The Godless and the Body Politic

I'll have to admit that I was pleased to see Elisabeth Dole lose to Kay Hagan in North Carolina. It's not because I had anything in particular against Dole beforehand. But the "Godless Americans" ad did it for me. You can see it here if you haven't already. Most people know the story: Kay Hagan is a Sunday School teacher and Presbyterian Elder. The fundraiser was sponsored by two people who are also affiliated with an atheist group, but the group had no part in setting up the fundraiser, and the voice at the end of the ad isn't Hagan's.

But I'll confess that I feel a little guilty listing all those facts. I feel guilty because they make it seem as though it matters whether Hagan is an atheist. It doesn't.

A 2007 Gallup poll spelled bad news for atheist candidates. Over half of those polled said that they wouldn't vote for an atheist. Though the poll didn't ask why, the sort of reason one often hears is that atheists have no reason to be moral. Psychologist Paul Bloom notes in a recent article on Slate.com that while superficial look at research on Americans might seem to bear that out, a less parochial look around the world paints a rather different picture. All that is mist for the social scientist's grill. Philosophers have another issue

There's an old saw -- something that Dostoevsky never quite said -- that if God doesn't exist then everything is permitted. Whatever Dostoevsky may have had in mind, this is often taken to mean that unless there's a divine Judge to mete out punishment and reward, no one has any deep motive to be moral. But there's a confusion here. Someone who behaves well only because they're afraid of damnation isn't acting from moral motives in the first place. They're simply trying to save their immortal skin. People who worry that atheists will feel free to run amok have a surprisingly cynical view of human nature. They apparently think that without the fear of hellfire, no one would be able to find good reason to be good. But not only is the view cynical; it's silly.

Most people, most of the time, behave well not because they're afraid they'll be damned if they don't but because it just seems to be the right thing to do. Most people find something common-sensical in the thought that you don't treat other people in ways that you wouldn't want to be treated. Most people are at least tolerably well able to think their way into other people's shoes and summon up a modicum of sympathy. Not everyone, of course, and no one all the time. But among the world's bad guys are a good many who either did what they did in spite of religious belief or, more disturbingly, convinced themselves they were doing God's will.

This isn't to deny that religion has inspired its share of noble and selfless acts. And trying to tally religious atrocities against their godless counterparts is a recipe for cooked books. But the idea that atheists start off at a moral disadvantage is not only a lot of hooey. It's hooey that atheists have every right to find offensive.

Lest the reader think that this is all self-serving self-pity, I'd add that I don't think of myself as an atheist. I actually do belong to a mainline religious body (the Episcopal Church). I joined as an adult, and I'm quite comfortable with that affiliation, even though I'm not an orthodox believer. But I'll have to confess that I find worries about people's confessional attitudes simply to be a fetish.

When Colin Powell endorsed Obama, he addressed the question of whether Obama is a Muslim. The most important point he made wasn't to say no. It was to ask why in the world it should matter. The same point applies here. I don't care whether my legislator or senator or governor or President is a religious believer. I care that he or she be decent, be thoughtful, and be up to the job. If someone meets those qualifications, then I'll listen to what they have to say. And if what they have to say seems right to me, I'll vote for them regardless of whether or how they pray.