The Young Atheist's Handbook: Lessons for Living a Good Life without God

[rug]

By Ghaffar Hussain
on 16 July 2012 at 1pm

Is a righteous and moral life possible without guidance from divinely inspired scripture? Alom Shaha, a science teacher from south London, certainly seems to think so. In fact, he has just released a book that highlights exactly how, in his view, this can be achieved.

Born and raised as a Muslim by parents of Bangladeshi origin on a tough south-east London council estate, Alom is no ordinary atheist. Nor has he had an ordinary upbringing. This is a man who has had to endure violent racist attacks, an abusive and negligent father and the untimely death of his devoted mother all before the tender age of 13.

Despite all of the above, he is one of only a small handful of atheists from a Muslim background who celebrate their atheism openly.

His perspective on atheism is also as unique as his background. Alom’s book -- The Young Atheist's Handbook -- seeks to highlight the importance of the individuality and experience and how these two influence the way in which we, as humans, form our views of the world. He seeks to do away with the stereotype of atheists as joyless rationalists by illustrating how a meaningful, purpose-filled and happy life can be led without god.

http://www.thecommentator.com/article/1419/the_young_atheist_s_handbook_lessons_for_living_a_good_life_without_god

[cbayer]

1. Good interview with him - sounds like a really good guy.

Love the image with the article, too.

[rug]

2. He has some interesting takes on things.

Do you believe in absolute morality, and do you think it is necessary?

I think humans are undoubtedly moral creatures, but certain aspects of what we consider to be our morality are not fixed. Morality can and does evolve as societies develop and change.

[cbayer]

3. I saw that. What do you make of it?

[rug]

4. Well, his view on changing morality is conventional enough.

But I don't follow how he concludes that humans, as opposed to other animals, are "undoubtedly moral". A function of intelligence, perhaps? A necessary accommodation to social living?

[cbayer]

5. I tend to agree with him here.

I think it is experience which leads individuals to become more or less moral as they develop over time.

In short, I believe in original goodness.

[rug]

7. I tend to think human nature is more cooperative than competitive.

Which is why my skin crawls when people say sicialism is against human nature. But it doesn't answer the question why humans are "undoubtedly moral".

[cbayer]

9. I don't know. Why does it feel good to do something good for someone,

even if no one, including the recipient, knows you have done it.

That seems like basic morality. Doing the right thing only because it is the right thing.

[rug]

10. You mean innately?

[cbayer]

11. I'm not sure.

Little children try out both good and bad behaviors, particularly when you observe them with peers and siblings.

To be honest, they often seem to derive pleasure from both.

So perhaps the influence of others around them is what really shapes their behavior.

[dmallind]

6. Morality is an entirely human concept

Dogs and other animals can be conditioned to know act A is rewarded and act B punished, in either human or pack social environments, but lack the cognitive ability to make abstract rationalizations about intrinsic goodness and malignity. While human morality came from the same source - socialized reward and punishment for the sake of group success, our abstract reasoning made it into a question of subjective moral agency ("with this I do a good thing, with that I do bad thing&quot rather than a conditioned response (pee inside = newspaper swat, pee outside = treat/fuss).

[rug]

8. Can you think of any non-utilitarian reason for morality?

[dmallind]

21. I don't need to. really I suppose I could come up with wild hypotheses though

But imagining something that launched a system of dividing actions between good and bad without linking it to good and bad results in some way shape or form is a bit of a stretch, and necessitates some capricious motivation.

Now it doesn't have to be universalized utilty of course. The most basic don't kill/steal precepts usually are but almost all "etiquette" type morality is based on actions that are or were deemed pleasant by those in power and became arbitrary standards of social acceptability by absorption of manners. That's still utilitarian, but egoistic utilitarianism not universalized. Even supposedly divinely inspired deontological morality is to increase the utility in the point of view of the relevant gods (and the souls of their followers in faiths where postmortem sentience is posited). In reality the demands of kings and nobles etc to be respected and deferred to for their own specific utility certainly created some lasting rules that were absorbed into moral codes for much of human history, and still today in some cases.

But purely non-utilitarian, coming from neither egoistic nor universalized teleology, is very very unlikely, and likely to be transient and parochial when it arises. About the only examples I could imagine would be superstitions, where human pattern-seeking somehow established a link between action A and result B where none exists, but did so with so much universalitty and force that it became a question of morality. Silly things like saying "bless you" or some such after sneezing are cetainly seen as issues of "manners", but not quite morality. Avoiding saying it may get one thought of as rude, but hardly evil. I can't think of a real example where this would be a true moral question - although some aspects of child-nurturing may come closest - but it's the only non-utilitarian reason I can imagine.

A non-utilitarian reason for morality in toto - prohibition against murder etc? Impossible. Again even deontologies arose for the utility of someone/thing. They may not be applied in a utilitarian manner, or at least in act utilitarian manners, but even if you personally accept, say, "do not steal" as an absolute prohibition regardless of results, such that you would not steal a rich man's extra loaf even if it meant your family starved to death with it in easy reach of your hand, the prohibition arose because of its utility to some agent, be that your soul or God or whatever. The reason for that moral stricture then is utilitarian even if its application is decidedly harmful to you. In reality of course almost no-one even applies deontological morality in extremis like this. Not only is morality's source nigh inevitably utilitarian, but its real world application is nigh universally so too.

[rug]

22. Thoughtful answer.

You may be interested in this article.

http://commonsenseatheism.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/Lowry-Peterson-Cost-benefit-analysis-and-non-utilitarian-ethics.pdf

[dmallind]

23. Interesting. A few thoughts..

1) This is really positing a slightly different application of moral agency theories, not a different origination of morality itself
2) If accepted, it remains a decision-making tool based on consequences, just with potentially overriding filters based on deontology
3) As a decision-making tool, I'm not sure CBA is sufficiently differentiated from standard felicife calculus, sans filters
4) Input filters and CBA seem to be indistinguishable from act-rule utilitarianism from Toulmin et al. " I won't lie unless..."
5) Output filters are a new wrinkle, but either make no real difference or simply slap on a deontic override - "I should lie but cannot"
6) This is a genuinely interesting approach, but is limited to how to apply teleological methods even within deontological systems, not a way to replace or eliminate utilitarianism itself.

[backscatter712]

25. These days, utilitarianism is but one school of thought for morality.

There isn't a perfect school.

Utilitarianism, we both know, is "Do that which maximizes utility." What is utility? Typically happiness. Maximize happiness for as many people as possible, and minimize suffering. In most cases, that works fairly well, but you do run into some corner cases where if you do the strictly utilitarian thing, you do something that we would intuitively think of as immoral. Case in point: the Trolley problem. Do you pull the switch to divert a trolley that's about to kill five people onto a sidetrack where it only kills one? Do variants on this. Do you harvest the organs of one healthy person, thus killing him, to save the lives of five transplant patients? Most people would say "Absolutely not!" to this, yet if you come at this from a strictly utilitarian perspective, you would be saving five lives at the cost of one, netting four lives, while if you refused to kill the healthy guy, you'd lose five lives. Seems that utilitarianism doesn't sufficiently model what we intuitively think of as moral behavior, does it?

Then there's duty-based ethics, deontological ethics - try to come up with a rule, or a form of duty that people are morally bound to uphold, which would cause them to behave morally. Old-school deontology would have the Ten Commandments or the Sermon on the Mount, or other religions' equivalents as the center rules that we would be held to as duties. Then there's Immanuel Kant's Categorical Imperative - "Act according to maxims which you would have made into universal laws." or "Act in such a way that you treat humanity as an end, not as a means to an end." This isn't far from the Golden Rule, which is in one form or another in virtually every religion ever made. Even there, you run into problems. For example, what rules should we uphold? Nobody agrees - the Categorial Imperative works most of the time, but sometimes if you obey the rules strictly, you get bad results. For example, a deontological ethicist might argue that you have a duty not to lie. Say you're bound to that ethic and you end up in Nazi Germany, and you're hiding a Jewish family that would certainly be arrested and sent to the death camps if they were caught. You get a knock on the door, from the Gestapo, and the Gestapo asks "Are there any Jews in your house?" If you follow the deontological ethic, you would tell him the truth, and that poor family is off to a horrible death. If you lie, you save several lives, but you just violated your deontological duty of honesty. Ah, quandries...

Lately, there's been more of an interest in virtue-based ethics - where instead of coming up with rules and theorems about how to best behave in order to be "moral," you focus on developing virtuous traits in yourself and others, such as kindness, generosity, honesty, a sense of justice... Then when you hit some sort of moral quandry, such as the Trolley Problem, or the Gestapo knocking at your door asking if there are Jews in your house, you can make decisions appropriate for the situation based on your moral values that create good outcomes. I've been drifting more towards virtue-based ethics as of late, though I'm no philosophy major - it seems to work well for me.

[dmallind]

26. And what is the method for determining a virtue or morally acceptable duty?

I strongly suspect you will be hard pressed to find a source for defining either that is not consequentialist and hence not utilitarian. The distinction between different systems of applied morality, as you described well, and the reasons for the origin of those moral systems should be borne in mind. Even if we posit categorical imperatives or divine deontologies, we need to look further and see that all have utilitarian foundations. Why must we never steal? Why must we always strive to be kind and just? Benefit. Utility.

Furthermore your example of utilitarian dilemmas is a very surface level 101 simplification. We gain four lives yes, assuming that the lives are of equal value for the sake of brevity. BUT let's look at associated felicife results. We have also betrayed a basic element of the social contract, which inevitably leads to unrest which inevitably leads to loss of life. How many societies that capriciously slaughter their innocent citizens do not eventually see insurrection? That's a pretty huge harm to count against the saved lives.

Now sure I could construct a case where harvesting organs from random citizens would indeed be a sound moral decision, and ethics courses everywhere generally make sure even 101 students can, but there are two main reasons few if any people apply this sophistry (just as fans of deontologies would rarely support a truthful answer of "Sure Herr Oberst - the Jews are in my uncle's attic&quot . First is because applied utilitarianism is almost universally of the act-rule type. To apply purely act felicife calculus to every moral decision would render you hopelessly lost in analysis of insufficient data. "If I help the old lady across the street will she get mugged in that dark corner on the other side? If I don't will she slip and fall on the icy patch on this side?". So utilitarians accept basic generalized rules such as never steal unless... or always tell the truth unless.... This then becomes essentially your virtue-based morality, where typically "good" behavior is followed unless greater harm will result ("Sorry Herr Oberst I must say I have not seen any filthy Jews lately but if I do I will be sure to tell you immediately.&quot .

Second is because the utility of social cohesion and universalized faith in it are always going to weigh very heavily. Apart from a few sociopaths like the Randians, almost all utilitarians apply what is known as universalized utilitarianism - in that not just the felicife calculus is universalized to total harm/benefit but also the posited choices of the moral agent are universalized so that in formulating act-rule based concepts we must ask "what if everybody...". This is why applied universalized utilitarianism would generally conclude that stealing, even from those wealthier than you and even without any chance of being punished, is still a harmful moral choice because if universalized it would mean your poorer neighbor robs from you, then his poorer neighbor does the same and so on until nobody feels safe in their possessions, much is wasted on increased security and paranoia, and social unrest and lawlessness results. It would only be a good moral decision to steal if a far greater and specific harm would otherwise be inevitable - like the starving example in my earlier post - and even then limited to the minimal amount needed to avoid that harm (steal his loaf of bread, not his strongbox of gold). It is this universalization that makes applied utilitarianism avoid the pitfall you suggest.

[GliderGuider]

27. Perhaps this has something to do with it

To me it seems that altruism, empathy and morality are very closely linked.

Here is a very new discovery about the human brain, that could go a long way toward explaining both why morality is a human characteristic and why some humans are more moral than others.

Brain Scientists Locate Home of Altruism

It’s called the right temporoparietal junction (or TPJ for short). Along with many other crucial functions, this neural crossroads gives us the ability to understand the perspectives of others—a prerequisite for empathy.

Swiss scholars report they have found a strong connection between the TPJ and a person’s willingness to engage in selfless acts.

“The structure of the TPJ strongly predicts an individual’s set point for altruistic behavior, while activity in this brain region predicts an individual’s acceptable cost for altruistic actions,” reports lead author Yosuke Morishima of the Laboratory for Social and Neural Systems Research at the University of Zurich’s Department of Economics.

In their key finding, the researchers found a strong association between altruistic behavior and the volume of gray matter in a person’s TPJ. (Gray matter refers to the darker tissue of the brain, which consists mainly of nerve cell bodies.) In short, those with bulkier TPJs were more willing to do nice things for strangers.

I think it's a phenomenal discovery, because it implies that we could - over long stretches of time - evolve into more empathetic, sapient and moral critters.

[cbayer]

28. This could be a chicken/egg issue.

A region of the brain could become larger and more active during development if they were raised in an environment that rewarded altruism, for example.

But being able to pinpoint a location is really interesting and will help with further research in this area.

[skepticscott]

12. Makes me wonder

what sort of people think the question of whether a person can be moral without a god still needs discussing. What sort of people would make this book, and this post, necessary.

[rug]

13. Post the answer when you're done wondering.

[skepticscott]

19. Your presence

almost makes it unnecessary.

[rug]

20. Your coyness

makes it absolutely necessary.

[2ndAmForComputers]

24. U mad he didn't take the bait?

[dimbear]

14. Chapter 0 for young apostate Muslims: leaving Muslim countries.

Before you can live a moral life, you must live a life.

[rug]

15. Here's a book you might be interested in.

Sounds interesting even though it's a press release about a self-published book.

"The autobiography of Ibtihal Mahmood explores both the difficulties and humorous side of being an outgoing progressive atheist forced to grow up in a traditional Middle Eastern household."

http://www.seattlepi.com/business/press-releases/article/Autobiography-Compares-Traditional-Middle-Eastern-3709645.php

[dimbear]

16. I used to work for a company that belonged to Turkish owners.

That's how I got to know Muslim folk fairly well. After they had gotten a few years of Americanization, some found that they couldn't return to Turkey in actual peril of their lives.

That ain't right.

Thanks for the link.

[cbayer]

17. I was in Turkey last year and loved it.

Istanbul is a highly cosmopolitan city with lots of religious variety.

Perhaps it is different in rural areas?

[dimbear]

18. Ankara, I believe most hailed from.

Conservative families, if I'm not mistaken.