Living a good life, without God

To be clear, this column is not about criticizing religious beliefs. I have come to believe that given any sufficiently sophisticated and reasonable worldview that can explain most phenomena, our psychology will interpret these phenomena as confirmations of that particular worldview at the exclusion of others. After years of such confirmation, it becomes almost incomprehensible that other intelligent beings can hold different worldviews. Ergo, we conclude, these “others” cannot be intelligent or, at the very least, are seriously mistaken.

The difficulty of theists and a-/non-theists engaging in meaningful dialogue was painfully demonstrated last year in the Singer-D’Souza debate on the question “Can there be morality without God?” Allow me, then, to ask a less academic question: Can one lead a good life without God? Can one lead a not-necessarily-egoist, fulfilling and satisfactory life, deriving meaning from sharing one’s life with others, trying to make some positive contribution to the human experience of others, and explore the full human condition with humility and vigor, without a belief in a personal God? Surely, it must be granted that it is not obviously impossible.

This is one of many fundamental questions that many non-religious Princetonians grapple with, but as reported in The Daily Princetonian on Oct. 23, there currently exists no formal support network, be it a student organization or a humanist chaplain at Princeton. According to the Secular Student Alliance, no less than 165 campuses in the U.S., including Harvard, Yale and Stanford, have atheist or humanist student groups. Harvard, Columbia, and Rutgers even have University-recognized humanist chaplains. At Princeton, a quick search of the student organization directory shows 11 self-identified “religious” groups plus a “special interest” Buddhist group. The University recognizes 15 chaplains: 11 Christian, two Judaic, one Hindu, and one Muslim. The University also maintains the Office of Religious Life. Is it too much, then, to ask for a formal institution catering to the needs of humanists?

I refer to “humanism” rather than something like “atheism” to stress that for many of us, our worldview contains more than just a negation of religious beliefs. If you were to go around Princeton and asked all nonreligious students what they thought about “living well,” as much commonality would arise as for any religious group, because this isn’t a religious question but a human question.

Now, I would be dishonest if I didn’t admit that there certainly are atheists who are amoralists or moral egoists. Before stoning us to death, however, do pause to acknowledge that millennia of efforts by philosophers have failed to establish any objective moral truths or even reach an agreement on what “objective moral truth” means. More importantly, I’ll bet my bottom dollar that in practice, the daily actions of us “Godless” students are on average no more condemnable and no less praiseworthy than those of religious students.

Most of us, religious and nonreligious alike, are uncertain and are searching for ways to lead valuable lives, whether it is by writing values into or by reading inherent values in certain actions and lives. The end conclusions and results will hopefully be sufficiently aligned. But it’s not possible for us to pursue these questions wholly together, because we start with different sets of assumptions and find different methodologies, arguments and evidence appropriate, relevant or convincing.

The first step would be to start a student organization. Its activities could include holding open debates or discussions with religious student organizations, organizing lectures by philosophers, psychologists, theologians, etc. on relevant questions pertaining to living well outside of organized religions and publishing a journal focusing on humanist ideas and challenges. The interaction between the religious and the humanist groups would hopefully extend beyond mere words. For example, it would be a great signal if the humanist group were to partake in the social volunteering activities of the religious groups.

The Anscombe Society has recently started a petition for the establishment of a center for abstinence and chastity. Whether openly acknowledged or not, a major argument seems to be that the University is practicing double standards by having the LGBT Center but denying similar services to the abstinent/chaste community. Perhaps I see the double standard; likely I don’t. At least to me, the double standard is clearer in the case of supporting the exploration of human life questions for the religious community but not for the nonreligious community. In particular, the University has recognized that these activities deserve professional support, and it would be sensible to make the analogous recognition for the nonreligious students. Making this happen could be the appropriate second step.

Humanism can be as fundamental an aspect of one’s worldview as any religious belief. Some form of support network for humanists is as appropriate and necessary on this campus as that for the religious.

Eric Kang is a math major from Christchurch, New Zealand. He can be reached at eakang@princeton.edu.