Over the past few years, there has been a sharp rise in the number of people who are atheist, agnostic or without religious affiliation. A fifth of all adults and a third of the youngest adults fit into this category. As secularism becomes more prominent and self-confident, its spokesmen have more insistently argued that secularism should not be seen as an absence — as a lack of faith — but rather as a positive moral creed. Phil Zuckerman, a Pitzer College sociologist, makes this case as fluidly and pleasurably as anybody in his book, “Living the Secular Life.”…. Zuckerman argues that secular morality is built around individual reason, individual choice and individual responsibility. Instead of relying on some eye in the sky to tell them what to do, secular people reason their way to proper conduct. Secular people, he argues, value autonomy over groupthink. They deepen their attachment to this world instead of focusing on a next one. They may not be articulate about why they behave as they do, he argues, but they try their best to follow the Golden Rule, to be considerate and empathetic toward others. “Secular morality hinges upon little else than not harming others and helping those in need,” Zuckerman writes.
It amuses me that those who call themselves “Christians” are convinced they have theological and moral standing to tell those of us who consider ourselves “good without God” how to lead a moral life. When I look around and see what’s been (and continues to be) done in the name of Christianity, it only confirms my decision…and my conviction that people like David Brooks telling me how I must live my life is laughable.
There seems to be a conviction among Christians that a secular life is empty and devoid of meaning and that a moral life is only available to those who’ve accepted Jesus Christ as their personal savior. Evidently, those of us who don’t believe in God don’t get to know where they keep the key to wherever it is they’re hiding the moral compass.
What’s truly laughable, and frankly offensive, is that Brooks feels he has license to tell me what I must do in order to “live secularism well”:
Secular individuals have to build their own moral philosophies. Right…because unless you get a moral philosophy from Christianity, it’s invalid. If you need religion in order to be moral, you’re not a Christian. You’re a sociopath.
Secular individuals have to build their own communities. Yes, because only Christians are capable of building communities of like-minded people. Those of us who don’t believe in God are incapable of establishing meaningful relationships and building communities.
Secular individuals have to build their own Sabbaths. Well…no. The beautiful thing about not subscribing to an artificial code cribbed from a book that’s a historical mess is that I can make my “Sabbath,” or however you choose to refer to it, any time I wish. Or not. I don’t have to follow anyone’s rules but my own.
Secular people have to fashion their own moral motivation. Again, if you need religion in order to lead a moral life, you have bigger issues than your religion can begin to address. We don’t have to “fashion” our own moral motivation. We can choose to make our moral motivation as simple or as complex as we wish. As for me, I’ve always found the Golden Rule to be a brief, simple, and easy to follow moral motivation.
The (rather arrogant and self-satisfied) assumption in play here is that morality can only be modeled on and defined by Christianity, because a moral life can only be had by following the teachings of Jesus Christ. Not that His teachings don’t contain nuggets of wisdom that any thinking person could benefit from, but the idea that morality can only truly be found in Christianity is absurd and arrogant as it is self-congratulatory. It’s as easy to find examples of amoral Christians as it is their moral brethren.
Personally, I find Brooks’ pronouncements on morality to be ridiculous. I’m perfectly capable of leading a moral life; there’s absolutely no reason I need to find inspiration for it in the Bible. Too many Christians proceed from the assumption that they, and ONLY they, are the arbiters of morality, and therefore any attempt to live a moral life must occur in a framework of their creation and definition.
As you might imagine, Brooks arrogant pronouncements were not well-received by those who reject Christianity.
Secularists don’t have to “build” anything; we can choose moral philosophies from what’s already well tested. If religious people think that their “faith” excuses them from evaluating the duties and taboos handed down to them, they are morally obtuse.
Does Mr. Brooks think that religious people are not “called upon to settle on their own individual sacred convictions”? Children may be excused for taking it on authority, but not adults.
Mr. Brooks writes, “Religious people are motivated by their love for God and their fervent desire to please Him.” We secularists have no need for love of any imaginary being, since there is a bounty of real things in the world to love, and to motivate us: peace, justice, freedom, learning, music, art, science, nature, love and health, for instance.
Our advice: Eliminate the middleman, and love the good stuff that we know is real.
Those of us who reject Christianity do so for a number of reasons, none of which have anything to do with lacking a desire to lead a moral life. The truth is that we know morality is not external, imposed by the dictates of those representing a religion based on historical flaws and a Bible nowhere near being the literal translation of the Word of God.
We don’t require that a moral code be dictated to us. We’re perfectly capable of becoming fully-formed moral beings as we accumulate experiences that build maturity and perspective. We possess the wherewithal to “settle on [our] own individual sacred convictions.” Morality without God is not something weaved out of whole cloth. There are virtually infinite resources available to those who wish to live a moral life outside of Christian strictures.
I’m good without God, and yet I feel I have a pretty good handle on how to lead a moral life, and existence in which I tred lightly upon the Earth and try to be the best person I can in the best way I’m able. Sometimes it’s a swing and a miss, but I think I hit the mark more often than not. God to me is merely a concept introduced by those whose ultimate goal is to control how I live my life. I’d rather “[e]liminate the middleman, and love the good stuff that we know is real.”
