We all do. In fact, it’s pretty bad. Again, Paul…
They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen.
Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.
Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind, to do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they are senseless, faithless, heartless, ruthless. Although they know God’s righteous decree that those who do such things deserve death, they not only continue to do these very things but also approve of those who practice them.
I doubt they see this. If they are humanists, which in mind is not logically compatible with atheism, then we are OK. Humans are wonderful. Religion, that is the problem, spoils everything.
But I know there must be atheists out there who see some sort of human predicament. I read something about a quote from Dawkins, something about “struggling against our genes”. So I think they are out there, atheists who see a problem.
I see a problem.
Of course, there are possible naturalistic explanations, I know, but my question is, do most atheists even see a problem?
This is not a challenge. I was just thinking about it. I was reading Romans 1 the other day and got to thinking about the human predicament. And then I was reading over at Memoirs of an Ex-Christian, and came across this statement:
I have now reached a place of peace regarding my position, and have begun to build a new world view based on four beliefs: (1) my life is valuable for its own sake; (2) I’m not a second-class citizen in the universe, deriving meaning and purpose from some other mind; (3) I am not inherently evil, but inherently human, and (4) I possess the rational potential to make a positive difference in this world.*
Paul didn’t see it that way, that’s for sure. I can’t see it either.
Moral Midnight
In 1947, the Board of Directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago started the so-called “Doomsday Clock“. The idea is that they move it closer to midnight when world developments seem to be moving closer to the destruction of the world by nuclear war or other destructive technologies or environmental degradation.
I think we need a moral/spiritual version of the Doomsday Clock, one that indicates how close we are to the destruction of civilization that results from moral and spiritual decay. I guess first we must define midnight. I thought one good definition could be found in Genesis 6:5, just before God destroyed the earth in Noak’s day: “Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually(Gen 6:5 NASB).” Another good definition would be in Romans 1:28-32:
And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them (NASB).
Based on these definitions of midnight, I think I’ll put the clock at 11:55.
Chaucer and Changing Priorities
A character in Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales tells a story of an ancient knight who had a beautiful daughter whose beauty was exceeded only by her own chastity, gentleness and virtue. On day, as she walked through the market, she caught the eye of a lecherous and corrupt judge, who immediately set his heart on having her for his physical pleasure. He arranged for another criminal to bring a false charge to the court against the noble knight.
On the appointed day, this false witness came to the court. He claimed that the noble knight had stolen his slave girl at birth and that the girl was not his daughter at all. Though the knight brought many reputable witnesses on his behalf, and each in his turn testified and gave evidence that the girl was the knight’s offspring, yet the evil judge ruled against the poor knight. This judge ordered that the girl be brought to the court and placed under his care.
The sad knight returned home and called his daughter. He told her of the evil man’s scheme and the court order. With a heavy heart, he told her that she must die rather than be dishonored by the lecherous judge. Though she fainted from despair, yet the noble girl agreed, and asked only that her father use his expertise to make her death quick. She then fainted again, and as she lay there on the floor, the poor knight drew his sword and beheaded his beautiful daughter.
He brought her head to the judge, and when the people saw it, they rose up against the judge, tortured him, and finally hanged him and his accomplices.
This is a tragic story, and I do not agree with the knight’s actions, but I post it because of what it says about our modern culture. How far we have come! We have come so far from the values of the ancients! We do not value virtue at all.
Hypocrisy
Whenever someone in the public eye is caught in some indecency or tresspass, and that person happens to have expressed any traditional moral views on some prior date, then we hear the cries of “hypocrisy”. But is this hypocrisy? Is it hypocrisy if a man decries the evil of some sin and is later caught therein?
If I do things that I think are morally wrong, does that make me a hypocrite? If so, then we should all be hypocrites, or else none of us have a conscience. We should all of us admit that we are hypocrites, since we all sin against God and conscience, or else we have no God or conscience. Is the addict a hypocrite when he curses his addiction and longs to be free? Is the criminal a hypocrite when he feels his guilt? Is every man a hypocrite who ever goes against what he knows to be right?
Let’s go one step further. If I do things that I say are morally wrong, does that make me a hypocrite? If so, then we had better make ourselves hypocrites, or else watch our morality roll downhill, as I discussed in “The Check Valve of Society”. If none can say that anything that they do or have done is wrong, then will we see the moral standards of the society decline, because man errs continually, and so must continually add to the list of things that cannot be identified as wrong. he must lengthen the list of the acceptable. In fact we have seen this and are now watching helplessly as it happens around us.
If, however, hypocrisy means making myself seem that which I am not, then it is OK to call wrong “wrong” even if I am a perpetrator, because I can admit that I am a perpetrator and yet own my guilt. I can acknowlege my guilt and yet acknowlege the standard, because the standard is outside of myself. I do not determine the standard, and my failure does not affect it. I can point to the standard as long as I “point the finger” at myself.
Right, Wrong, and the Check Valve of Society
Everyone has a right to not be offended. Everyone has a duty to make sure they do not make someone else uncomfortable. The only moral wrong in our society is to call something morally wrong, and the greatest evil is discomfort. You can’t say something is wrong, because that might make someone who does it uncomfortable. Of course, you can say that same thing is right. So, there is a one-way flow in these pipes of morality. Things can be right, but they can’t be wrong, so down we go, swirling down the drain.
