The Evasion of Accountability: A Critique of Atheistic Morality

In recent years, certain atheist thinkers have attempted to explain human morality solely in terms of evolutionary byproducts. This approach, while claiming to provide a scientific and rational explanation for moral behavior, ultimately serves as a thinly veiled effort to absolve ourselves of accountability to a higher power. In this section, we will examine the flaws in this argument and demonstrate why attempts to reduce human morality to mere evolutionary byproducts are inherently problematic.

The Reductive Fallacy

Atheistic thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens have argued that human morality can be explained solely through the lens of evolution. According to this view, moral behaviors such as altruism, cooperation, and empathy emerged as adaptive traits that increased an individual’s chances of survival and reproduction (Dawkins, 2006). While it is undeniable that evolutionary pressures have shaped certain aspects of human behavior, reducing morality to mere biological instincts oversimplifies the complexities of human nature.

This reductive approach commits a category mistake by conflating moral principles with biological imperatives. Morality involves abstract concepts like justice, fairness, and compassion, which cannot be reduced to purely physical or instinctual explanations. By ignoring the unique aspects of human consciousness and rationality, this view fails to provide a comprehensive understanding of morality.

The Accountability Conundrum

If human morality is solely the result of evolutionary pressures, then we are left with a significant accountability conundrum. If our moral behaviors are merely byproducts of natural selection, do we not absolve ourselves of personal responsibility for our actions? This perspective implies that our choices and decisions are ultimately determined by biological forces beyond our control.

However, this raises a fundamental question: if morality is merely an evolutionary adaptation, why should we bother with moral principles at all? If our behaviors are predetermined by natural selection, then what is the purpose of moral deliberation or accountability? This view effectively undermines the notion of personal responsibility and moral agency, leaving us with a morally vacuous existence.

The Problem of Moral Objectivity

Atheistic morality also struggles to provide an objective foundation for moral principles. If morality is merely a product of evolutionary forces, then what basis do we have for distinguishing right from wrong? Why should we consider certain actions as morally reprehensible or praiseworthy?

Without an objective moral framework, morality becomes a subjective construct, susceptible to individual whims and cultural relativism. This approach fails to provide a universal standard for moral evaluation, leaving us with a moral free-for-all where might makes right.

The Contradiction of Moral Outrage

Atheist thinkers often exhibit a curious contradiction when it comes to moral outrage. On one hand, they argue that morality is merely an evolutionary byproduct, yet on the other hand, they express indignation and moral outrage towards actions they deem reprehensible (Hitchens, 2007).

This contradiction highlights the inherent tension between their theoretical commitment to moral relativism and their intuitive sense of moral objectivity. If morality is merely a product of evolution, then why should we be morally outraged by certain actions? This inconsistency reveals that even atheists implicitly recognize an objective moral framework, which undermines their own arguments.

Conclusion

Attempts to reduce human morality to mere evolutionary byproducts serve as a thinly veiled effort to absolve ourselves of accountability to a higher power. By ignoring the complexities of human consciousness and rationality, this approach commits a category mistake, fails to provide an objective foundation for moral principles, and contradicts our intuitive sense of moral objectivity.

Ultimately, atheistic morality suffers from a fundamental flaw: it cannot reconcile its theoretical commitment to moral relativism with our inherent sense of moral accountability. As we will explore in subsequent sections, this failure underscores the need for a more comprehensive understanding of human morality, one that acknowledges the existence of a higher power and our accountability to it.

References

Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Bantam Press.

Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve Books.

Behe, M. J. (1996). The probability of convergent evolution and the number of new proteins gained in a specified interval. Protein Science, 5(11), 2211-2218.