Sociologically, we know that religion is far from a guarantor of morality. After all, as discussed in chapter 2, those societies today with the highest proportion of secular men and women tend to be among the most humane, moral societies on earth. And conversely, those societies that are the most religious, well, they tend to be beset by a greater degree of societal ills, from inequality to corruption to murder.
Philosophically, secular morality is not based on obedient faith in a mysterious deity, nor is it linked to eternal heavenly reward or hellish damnation. Rather, secular morality—to paraphrase philosopher Emmanuel Levinas—is based on the faces of others. Our moral compasses flicker, calibrate, and adjust themselves in relation to the suffering we may or may not cause other people. We soberly acknowledge the subjectivity of others, and try to treat them the way we would like to be treated. This Golden Rule requires no leap of faith. It is simple, clear, and universally intelligible—probably as a result of our neurological capacity for empathy and our biological evolution as social animals over so many thousands of years.
The longer we keep quiet at dinner table discussions for fear of offending someone, the longer we shy away from joining school boards and allow creationists to set our nation’s educational agenda, and the longer we allow the religious right to claim to be the sole proprietors of “values,” the longer will our cultural marginalization continue, the longer will we be ignored in the halls of political power, and the longer will we live in a country that fails to incorporate, respect, or even understand our worldview.
But it is a worldview that is not only legitimate, humane, and honorable—it is a worldview that is sorely needed, perhaps now more than ever. Global warming, increasing inequality, terrorism, despotism, extremism, international disputes, hunger, wanton violence—these problems will best be solved by the very things that secularity is intrinsically predicated upon and ultimately grounded in: a this-worldly, empirically driven, rational frame of reference. Economic crises, melting ice caps, threats to democracy, domestic violence, sex trafficking, a lack of adequate funding for hospitals, corruption, genocide, the destruction of the rain forest, drug addiction, violence in schools, corporate crime, street crime, children dying of AIDS—all of these are problems of this world, and their only solutions will come from this world as well, namely: human willpower, rational inquiry, critical thinking, scientific discovery, data-based decision making, evidence-based policy making, and frequent dashes of hope, empathy, optimism, and creativity. Humanity is certainly a major source of much brutality, suffering, and destruction, but at the same time, humanity is a major source of kindness, compassion, and reparation. We have no gods to appeal to for help, no avatars, no saviors, and no prophets to do our work for us. Just our all-too-human selves: our minds, our reason, our bodies, our love, and our camaraderie.
—
ATHEISTS ARE OFTEN accused of striking an indignant tone; as best-selling author, presidential inaugurator, and evangelical pastor Rick Warren once declared, “I’ve never met an atheist who wasn’t angry.” Strange that Pastor Warren has never met people like the ones I’ve profiled in this book, and the hundreds of others whom I’ve interviewed over the years: nonbelievers who are anything but angry.
Most secular men and women are definitely not out to destroy religion. Being secular does not mean hating religion or seeing religion as the problem. We just don’t see it as the solution, either in the realm of politics or in our personal lives. While there are admittedly some secular people out there who are hostile to religion, most secular men and women can and do accept it, and even appreciate various aspects of it, from time to time.
Thus while I deeply admired him, I didn’t agree with Christopher Hitchens when he acerbically proclaimed that religion “poisons everything.” No way. Religion provides so much sustenance, support, inspiration, and hope for millions of people every day.
Alain de Botton recognized in his wonderful book Religion for Atheists that there is much in religion that is beautiful, touching, effective, and wise. Religion allows people to feel loved in a world that is often loveless. Faith allows people to feel special in a world that often treats them as worthless. Religious congregations provide social support, child care, counseling. Religious heritage links people to their parents, grandparents, children, and grandchildren. Religious life is often full of music, food, festivity, tradition, and joy. Religion, both its theism as well as its communal dynamics, can often inspire altruism and charity, goodwill and humility. Religion provides guidelines for how to live, it strengthens links to one’s culture and ethnic group, it eases difficult transitions in life as well as providing comfort in the face of pain, suffering, and death. As social psychologist Bob Altemeyer has acknowledged, “Believing intensely in a religion brings an enormous number of rewards. You know who you are, you know what life is about, you know what you are supposed to do, you know you will have friends all your life, you know you will never really die, and you know you will rejoin all the loved ones who died before and after you. It is all laid out for you.” Clearly, countless people find religion attractive and rewarding, and so, as yet another atheist author, Dale McGowan, has written, anyone who fails to understand the religious impulse doesn’t fully grasp the human condition.
But while happily admitting all of the above, it is nonetheless the reality that more and more people prefer to live their lives without religion. This does not render them any less normal, natural, American, human, or humane than their religious counterparts. And it does not mean that they are “nothing,” that they lack something essential, or meaningful, or purposeful. Not even close. The stories I’ve shared are illustrative of hundreds of millions of secular people—in America and around the world—who experience their secularity in an affirmative, positive, sustaining manner, replete with its own comforts, benefits, and rewards. Such secular men and women value reason over faith, action over prayer, existential ambiguity over unsupportable certitude, freedom of thought over obedience to authority, the natural over the supernatural, and hope in humanity over hope in a deity.
I’ve written this book to explore and illuminate the lives, values, and experiences of just such people, and to offer a glimpse at how we raise our kids with love, optimism, and a predilection for independence of thought, how we foster a practical, this-worldly morality based on empathy, how we employ self-reliance in the face of life’s difficulties, how we handle and accept death as best we can, how and why we do or do not engage in a plethora of rituals and traditions, how we create various forms of community while still maintaining our proclivity for autonomy, and what it means for us to experience awe in the midst of this world, this time, this life.
Acknowledgments
I would like to sincerely thank the following for their help, assistance, support, and input: Miriam Altshuler, Ahmed Alwishah, Jacques Berlinerblau, Sami Cleland, Michael DeLuise, Ian Dodd, Charlotte Eulette, Emilio Ferrer, Ryan Falcioni, Sara Grand, Sandy Hamilton, Arthur Lee, Ami Mezahav, David Moore, Frank Pasquale, Karen Peris, Pitzer College, Benjamin Platt, Dan Paul Rose, Elizabeth Saft, Suzette Soto, Trish Vawter, Susan Warmbrunn, Chantal Yacavone, and Marvin Zuckerman.
Notes
Introduction
Back in the 1950s: For the figure of 30 percent, see Frank Newport, “Mississippi Most Religious State, Vermont Least Religious,” Gallup, February 3, 2014, gallup.com/poll/167267/mississippi-religious-vermont-least-religious-state.aspx and Global Index of Religiosity and Atheism, WIN–Gallup International, 2012, www.wingia.com/web/files/news/14/file/14.pdf. For the figure of 20 percent, see Hout, Fischer, and Chaves (2013). For the figure of nearly 19 percent, see “‘Nones’ on the Rise,” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, October 9, 2012, pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise. For the 18 percent figure, see Merino (2012). See also Putnam and Campbell (2010); Grossman (2012); and the American Religious Identification Survey (2008), commons.trincoll.edu/aris/publications/2008-2.
This means that the
number: Kosmin et al. (2009).
a third of Americans: “‘Nones’ on the Rise,” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, October 9, 2012, pewforum.org/2012/10/09/nones-on-the-rise.
In the early 1970s: Cragun (2013), 173.
helps explain why Time magazine: Amy Sullivan, “The Rise of the Nones,” Time, March 12, 2012.
This assumption is so widespread: Edgell, Gerteis, and Hartmann (2006).
And a recent national poll: Jeffrey Jones, “Atheists, Muslims See Most Bias as Presidential Candidates,” Gallup, June 21, 2012, gallup.com/poll/155285/atheists-muslims-bias-presidential-candidates.aspx.
Many other studies: Hwang, Hammer, and Cragun (2011); Jenks (1986).
psychology professor Adrian Furnham: Furnham, Meader, and McClelland (1998).
legal scholar Eugene Volokh: Volokh (2006).
psychologist Marcel Harper: Harper (2007).
psychology professor Will Gervais: Gervais, Shariff, and Norenzayan (2011).
sociologist Penny Edgell: Edgell, Gertais, and Hartmann (2006).
Chapter 1: Morality
Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia recently: Quoted in Daniel Burke, “Scalia Says Atheism ‘Favors the Devil’s Desires,’” CNN.com, October 7, 2013, religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/10/07/scalia-says-satan-is-a-real-person.
various national surveys consistently report: Bloom (2012).
As he explained in a publication: On Holyoake, see English Secularism (1896) and “George Holyoake,” Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Holyoake.
For contemporary secular people: Wattles (1996).
Though it was undoubtedly articulated: Richard Jasnow, A Late Period Hieratic Wisdom Text (P. Brooklyn 47.218.135) (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1992).
The Golden Rule was also recorded: Wattles (1996), 16–17.
In ancient Greece, Thales: Ibid., 29–31.
The rabbi Hillel: Ibid., 48.
Although we find other versions: Epstein (2005), 115.
As the great English philosopher: John Stuart Mill, “Moral Influences in Early Youth,” from Autobiography, in Hitchens, ed. (2007), 61.
As Kai Nielsen, author of: Nielsen (1990), 17.
One comes from a man named Milton Newcombe: These are not their real names. Throughout this book, the names of many individuals and their key identifying characteristics have been changed, for obvious reasons.
In the words of philosopher and humanist: Law (2011), 2.
In order to see the real-world benefits: Shook (2013); Didyoung, Charles, and Rowland (2013).
The most interesting finding: Hall, Matz, and Wood (2009); see also Jackson and Hunsberger (1999).
As psychologists Ralph Wood: Hood, Hill, and Spilka (2009), 411.
why secular white people: Eckhardt (1970).
why secular white South Africans: Beit-Hallahmi (2010, 2007). See also Jacoby (2004).
in a national survey from 2009: “The Religious Dimensions of the Torture Debate,” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, April 29, 2009, pewforum.org/2009/04/29/the-religious-dimensions-of-the-torture-debate.
support of the death penalty: Joseph Carroll, “Who Supports the Death Penalty?,” Death Penalty Information Center, November 16, 2004, deathpenaltyinfo.org/gallup-poll-who-supports-deathpenalty; see also Beit-Hallahmi (2007). One major exception to this assertion is African Americans—they tend to be quite religious and yet generally oppose the death penalty. So the correlation between greater religiosity and greater support for the death penalty exists most prominently among white Americans.
less likely to be racist or vengeful: Cota-Mckinley, Woody, and Bell (2001).
less likely to be strongly nationalistic: Greeley and Hout (2006), 83; see also Tobin Grant, “Patriotism God Gap: Is the U.S. the Greatest Country in the World?” Christianity Today Politics Blog, August 5, 2011, blog.christianitytoday.com/ctpolitics/2011/08/patriotism_god.html.
when we look specifically at militarism: Smidt (2005); see also Guth et al. (2005); Hamilton (1968); Connors, Leonard, and Burnham (1968).
Secular people are also much more tolerant: Putnam and Campbell (2010), 482–84; see also Froese, Bader, and Smith (2008); Gay and Ellison (1993).
protecting the environment: “Religion and the Environment: Polls Show Strong Backing for Environmental Protection Across Religious Groups,” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, November 2, 2004, pewforum.org/2004/11/02/religion-and-the-environment-polls-show-strong-backing-for-environmental-protection-across-religious-groups.
threat of global warming: McCright and Dunlap (2011).
support women’s equality: Petersen and Donnenwerth (1998); Hoffman and Miller (1997); Brinkerhoff and Mackie (1993, 1985); Hayes (1995).
believe that wives should obey: Cragun (2013), 113.
gay rights: Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, “Religion and Attitudes Toward Same-Sex Marriage,” February 7, 2012, pewforum.org/2012/02/07/Religion-and-Attitudes-Toward-Same-Sex-Marriage/; see also Rowatt et al. (2006); Linneman and Clendenen (2009); Schulte and Battle (2004).
corporal punishment: Ellison (1996); Ellison and Sherkat (1993a).
status of illegal immigrants: “Few Say Religion Shapes Immigration, Environment Views,” Pew Research Center’s Religion & Public Life Project, September 17, 2010, pewforum.org/2010/09/17/few-say-religion-shapes-immigration-environment-views.
suffering of animals: Peek, Konty, and Frazier (1997); DeLeeuw et al. (2007).
when it comes to generosity: When it comes to goodness and morality, there is one significant area where secular folk simply fall short, and the religious shine: generosity. In their comprehensive analysis of contemporary religious life in the United States, American Grace: How Religion Divides and Unites Us (2010), Robert Putnam and David Campbell found that religious people are far more likely than secular people to donate their time and their money. Religious Americans are more likely to volunteer (for religious as well as nonreligious causes), to donate blood, to help the homeless, to give to charities, and to give in greater amounts than their nonreligious counterparts—and this is all the more striking given the fact that religious Americans tend to be slightly poorer on average than secular Americans. Even when controlling for such variables as race, gender, education, marital status, and age, the correlation remains the same: religiously observant Americans are more generous, both with their time and their money, than demographically similar secular Americans. Similar findings have been reported in the popular book Who Really Cares? by Arthur Brooks and James Q. Wilson (2007).
How do we explain this? As it turns out, and as Putnam and Campbell’s own data shows, God is actually not the secret to religious people’s generosity edge. It isn’t faith in the Lord that propels most religious people to be so charitable. Nor is it specific religious teachings, beliefs, or precepts. Rather, it is the community aspect of religious life—being part of a social group. Much current research indicates that church membership is the undisputable key to religious charity, not theism. Theological views simply do not correlate with increased generosity or volunteering. Nor do the actual content of people’s beliefs, or the depth of their piety. It is tempting, Putnam and Campbell acknowledge, to assume that religious people are more charitable “because of their fear of God or their hope of salvation … but we find no evidence for those conjectures.” What does make a difference is communal connectedness. The real impact of religiosity on generosity and overall good neighborliness, as Putnam and Campbell explain, “comes through chatting with friends after service or joining a Bible study group, not from listening to the sermon or fervently believing in God.”
Being socially integrated, being socially involved, being with other people—these dynamics seem to breed altruistic, charitable tendencies. But since secular people are much less likely to be communally engaged to the degree that the religious are, certain charitable aspects of their moral lives may suffer, and their ability to do good in t
he world, as individuals, may be less than optimal.
violent crime: “Percentage of atheists,” Freethoughtpedia, freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists, note 6; see also Golumbaski (1997).
A similar underrepresentation: “UK Prison Population 2009,” Wikipedia, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:UK_Prison_Population_2009.jpg.
professor of psychology Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi: Beit-Hallahmi (2010), 134; see also Bonger (1943).
Such research is mushrooming: J. Anderson Thomson and Clare Aukofer, “Science and Religion: God Didn’t Make Man; Man Made Gods,” Los Angeles Times, July 18, A11.
psychology professor James Waller: Waller (2007), 156–58.
number of people raised without any religion: Merino (2012).
Benjamin Beit-Hallahmi has observed: Beit-Hallahmi (2010), 134–35.
Chapter 2: The Good Society
when we compare these types of nations: Rees (2009b); Zuckerman (2013).
University of London professor Stephen Law has observed: Law (2011), 81.
“No God, no moral society”: Dennis Prager, “No God, No Moral Society,” Jewish Journal, February 2, 2011, jewishjournal.com/dennis_prager/article/no_god_no_moral_society_20110202.
according to Gingrich, a secular society: Steve Benen, “Gingrich’s Nightmare.” Political Animal blog, Washington Monthly, November 20, 2011, washingtonmonthly.com/political-animal/2011_11/gingrichs_nightmare033613.php.
A few years earlier, in his 2006 book: Gingrich (2010).
in the aftermath of the wanton massacre: Melissa Jeltsen, “Newt Gingrich: Sandy Hook Shooting Tied to Godless Society,” Huffington Post, December 19, 2012, huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/19/newt-gingrich-sandy-hook-_n_2330506.html.
Voltaire, the celebrated Enlightenment philosopher: Lewy (2008), 13.
Living the Secular Life_New Answers to Old Questions Page 23
