What motivates atheists to not be narcissists, or more generally, to be good people? Given any conflict between what they want to do and what they've been socialized to believe is right, why do they choose the latter?
I choose to do what I believe to be right not primarily because of fear of God's punishment, but out of thankfulness for what God has done for me - the gift of salvation and the blessings that overflow in my life - and a resulting desire to become the person God would have me be. But in the absence of God and, more specifically, of Christ's example, what would drive my sense of right and wrong?
I can see why "do no harm to others" might be a mantra, and I can see why some of the social changes that secular society espouses arise from this approach. But what constitutes harm, and why should I make any undue sacrifice - even undertake sometimes-greater "harm" to myself - for the sake of others? And what constitutes an "other," for instance from the standpoint of beginning- and end-of-life issues? How do even scientific criteria (consider how we protect an endangered species throughout all stages of development, but not a human being) manage to take a back seat to freedom of individual choice, which seems to really be the motto by which society is guiding itself? And if this life is all there is, shouldn't I just try to cram every experience and pleasure I can manage into it?
I don't see how we can survive as a society without the central concept of being endowed by (our) Creator with certain unalienable Rights. If our rights are not divinely appointed to us, I do not understand why else we have any grounds to feel we have any rights at all.
This is not a mere academic exercise. If there is no god, my concept of the person I should be and my motivation to strive for such a standard vanish together.
No comments:
Post a Comment