When the Homily is about Immunology

Atheism and Hedonism

Over the last weekend, a number of us who were out foraging for liquid bread supplies, engaged in a spirited discussion worthy of a LOG meeting. The debate centered on my assertion that atheists, in order to be true to their worldview ought to be hedonists. Just as surely as Christians, in order to be true to their worldview ought to be altruistic. Of course, in both cases, people frequently fail or refuse to live up to the living strategies dictated by their worldview.

I was suprised by the degree of hostility laid against my claim, which I ought to add did not evolve from some self-satisfying pharisitical notion of my being a better human for being a Christian, but rather from personal experience as one who was a rabid atheist and whose worldview was unable to logically argue against intelligently played hedonism - something I vehemently hated.

As with most arguments or debates, stumbling blocks of communication are usually composed of contradictory definitions or understandings of terms, or even an altogether misunderstanding of the original point of contention. As more points are made and more 50 cent words used, the debate can be lost in obscurity.

So let me clarify my original point. First definitions.

Atheism of course, is the assertion that there is no God. Naturally, it will also often offer its own answers or theories to some of humankind's more complex questions in life such as:

Where did we come from? And, what is and where does morality come from? I personally know of no atheist who does not assert that human beings are animals (and nothing more) and are the product of millions of years of natural selection. The existence of morality in the truly atheist worldview can only logically be explained by genetics (as in Richard Dawkins' extensive work on Evolutionary Biology) or as a social/environmental construct. A great example: a general inkling toward altruism is very likely genetic, whereas a man who opts to be faithful to his wife despite what he feels is likely acting on a social/environmental construct (e.g. he has learned it is unacceptable and is afriad of being caught and shunned by his soceity.) Lose the social construct and follow the desires of one's genes to reproduce and one cannot be said to have done anything "immoral." If a gene favroing altruism has indeed evolved in one person, but not another...can we say one is morally superior to another?

Hedonism is essentially selfishness crowned. Of course, it does not mean that one spends their every waking moment engaging in the most selfish acts imaginable. Far from it, as intelliegent creatures we understand that sometimes cooperation and compromise is in our best interest. A hedonist may or may not cheat on his or her spouse, a hedonist may or may not lie, a hedonist may or may not commit a seemingly altruistic act. What a hedonist will do however, is always be looking out for "number one." A hedonist will always be functioning under the notion that his individual needs ultimately outweigh the needs of others...but this being so in the long run. Of course, if one has an altruistic gene (if it exists) being an utter hedonist is sometimes difficult, but generally, we humans are ALL pretty darn good at being exceptionally intelligent hedonists.

Evolutionary geneticists have a much easier time explaining selfish acts than they do selfless acts. As Christians, we recognize (or at least should) how pervasive slefishness is in ourselves and in the world around us. The fact of the matter is, there is absolutely nothing in atheism that would lead us to question hedonism as a way of life. Quite the contrary actually, if the secular worldview is right: there is no God, there is no after-life, there is no judgement, there are no higher or lofty goals that transcend the animal instincts of humankind, then why on earth would you waste your time doing anything other than a life of intelligent hedonism?

When I was a "foaming-at-the-mouth" anti-Chrsitian atheist, morality became my biggest stumbling block. For some reason, I believed in a literal black and white right and wrong sort of morality. And yet, I realized that if man is but an advanced animal, then someone molesting and killing a little boy is no more morally "wrong" than a cat who tortures by "playing" with its mouse prey for hours before finally eating it. How could I say otherwise? My sense of morality was utterly unsatisfied with the notion of a genetic or social moral construct in such matters. For how could I condemn the Nazi's for attempted genocide when in their minds it was a perfectly acceptable thing to do...their social moral construct was merely different than mine.

The uber-atheists have their logic straight when they propose: "The whole of the law is: do what thou wilt." Of course, anarchy may not be what is best for your average everyday atheist and hence, laws and some semblance of morality are beneficial to the individual. However, when those things are not beneficial (in the long term or in a single situation), they may be overlooked as long as it is done intelligently. What in atheism would dictate otherwise? There is no God looking over you to see what is done in secret! If you can get away with something "immoral", then you certainly should do so....again, as long as you can get away with it.

Atheism would never demand a life of denial. It never commands that one bear a cross. If it says anything at all, it indeed says "do what thou wilt...enjoy your life to the fullest now...fulfill all of your desires...but do so intelligently so that you may do these things within the popular social and genetic constructs of morality - unless you can get away with stepping outsidie of them." Consider an atheist who donates regularly to famine relief, or perhaps even works for such a charitable agency. Why does he do it? I would contend that his motivation is ultimately something contradictory to the atheist-secular worldview, for why on earth should we gave a crap about starving people in Africa? Or AIDS in Africa? Africa has little to offer me personally and I have no intention of sleeping with an African, so why should I care if millions are perishing? In the end, I would suggest that we have rooted in ourselves, whether we recognize it or not, the Christian value of "do unto others as you would have done to you." Atheism, I believe, would tell this charitable person that what he is doing is rather pointless...unless...unless, it is in some way giving the person pleasure. Ahhhh...appeasing the altruistic gene. But in the end it is not neccesary and no more good or noble than the person selling snake-oil to desperate AIDS victims in Africa.

One may be a hedonist and still have all the appearances of a very nice, kind, and generous person. Take me for example - I am often very good at hiding the hedonism in my heart. The difference between me as an atheist and now as a Christian is that now I am commanded and am working to "deny myself", whereas before my only command was to "indulge myself."

Now please be aware here that what I am NOT in anyway saying is that all atheists are hedonists (at least no more than the rest of us), but what I am saying is that I'll bet that I can convince an atheist by arguing within the context of the atheist worldview that they really should be looking out for "number one."