Evaluating the Basis for Equating Atheism with Immorality Katherine Hughes, Philosophy Department 6 April 2020 Thesis Advisor: Professor Garret Bredeson, Department of Philosophy Committee Members: Professor Iskra Fileva, Department of Philosophy Professor Rachael Deagman Simonetta, Department of English Hughes 2 Abstract: Evaluating the Basis for Equating Atheism with Immorality On numerous occasions I have come across people who genuinely believe that it is impossible for an atheist to act virtuously or even have any morals at all. I wanted to explore whether this was a common viewpoint in the United States and whether there was any philosophical basis for such a belief. I begin with an examination of prejudice against atheists in the United States and the stereotype of atheists as immoral. I then consider various philosophical theories that contemplate whether religion is a necessity in the conception of and adherence to a system of morality. I appraise more strict renditions such as the Divine Command Theory as well as more complex interpretations like those of Immanuel Kant in Critique of Practical Reason and the Third Earl of Shaftesbury in An Inquiry Concerning Virtue or Merit. I found that there appears to be a greater general agreement today that there exists a standard of right and wrong independent of the word of God. Furthermore, it is entirely possible through different conceptions of the nature of humanity and happiness to act virtuously without religion. Hughes 3 Evaluating the Basis for Equating Atheism with Immorality by Katherine Hughes Religion and morality have long been linked in conversation across the ages. However, given the increasing role of secularism and atheism in modern society, it is surprising that there remains a widespread belief that one must believe in God to be a moral or virtuous person. To this day, atheists, although a growing minority in our population, continue to be stereotyped as immoral. So, is it true that God, or a god, is necessary for one to have, know, or act morally? Where exactly lies the divide, if any, between religion and virtue? Throughout the ages, atheists have been viewed as immoral, and even criminal. Even being perceived as an atheist or secular intellectual could be dangerous. This is likely one reason why a lot of early philosophers tried to find a link between religion and morality no matter how small. However, even their attempts to illustrate a more underlying necessity of religion in order for someone to consistently act morally were inadequate in creating a necessitating link between these two separate domains of life. Atheism is often simply defined as a lack of belief in gods (Zindler, Frank). Only relatively recently have Americans been willing to identify publicly as atheists. Their numbers were miniscule and speaking out against the majority’s spiritual views resulted in doubt about the atheist’s morality. Skeptics towards certain religious sects grew in over the centuries but a full-fledged atheist, admitting to their lack of belief in a Supreme Being, was practically unheard of until the late nineteenth century. Even then, those who self-identified as atheists often had to deal with harsh stereotypes that led to them being ostracized, persecuted and discriminated against. Therefore, when freedom of religion was written into the United States Constitution, the nonreligious were not even considered a religious sect in need of protection from persecution. Hughes 4 Despite the increasing numbers of the non-religious in our society, to this day the non-religious are not treated as entitled to the right to freedom of religion. Indeed, some of our laws, procedures, and practices of public life still incorporate a belief in religion and God. There are still countries today where atheists or those who switch religions are subject to capital punishment for their lack of adherence to the national religion. According to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, all human beings should be treated equally and have freedom of expression, thought and religion. However, the 2019 annual “The Freedom of Thought Report” conducted by Humanists International has found that there is still a devastating majority of United Nations’ member states that either discriminate against non-religious citizens or even go so far as to jail their citizens for acts that are regarded as “blasphemous”. Even the United States, who in this report ranks 32nd in protecting freedom of thought and yet is generally perceived around the globe as committed to the protection of freedom of religion and expression, continues to have systemic discrimination against the non-religious in both general society and government at all levels. Theoretically and legally, the nonreligious should be protected against persecution and given all the same rights and freedoms as all other citizens. Yet when Americans are asked whether they would vote for an atheist president, the answer has always been a loud and resounding “no”. Why are the secular still written off by our society, regarded as unable to give truthful testimony and excluded from numerous activities purely on the basis that they lack the belief in a higher being? These practices and legal prejudices show that many people tend to equate being American with being religious. Why is there such a distinction? It is likely due to the common stereotype that underlies a lot of the discrimination against and persecution of secular citizens to this day -- that all atheists are immoral and un-American. Hughes 5 Despite the fact that now only half the world’s population is religious, and the population of atheists and non-religious has grown to thirty-six percent, atheists largely remain at worst endlessly persecuted and at best completely ignored in their protests for religious freedom (Humanists International). Since the twentieth century, many scholars and activists who gained prominence for their generous humanitarian, political, or other notable works and then later announced publicly their lack of belief in religion, have either been outcast, like Elizabeth Cady Stanton, or their religious views intentionally excluded from history books such as Jane Addams who founded the Hull House (Moore, R. Laurence, and Isaac Kramnick). This blatant disregard towards atheists has persisted throughout history and the complete lack of mention of the nonreligious or atheists in history textbooks today, is just one example where this can be seen. Exclusion of the non-religious continues to be an ongoing reality in politics and in everyday lives. The ostracization of atheists is likely a result of their minority number within the United States. According to a recent research survey conducted by the Pew Research Center in December of 2017, only one in ten Americans said they didn’t believe in God or a higher power (Fahmy, Dalia). Though this growing minority class experiences less lawful discrimination today, atheists are still a publicly persecuted minority due to the still festering stigma from the Red Scare Era. Even young boys and girls face this ongoing war against atheists. Recently, the Boy Scouts of America opened its doors to all religions, races, and, as of 2019, all genders. But it is still holding firm to its prohibition of atheist members. The association’s refusal to accept the nonreligious is partly attributed to their adherence to their long-standing Scout Promise that mentions a “duty to God” (Mehta, Hemant). Those words, “duty to God,” instilled in the Boy Scouts of America Oath and Law, as well as the inclusion of the words, “under God” in the U.S. Pledge of Allegiance, only serve to perpetuate the negative public opinion of atheists that Hughes 6 skyrocketed after the Red Scare. This refusal to relinquish the use of God in social and political mandates continues the ostracization of the nonreligious American demographic. Most judges and other public figures have cited these words as representing the American ideal, yet God is notably and entirely absent from the United States Constitution. Moreover, the mention of God in American societal settings is contrary to the First Amendment’s establishment of the right to freedom of religion. However, many people still believe that atheists cannot be considered true Americans (Farah, Joseph). This line of thought results in barriers to the nonreligious’ complete inclusion in American society, such as being elected to public office. To this day, many people won’t vote for a well-qualified candidate for any political office if the candidate is a professed atheist. Though separation of church and state is a founding principle of our country, people often consider a candidate’s religious views when casting a vote. In a survey done by the Pew Research Center in 2016, U.S. adults were asked whether they would be more or less likely to support a particular candidate based on certain traits. The results found that atheism is perceived as one of the biggest shortcomings when it comes to a presidential candidate [see Figure 1 below]. The disbelief in God was seen as a greater liability to potential presidential candidates than even a candidate with previous financial troubles or a Muslim candidate, which is a religious class that has been viewed in a highly negative light in the United States for the last eighteen years (Mitchell, Travis). Even in Congress the lack of nonreligious members is striking. According to another Pew Research Center survey, the religiously unaffiliated were the most severely underrepresented in Congress (Sandstrom, Aleksandra). Furthermore, eight state constitutions in the United States still prohibit atheists from holding public office (Moore, R. Laurence, and Isaac Kramnick). Though these constitutional mandates are unenforceable due to their conflict with the First Amendment, their Hughes 7 continued inclusion in these state constitutions serve to perpetuate the political and social stigma of atheists as untrustworthy and un-American.