Atheism For Dummies (For Dummies (Religion & Spirituality)) (76 page)
Read Atheism For Dummies (For Dummies (Religion & Spirituality)) Online
Authors: Dale McGowan
Exercising the moral muscle
Whenever someone is a particular saint or sinner, people commonly look to that person’s upbringing for clues. Surely something her parents did (or didn’t do) set the stage for her selfless acts (or terrible crimes). Religious conservatives often cry out after heinous acts like mass shootings that morality is declining because children are no longer raised to honor and obey parents, authorities, and God; to follow instructions without question; and to know the Ten Commandments. They say the acts are a result of parenting gone wrong.
One conservative religious parenting book after another cites “permissive parenting” as the cause of a supposed moral decline, and obedience and discipline as the solution. “Obedience is the foundation for all character,” In his book on Christian parenting, Baptist pastor Jack Hyles called obedience the foundation of character, of the home, and of society. A list of the 100 most frequent words in John MacArthur’s
What the Bible Says About Parenting
includes duty, authority, obedience, fear, command, law, and submit.
Not all Christian parenting advice runs that way.
Parenting With Love and Laughter: Finding God in Family Life
doesn’t include a single one of those nasty obsessions in its top 100. And that book shares fully half of its top 50 words — and a lot of its other values — with
Parenting Beyond Belief,
my own book for nonreligious parents. Both of these books emphasize involving kids in ethical decision making and inviting them to ask the reasons behind the rules — and neither book counts “Because I said so” as a valid reason. As is often the case, religious moderates have more in common with the nonreligious than they do with fundamentalists.
Parenting styles do strongly affect children’s ethical development. But is unquestioning obedience really the way to go, or do the less authoritarian books have it right?
Moral development research consistently recommends the less authoritarian approach. Dr. Joan Grusec, a leader in this field, says parents who demand unquestioning obedience are actually
less
likely to raise ethical kids than those who emphasize reasoning and questioning. That’s the exact opposite of popular opinion.
Comparing rescuers and non-rescuers in Nazi Europe
In one especially powerful study, 700 survivors of Nazi Europe were interviewed, including
rescuers
(people who actively helped others hide or escape, often at great risk to themselves) and
non-rescuers
(people who were either passive in the face of the atrocities or actively involved). The researchers asked both groups about their upbringing — specifically how their parents taught them values and ethics.
Almost everyone described growing up in a home where morality was taken seriously. But when the questions turned to how that was done, an astonishing pattern emerged. The non-rescuers were 21 times more likely to have been raised in families that emphasized
obedience to authority.
Rules were meant to be followed without question — in other words, the rules were taught by indoctrination. If a child asked why a given rule was in place, the parent was likely to say, “Because I said so.”
Rescuers, on the other hand, were three times more likely than non-rescuers to identify reasoning as an element of their moral education.
Explained,
the authors said, was one of the most common words used by rescuers in describing their parents’ ways of talking about rules and ethical ideas. The parents
explained
why something was right or wrong and allowed the children to ask further questions. This in turn gave the kids experience not just at rule-following but at thinking morally.
When the Nazis rose to power, most of those raised to obey authority kept obeying authority, while those taught to think morally kept thinking morally — and were able to see that this particular authority should be resisted.
Indoctrinating
kids to rules (teaching by rote without encouraging independent thought or challenge) is one of the worst things parents can do to develop the ethical judgment of their children. Researcher Larry Nucci has said indoctrination is worse than doing nothing, because it actually interferes with a child’s moral development. Yet conservative commentators urge parents to indoctrinate because it feels so decisive. People with nondogmatic worldviews, including atheists, have an easier time walking away from the rule-following approach to ethics. That’s a good thing, because the questioning path leads more reliably to ethical adults who will question both commands and commandments rather than boldly do whatever they’re told.
Grasping ethical incentives — carrots and sticks
I’ve always found it interesting that Christianity offers release from the greatest human fear — death — but then backs up this awesome gift with the threat of hell if you don’t accept it.
That’s not all that unusual, really — in fact, it’s downright human. Most morality works in the same carrot-and-stick fashion. People are offered a chance to be good for goodness’ sake, or for the approval of others, or for a piece of candy — and if they still choose to break the rules, it’s The Stick.
I remember seeing a perfect example of the carrot-and-stick a few years ago as I stood in line at an amusement park. A teenage boy wearing a Christian day camp T-shirt ducked under several of the rails and cut in front of us in line.
Two minutes later, his bright pink tie-dyed Jesus-fish shirt was spotted by one of the camp counselors. The counselor walked over and reasoned with the lad using the reciprocity principle:
“Michael, what are you doing? How would you like it if these nice people all cut in front of you?”
(And then, wait for it…)
“If I see that again, you’re out of the park.”
That’s the carrot and stick. Drive the speed limit and everyone is safer, including you. Not enough for ya? Here’s a $120 ticket. Have a nice day.
When I am told, as I often am, that my atheism is a license for mass murder, I try to point out that
Despite being an atheist for my entire adult life, I’ve never taken advantage of that supposed license, nor have any of the atheists I know.
I have countless reasons
not
to do such a thing, including a lack of motivation, an abundance of empathy, my desire to be thought well of, a brain full of oxytocin, and all the rest of the incentives from this chapter.
And if those fail . . . I’m pretty sure murder still carries legal penalties.
In other words, even if all positive appeals to principle failed to reach me, an earthly stick is ready and waiting right behind that carrot.
As I point out at the beginning of this chapter, no matter what their worldview, the overwhelming majority of people don’t need to feel that stick across their bottoms. You and I are both surrounded every day by people happily nibbling on the various carrots they get for behaving well. Only rarely are the moral sticks needed. But society has evolved those penalties for use whenever they are needed.
Recognizing different levels of morality
In thinking about morality without religion or scriptures or God, it helps to recognize that some kinds of morality are much more impressive than others. If not getting arrested is my moral high water mark — well, I should want to aim a little higher than that. On the other end of the spectrum (as Gandhi, Bertrand Russell, and Martin Luther King, Jr. can attest), getting arrested can be a sign that you’ve aimed
really
high.
Psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg saw six stages on the moral ladder, each higher and better developed than the last:
Fear of punishment:
The first and lowest kind of morality is fear of punishment. Threats of spanking are in this category, as is hell. If someone tells me I should believe in God so I don’t go to hell, I always think, “Ooh, that’s some low Kohlberg you’ve got there.” (I don’t say that out loud, of course, because “low Kohlberg” is considered offensive in some cultures.)