Aren’t people just atheists because they don’t want to obey God? (Extended Edition)

This is another one of those accusations that atheists kinda just get tired of hearing, because of how commonly it’s used to redirect attention from the many rational and intellectual reasons atheists have for not believing in God. In his very first book, A Shattered Visage: The Real Face of Atheism, Ravi Zacharias wrote: 

A man or woman rejects God neither because of intellectual demands nor because of the paucity of evidence. One rejects God because of a moral resistance that refuses to admit one’s need for God.

Another prominent apologist, William Lane Craig, said something similar. I’ve already used the quote in a previous post, but it bears repeating:

Therefore, when a person refuses to come to Christ, it is never just because of lack of evidence or because of intellectual difficulties: at root, he refuses to come because he willingly ignores and rejects the drawing of God’s Spirit on his heart. No one in the final analysis really fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments; he fails to become a Christian because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.

In a 2008 debate with Christopher Hitchens, apologist Dinesh D’Souza finished his remarks with a rant about how Hitchens only hated Mother Teresa because he recognized that she was so much more selfless than him (which, if you know anything about Hitchens’ views on Mother Teresa, is an absolutely ludicrous claim). He ended this diatribe with the following self-satisfied pronouncement:

The atheist, I want to suggest, is chafing under the moral rules of Christianity; that's the concentration camp he's talking about. Ultimately he realizes that a life lived according to the Ten Commandments is a life in which we are accountable. We all live in a world where bad guys sometimes make off with the money, where good guys come to grief. It's not fair, what goes around doesn't come around. But religion says that at the end of the day, what goes around does come around. There is a last judgment, there is an ultimate accountability. I would suggest that as human beings, we chafe under that. We hate the idea that our actions are ultimately accountable, that even the things we do in private and in the dark are under scrutiny and are being recorded. Atheism is a massive rebellion against that, but it disguises itself as moving along the strict pathways of reason. It's not an intellectual revolt, it's a moral revolt.

So those are three major Christian apologists making this point, and I’m sure I could find plenty more if I just wanted to clog up this post with nothing but examples of apologists making this accusation. Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention that the Bible itself also has been interpreted as making this claim. Romans 1:18-21, John 3:19, and Ephesians 4:18, for example, seem to suggest pretty strongly that people just refuse to believe in God because they don’t want him to be real.

And you know, honestly, I would probably not have much problem with statements like these if they were just a bit more measured in who they were talking about. If it said “some atheists,” then I think I’d have to say they’re probably right, because I never have and never would claim that all atheists lack belief in God for completely rational, intellectual reasons. To do so would be a gross over-generalization, which is exactly the fallacy that statements like these fall into.

Zacharias’ statement is somewhat vague; I suppose it has some wiggle room to interpret it as not really talking about every atheist (though it doesn’t seem like any are excluded in his remark), but Craig’s statement is far more explicit in the universality of who it’s talking about. He says “it is never just because of lack of evidence” and “no one fails to become a Christian because of lack of arguments.” In William Lane Craig’s mind (at least, as indicated by this quote), there is not a single non-Christian in the entire history of the world who ever didn’t believe in Christ for any other reason than “because he loves darkness rather than light and wants nothing to do with God.” What an absurd, ridiculous, and unsupportable generalization.

I think the egregiousness of the generalization is enough to sink this line of attack all by itself, but there are more good reasons than that to not give it any merit. When you really consider the Cost-Benefit Analysis of someone who actually does believe that God is real, but chooses to behave as if he’s not, it becomes pretty obvious that the numbers just don’t line up.

Granted, I think one thing that needs to be clarified is that it matters a great deal which conception or variation of God we’re talking about. Christopher Hitchens often said that he was very happy that the evidence is against the reality of God and heaven, but he also thought of heaven as a “celestial North Korea” and God as a totalitarian dictator. I think even most devout Christians would be a lot less enthusiastic about heaven if they really thought about it in those terms. Conversely, if Hitchens became convinced that a more accurate picture of heaven was one where he would be truly happy, then I doubt he would be particularly relieved to find that the evidence is in favor of its nonexistence.

So, for this discussion, I want to strip away all the ancillary considerations of whether heaven might be some kind of Twilight Zone style reversal, where it’s actually quite an unpleasant place to spend eternity. For the sake of this analysis, let’s just stick to the most basic, essential claim about heaven; that it is a perfect paradise, where you will be for all eternity. Don’t worry about what kind of specific things “perfect” might mean, or how hard it will be to reach your quota of hours spent worshiping God; let’s just assume for now that each individual will find heaven to be completely perfect and they will be completely happy once they get there.

Now, given that conception of heaven without the distraction of Hitchens’ “celestial North Korea,” does it really make sense that the average atheist would deny God simply out of “moral resistance?” Does it really make sense that an atheist would think to themselves, “if I accepted the drawing of God’s Spirit on my heart, then I could live in a perfect paradise for all eternity, but nah, I’d rather just believe that I can do whatever I want for maybe eighty years at best, and then I just completely cease to exist.” Does that really sound like something that the average atheist would see as a better option?

And that’s just considering this nebulous concept of the “average atheist,” who might be pretty happy with what they’ve got going on in this life. Even for those people, who could possibly have the means to give full rein to their basest lust and hedonistic desires, I still don’t think it would be a reasonable trade to exchange an eternity of ultimate pleasure for excruciating torture, just so they can indulge themselves for maybe eighty years if they're lucky. But that’s other people who might be considered average, whereas I would consider myself to be far below average, in terms of having the capability to “drink deep the cup of life.”

I’m over thirty now, and I have to say that (other than a few brief teases of a version of myself who was more capable) my twenties were pretty much a complete waste in terms of having exciting and memorable life experiences. So while this argument might carry a little weight for some wildly famous rock star with an endless supply of cocaine and groupies, the idea that I would gladly give up an eternity in heaven just for the sake of avoiding the accountability of sin is nothing short of laughable to me, given just how little “sin” I have the opportunity to indulge in. I wonder if Ravi Zacharias would be so quick to accuse someone like me of moral resistance, if he knew that the typical flashpoint of this supposed resistance is just sitting at home jerking off to distract myself from how lonely I am. Yippie.

That is why I cannot take this type of argument seriously (when it is used as a blanket statement for atheists in general, which would then include me), because the tacit implication of it is that atheists are denying God so they can have free rein to do whatever they want. But I don't have free rein to do whatever I want whether I believe in God or not. In this life, I am severely limited by genetic and social and developmental factors, so why would I want to casually discard an eternity (I can’t stress that highly enough) in a perfect paradise filled with love and community, and yes, intimacy (because there are plenty of other deeply-satisfying types of intimacy besides sex), in exchange for not getting to do whatever I want anyway?

Furthermore, this argument seems like a gross double-standard, when you consider how common it is for religious people to use religious ideas about repentance and forgiveness as a tactic to dodge moral accountability. In some situations, it almost seems easier to avoid the accountability of “sinful” behavior if you are professing faith in God. Here are some examples of religious people in the public eye who have either advocated or benefited from this stance:

In America, probably the most famous case of this is Josh Duggar, who molested more than one of his sisters and cheated on his wife, and was just a general all-around hypocrite. So how did presidential candidate and staunch “family values” advocate Mike Huckabee respond to this news? He said that Josh’s actions were “inexcusable” but not “unforgivable,” and went on to say, “No one needs to defend Josh’s actions as a teenager, but the fact that he confessed his sins to those he harmed, sought help, and has gone forward to live a responsible and circumspect life as an adult is testament to his family’s authenticity and humility.” Also, “It is precisely because we are all sinners that we need His grace and His forgiveness.”

Do you see the double-standard here? If Josh Duggar had been an avowed atheist, people like the apologists I quoted at the beginning would’ve happily used that as an example of how “atheists aren’t really denying God for intellectual reasons, they just want an excuse to sin.” But then, when people profess belief in God, but sin anyway, then it’s “we’re all sinners that need God’s forgiveness, so leave this kid alone.”

Consider also the example of Bristol Palin, who received national attention after becoming a single mother despite her own mother (politician Sarah Palin) having a strong abstinence-only stance. From this exposure, Bristol Palin became a “teen ambassador,” spreading the message of the importance of staying abstinent with statements like, “Regardless of what I did personally, I just think that abstinence is the only way that you can effectively 100% fool-proof way to prevent pregnancy.” Maybe it is, but it only works if you do it (which is exactly the problem that comprehensive sex-ed advocates have with abstinence-only education).

Despite such statements and a “guarantee” that she would keep an abstinence pledge until she was married, she now has a second child (while still unmarried). When Sarah Palin was asked about this in an interview, she said, “Well, the cool thing about putting your faith in God, is he certainly is a God of second chances and third and fourth and fifth chances. I screw up all the time!” Well, if that’s the case, then why would we atheists even need to deny the existence of God if we just wanted to “screw up” without being morally accountable to him?

Perhaps an even more serious example is that of Dennis Hastert. A former speaker of the house and outspoken opponent of LGBT rights, he was caught making structured bank withdrawals for the purpose of paying hush money to a man who Hastert had molested when the man was in high school. It turned out that Hastert had done this to multiple teenage boys. And yet, when it came time for sentencing (only for the structuring, since the statute of limitations had worn out on the molestation), Tom DeLay (a former House Majority Leader who was also very anti-gay) had this to say:

He is a man of strong faith that guides him. He is a man of great integrity. He loves and respects his fellow man. I have never witnessed a time when he was unkind to anyone. He is always giving to others and helping anyone including me so many times.

When Speaker Hastert became Speaker of the house and I became Majority Leader, he started a bible [sic] study every Wednesday at lunch. It was just me and him and Charlie Wright (a pastor). It was a very personal time for the three of us. We held each other accountable and we studied God's word and applied it to where we were at that moment. Nothing could have been more intimate between us. So I know his heart and have seen it up close and personal. We all have our flaws, but Dennis Hastert has very few. He is a good man that loves the Lord. He gets his integrity and values from Him. He doesn't deserve what he is going through. I ask that you consider the man that is before you and give him leniency where you can.

Now, remember; the accusation is that atheists only deny the existence of God because they want to avoid moral accountability, they want to be free to do whatever they want. But in the case of Dennis Hastert, it seems like he went ahead and did whatever he wanted even while believing in God, and Tom DeLay used that belief to argue for leniency. So in this case, Hastert’s belief in God was actually an advantage in avoiding moral accountability. If that was seriously the goal of everyone who professes to be atheists, I don’t know if denying the existence of God would really be the way to get the best result.

(Update: another great example of this trend is here.)

There are even some parts of the Bible which seem to suggest that staying religious is actually the easiest way to avoid moral accountability. Twice in 1^st Corinthians (6:12 and 10:23), it says, “All things are lawful for me, but not all things are profitable.” New Testament theology seems to suggest that all a sinner has to do is repent of their sin and they will not only be forgiven, but all their sins will be washed away, “as far as the east is from the west.” And throughout the Christian world, there seem to be a great many examples of people who are perfectly happy to do whatever they want while continuing to at least claim to be believers, then ask for forgiveness when they’re done so their sin can be washed away.

You can disagree with that behavior, or the interpretation of those verses, but you’d be hard-pressed to disagree that some people do engage in this type of behavior. But, again, if people have no problem sinning while continuing to profess belief, then why would we need to bother pretending to not believe, just so we could sin? It reminds me of something actress Keira Knightley once said: “If only I wasn't an atheist, I could get away with anything. You'd just ask for forgiveness and then you'd be forgiven. It sounds much better than having to live with guilt.”

Ultimately, that’s the real flaw in this argument. Atheists don’t avoid moral accountability. If the atheist is a sociopath, maybe, but sociopaths can believe in God just as much as anyone else. However, if the atheist is not a sociopath, then we do have moral accountability – to ourselves. We may not have exactly the same stances on moral issues as the more conservative evangelical varieties of Christianity (which a lot of these apologists may belong to), but that doesn’t mean we don’t have morals. As long as we’re capable of feeling empathy (and again, if you don’t, then you’re a psychopath, and that has nothing to do with atheism), then that is the true moral accountability that denying God does absolutely nothing to abate.

If I do something without thinking, and then realize that what I did hurt someone, I feel bad about it. I don’t like to hurt people, I don’t want to hurt people. At the end of the day, that is the true moral accountability. I don’t need God for that, so it’s ludicrous to claim that I would deny God just to avoid it, because that feeling of empathy is not gonna go away (nor would I want it to). The accusation that atheists only deny God out of moral resistance is yet another claim of Christian apologetics that is utterly baseless.