Austin American Atheist

Today I was pleased to find that the moral sensibilities of a local atheist were on display in the religion columns of the Austin American Statesman. Blane Conklin is a systems analyst for University of Texas Systems, holds a Master of Divinity and a doctorate in Semitic languages, and four years ago came to the conclusion that "nonreligious life is rich with morality."

I remember exactly where I was nearly four years ago when, walking home from a day of study, I admitted to myself that I could not really know whether my religious beliefs corresponded with reality, or whether they were merely the product of human imagination. It was difficult to acknowledge that a naturalistic explanation for the universe was simpler and more plausible. I was sad to think there would come a day when my mind would cease to function, and I would sleep forever.

While I was in the midst of incredible disorientation and grief, there was another sensation — the feeling of freedom, curiosity and the sense of rising to a challenge. It was, I now see, very similar to the experience of growing up and leaving home. This sensation grew, and it soon overcame the initial sense of loss and despondency.

But that very day, I also began thinking about moral and ethical questions. What would change? What would stay the same? In a phrase, how would I now live? And how would I relate to my wife and two small children? The answers might surprise you.

The initial answer is that nothing changed. I did not suddenly lose interest in the well-being of my children, nor want to cheat on my wife. I did not become a "heathen," with all the accompanying moral and ethical connotations.

The long-term answer is that I became a better human being. I found more compassion toward the billions of people I had never met. If the teeming masses of the world were no longer the concern of a supernatural being, then they just became mine.

That's right folks. Morality precedes religion. We can justify our actions rationally, and without any appeals to God, the supernatural, or some ancient text. We ask ourselves, were certain actions "good" or "bad" before God declared them so, or only after? Our reason affirms the former, and goes on to deny the subject in the question, namely God, having rendered the concept not only ethically superfluous, but so utterly incoherent as to demand its non-existence. Conklin put it thusly:

...I realized that most of my moral and ethical principles had always been grounded in my own rational sense of right and wrong, not on my religious faith. I had already judged that the biblical teachings on slavery were not fit for the modern world, and that the biblical teaching to stone adulterers and disobedient children should be rejected. I had already judged that the golden rule was a wise and worthy guide.

And with that, I'll be watching for any letters to the editor.

Further Developments:

Well don't that just beat all! Blane Conklin himself has come upon this post and given me his thanks in the comments. You're wellcome, Blane! As for the rest of you, be sure to check out Blane's blog, but whatever you do, do not read it! And so long as you're not reading his blog, you should know that he did not post his column on his blog and currently does not have an anonymous troll in the comments. So I order you, do not go give that troll a good drubbing!

And now Blane's column has received praise from a local by the name of Omega Baker in a letter to the editor which reads:

Thank you for printing Blane Conklin's Jan. 6 "Your Words" column, "For former Christian, nonreligious life is still rich with morality."

It's good to see the American-Statesman giving equal voice to all views in their religion section, even atheists.

What a pleasant surprise.