I came across a copy of the atheists commandments today — or at least somebody’s interpretation of what the atheists commandments should be — and I found myself a little confused by them. Here are the ten commandments for atheists via IAmAnAtheist.com:
- Have no gods.
- Don’t worship stuff.
- Be polite.
- Take a day off once in a while.
- Be nice to folks.
- Don’t kill people.
- Don’t cheat on your significant other.
- Don’t steal stuff.
- Don’t lie about stuff.
- Don’t be greedy.
Preface
Two notes before I begin.
1. This might be splitting hairs, but after spending a good hour or so reading the blog associated with this site, it’s obvious that the creator of these commandments is not an atheists but rather an anti-theist. This might appear an insignificant observation, but it’s far from a trifle point. The intent is just as important as the context with subject matter such as this.
2. The site’s blog seems caught in a perpetual troll feeding loop. The content of the author’s posts have drawn criticizing comments of some of the most gospel ignorant Christians I’ve read in a while. The author, in turn, uses these comments as fuel for his websites content and the perpetuating circle continues. Normally I’m hesitant to use information from such volatile sources as this for ‘starting points’ for my thoughts. However, the ten commandments has been on my mind for a bit and viewing this site pushed those thoughts over the edge. Reader beware.
What Confuses Me
The Similarities with the Biblical Commandments
Here are the Biblical Ten Commandments:
- You shall have no other gods before Me.
- You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
- You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
- Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
- Honor your father and your mother.
- You shall not murder.
- You shall not commit adultery.
- You shall not steal.
- You shall not lie.
- You shall not covet.
Aside from the stark contrast between “worship God” and “don’t worship anything” these commandments share core principle values. Though I do appreciate the subtle difference: The Christian can’t lie versus the atheist who just can’t lie about “stuff”; The Christian isn’t supposed to have a strong desire for something that somebody else owns versus the atheists who can’t be greedy.
The author might have better communicated himself by stating the Biblical commandments that he agrees with. Rewriting the same concept in different words is a poor way of discrediting the original.
The Ten Commandments by Lucas Cranach the Elder
Too Many Of The Commandments Fall into Basic Logical Snags
I don’t want to come across disrespectful of somebody Else’s beliefs, but a couple of these commandments don’t appear to have been given much thought. They appear wise on the surface, but when taken a level deeper into thought fall apart under their own supposed weight. For example:
Be polite.
A great rule to live by! I support it! The problem comes when you try to pigeon hole behavior into a moral value. The definition of ‘polite’ is ambiguous. Different cultures have different interpretations of the word “polite” and any given society has the ability change the word’s definition. Back in the 15th century, a lady covering all parts of her body in Victorian dress would have been equally as polite as a young girl who lived in the south pacific that wore virtually nothing. And yet, its a fair argument to state that either one of them would have been offended at the sight of the others apparel.
Take a day off once in a while
Again, I can’t argue with this as a healthily, lifestyle habit. As a Christian, this is actually a commandment for me so there really isn’t much I can say to disparage it. However, the flippant tone of “once in a while” presents this command as more of a suggestion than anything else. The phrase is also (intentionally?) open to multiple interpretations. Once in a while could mean once a week, month, or year? I understand this to be a petty point, but it support my argument against the command’s craftsmanship.
Be nice to folks
This one is interesting. I will point out the definition of the word “nice” falls into the same realm of logic that the word “polite” does, but that isn’t the point I’ll attempt to make here. I hate repeating myself.
Instead, I’ll try to draw similarities to my Christian belief’s equivalent. The Christian isn’t called to be “nice” to people. Though I don’t have anything against being nice I believe there is need of clarification.
The closest parallel the Christian would have to this would be the golden rule. The rule that Christ gave us which sums up the ten commandments: “Love thy neighbor as thyself.” On the surface it could appear to some that this would involve feeling “in love” with everybody. Those who subscribe to this belief don’t understand love, don’t understand themselves, or perhaps a combination of both. I’ll take this point a level deeper; albeit very briefly.
If I am to love my neighbor as myself I first have to understand how I love myself. This can’t be a feeling of love. Sometimes I don’t feel love for myself at all. I have days where I get the best of me and can’t even bring myself to like myself. Sometimes I am not even “nice” to myself. If I can’t be nice to myself it is easy to understand how I couldn’t be nice to others. However, these days also have no impact on my ability to love myself. Even when I can’t be kind to me, I still don’t wish myself harm. Nor do I wish anything but the best for the rest of my day. And here we’ve found the crux of the matter. Loving others as I love myself is little more than, as CS Lewis put it, “wishing their best”. I can, if I were to so choose, not be nice (yet I must abstain from being malicious) to someone and still love them.
Furthermore, it has been the observation of psychologists, through decades of research, that the temperament of person (the mechanism by which they feel and can impress those feelings to others) is most likely a result of their ingrained personality, upbringing, and the circumstances they’ve had to live through. Can a person who was given a poor temperament pull himself up my the boot straps, as it were, and all of a sudden become a nice person? I don’t think so. I won’t say it isn’t possible but I will say I’ve yet to see or hear of it.
In summary, the rule “be nice” may seem to some to be a ‘given’ and yet to others an impossible uphill climb.
Don’t be greedy
Again, we are faced with a multifaceted definition. If the rule is going to be set in place to not be greedy terms must be defined. How much is too much? What constitutes greed? Until questions like these are answered, this rule means nothing.
What Benefit, or Consequence, Comes From My Adherence to the Rules?
The last aspect of these commandments I’ll get into will be that of their purpose and authority.
Playing devil’s advocate; If I break any of the atheist’s commandments… so what? There is no authority behind an arbitrary list of moral rules that people ‘should’ live by. What is their purpose? To be a decent human being? What if I am content not being a decent being? You could brand me bad person, and be right in doing so, but I would still face no moral consequence. Conversely, if I obeyed each and every rule to the letter, you could brand me a good person, but I would still gain no moral benefit. I’d simply be living my life in the best way I see fit. I’ve taken the purpose away from your laws, and if there is no purpose, there is no authority.
Quickly, before I get into the topic of the purpose behind the Biblical commandments, I’d like to deflate one of the more common (yet most loose weaved) arguments against the Biblical ten commandments by stating what they are not. I’ve heard countless times the notion that the ten commandments exists as a roadblock to pleasure. Nothing could be further from the truth. I can’t make the argument any better than G.K. Chesterton, as he so brilliantly and simply points out:
The truth is, of course, that the curtness of the Ten Commandments is an evidence, not of the gloom and narrowness of a religion, but, on the contrary, of its liberality and humanity. It is shorter to state the things forbidden than the things permitted: precisely because most things are permitted, and only a few things are forbidden.
I would only add: God likes pleasure. He invented it. He promotes it. The purpose of the ten commandments is not to deny ourselves pleasure.
As a Christian I believe that the creator of the universe, with his infinite knowledge of both the bios (biological) and Zoe (spiritual) aspects of my meta-physical and physical make-up, placed these rules inside of our existence for his purpose. His purpose being to draw myself into him by making me like Christ. Breaking these rules impedes the progress of my results. These rules are not (as I hear most non-believers have been told) arbitrary rules set in an attempt to rally a population by moral means. Rather, they become tools used by a Master Blacksmith attempting to forge raw material into something useful. Something beautiful. Something sharp. Something he himself plans to wield.
In summary; there is a clear and present purpose for the Christian to obey commandments. I can think of no such reason for an atheists.
March 1, 2011 at 9:01 pm
In terms of what you set out to do you have done a reasonable job, insofar as pointing out the faults of the IAmAnAthiest.com appears to have been your task. You picked a fight with a straw man and, somewhat predictably I might add, you succeeded in defeating him (or her). I will not argue you on the semantical issues above. I don’t particularly wish to engage in the rhetorical pugilism that is the norm on the Web. Rather I would like to debate your concluding statement. I would draw your attention to an issue you raise at the end of your piece, namely that “there is a clear and present purpose for the Christian to obey commandments” and that you cannot think of a reason for atheists to do likewise. Really?
At risk of breaking my promise of not entering into a semantics it seems this statement could be rectified by simply adding the word ‘similar’ to your last sentence, as in “I can think of no such similar reason for an atheist”. As you did not I must infer it was a purposeful exclusion rather than an oversight. Read as is, it states that you cannot conceive of an atheist having or maintaining a moral code (my apologies if I have misinterpreted you, but ultimately that is how it is interpreted). I, as should be obvious by this point, disagree.
Atheists may not have similar reasons for such a code, as they do not believe in a, big-D or little-d, deity but this in itself does not mean that the atheist is without morality, ethics, codes of conduct, any sense of right or wrong, what have you. Instead what is altered between the theist and the atheist is the perceive birthplace of these codes. The theist contends that theirs is handed down to by God, whereas the atheist develops their own. Both may hold morality in either high or low regard, accept it or reject it, but it is surely not the sole benefit of one group over the other.
What theists have trouble with (I think from the ones I’ve spoken to anyways) is that being developed by the individual the moral laws of the atheist are groundless. They lack the overarching authority of the all-powerful god-figure (which I must admit would make one helluva an arbiter). Without an enforcing agency than the atheists’ attempts at morality are fated to fail, or so goes the idea. As one believer I knew put it “I could never be friends with an atheist as if it ever came to a point where it would benefit him he could just kill me”. While I don’t believe this extreme view is necessarily common amongst the theist population (and please tell me if I’m wrong) the general principle is. A more moderate form of this view (and one I think hits closer to the mark) is G.K. Chesterton who said that when people don’t believe in god, they do not believe in nothing so much as they believe in anything. Atheism gives one free licence, a moral carte blanche as it were.
Atheism doesn’t give one free licence any more than free will does the theist, however. Atheists are free and able to act badly in the same manner as the theist is (although the likelihood of an atheistic Thirty Years’ War is rather slight). Without the enforcing agency, however, the atheist does not have to fear posthumous retribution in the same way that the theist does. Without the fear of punishment than, the atheist can act in ways that the theist only wishes they could, or so goes the logic. As such the atheist is neither better nor worse that the theist, only more ‘earthly’ free to act. Why than would the atheist not commit whatever atrocities and licentious behaviour they want? This theist perspective is patently misanthropic and, I suspect, more than a little self-loathing. Atheists act ‘saintly’ and ‘demonically’ for the very same reasons that theists do, some are good people, some bad, and a whole lot in the middle. If we were to take the theist perspective apart as above, it would suggest that people act good to one another only for gain of some kind. Morality than is nothing more than a carefully scripted arithmetical balance sheet. Taken a step further it suggests that without religious convictions people are naturally more than a little sociopathic. I don’t contend that theists (or atheists) truly think this way but that theists see the world of the atheist in this light. I truly believe that most theists cannot conceive of a self-born morality, or a culturally born one, or even a humanist one. Theists have trouble imagining a moral compunction not coming from a (read: THEIR) deity. To the theist this seems an impossible burden for an atheist to carry, as the ability to defect is so agonizingly easy. If as an atheist I abhor stealing my punishment for defecting from this moral code does not come in the form of brimstone and thus what would compel me to comply, especially in light of the obvious material benefits that can be had from defecting. This seems to the theist as a strong argument, faith in God makes people good. What they seemingly can’t comprehend is that the atheist may have equally strong convictions sans God. If that atheist abhors stealing the absence of God does not weigh on him either before, during, or after the period in which he could steal. He abhors stealing without a God, steals or does not steal without a God, and goes on his way without a God. If he abhors stealing it stands that he will not steal. God has not entered the equation. If the atheist is weak-willed, as most people (believers and unbelievers alike) are, and the conditions are right possibly the temptation to steal will be sufficient for him to break his convictions, but then the same can be said for the theist. None of these arguments goes anywhere.
All that can be said is that to act morally for fear of punishment (Kohlberg’s lowest stage of morality) isn’t really morality, dogs can do that. Truthfully, I don’t think many theists act good out of a fear of punishment, but than if that is true it proves the same is equally possible for atheists, which was my only point in what I apologize for being an exceedingly long diatribe.
March 2, 2011 at 8:23 pm
Thanks for your, very well thought out, comment. You’ve, most likely inadvertently, stumbled into an issue that is out of the scope the current post. This post was particularly focus on the absurdity for atheists to need a version of the ten commandments. This wasn’t a fight with a straw man, as my source was clearly cited and my objections defined.
If I’m understanding you correctly, you’re essentially referencing the long debated question, “Without God, can there be Good?” I won’t get into my reasoning for my answer to this questions here — as it’s the culmination of a lifetime of experiences and years of theological study — but perhaps it would shed a little extra light on the issues you question in your comment. No. I do not believe that with in the absence of God, and a moral standard, there is anything good. There are certainly things that are acceptable to the current culture and/or time period, but there is nothing inherently good as there is no standard to judge good by.
As far as forms of morality, and why people believe what they believe — you referenced Kohlberg’s principle — this is an impossible scenario to address. This is getting into the motivation behind obedience which will forever be a grey area among people. Assuming I really want a new Xbox, and want to steal one. God — the God of Christianity to be specific in my case — would be disappointed that my reasoning for not stealing would be the fear of getting caught and being punished. He would much rather my heart be aligned with his and I have the thought, “I love God. God doesn’t want me to steal. Because this is something God does not want me to do, I won’t do it.” Whereas the culture wouldn’t care for any of the reasoning so long as the act doesn’t take place — so long as I practice the whatever the accepted culture idea of “good” is.
Does this make sense? This difference boils down to an issue of what I’ll refer to as
“heart positioning”. Or maybe more appropriately why people behave “good” by any definition of the word.
April 27, 2011 at 3:23 pm
Okay I have to ask where the statue of the blacksmith comes from. I have looked and looked and have not been able to find that one anywhere online. do you have any insights as to its whereabouts or what it represents. I love it but can not find it anywhere else. by the way, good arguments.
In His Grip,
Mark
April 28, 2011 at 10:13 am
Hey Mark,
To be honest, I’m not really sure where this image was taken. I was looking for an image of a blacksmith’s forge when I came across this and decided to use it. I believe I found it after a couple random Google image searches.