Phil Zuckerman Swings Again. And Whiffs Again.

Sociologist Phil Zuckerman argues, “When it comes to the most pressing moral issues of the day, hard-core secularists exhibit much more empathy, compassion, and care for the well-being of others than the most ardently God-worshipping.”

Zuckerman failed to make this case with respect to the Covid pandemic (as I previously demonstrated).  So let’s turn to his next example:

Consider climate change. The best available data shows that — as a direct result of human activity — we are destroying our planet. The results are already manifesting with greater and deadlier frequency: poisoned air and water, massive wildfires, stronger hurricanes, brutal mudslides, quickly melting glaciers, rising sea levels, the wanton disappearance of forests and coral reefs. Such developments do not bode well for the future; more suffering and death are on the rapidly approaching horizon. And, yet again, what do we see? It is the most staunchly secular among us who understand the science behind climate change and want to do what needs to be done in order to prevent it, while it is the most pious among us who dismiss the science and don’t want to address the dire threat. For example, a recent PRRI study found that over 80% of secular Americans accept the evidence that human activity is causing climate change — and they place addressing climate change at the top of the list of their political priorities — while only 33% of white Evangelicals accept such evidence, and thus place is towards the bottom of their list of political priorities.

So the demonstration of superior atheist morality comes from many more secular Americans placing climate change “at the top of the list of their political priorities.”  But once again, Zuckerman runs into the same buzz saw of considerations that shredded his pandemic example.  To begin, there is no evidence that such political priorities have anything to do with secular people being motivated by empathy, compassion, and care for the well-being of others.  Zuckerman merely assumes that to be the case.  And the assumptions of an atheist apologist hardly qualify as evidence.

What’s more, there is an alternative explanation that has nothing to do with morality.  Again, it’s Fear.  Only this time it is fear of some coming apocalypse.  For example, if you are afraid that we are “we are destroying our planet,” then you will favor proposals to help reduce that fear. If you are not afraid the planet is being destroyed, you have no reason to favor such proposals.  Zuckerman should read his own words.  If “only 33% of white Evangelicals accept such evidence,” of course they are “going place it towards the bottom of their list of political priorities.”  That’s reasonable.  The main, relevant difference here is that “80% of secular Americans accept the evidence that human activity is causing climate change” while “only 33% of white Evangelicals accept such evidence.”  One can explore the causes behind this different level of acceptance, but it’s rather clear morality is not in play here

In other words, Zuckerman’s evidence for the superior morality of atheists may just as well instead be evidence of their greater fear of the apocalypse as a consequence of their greater likelihood of believing in such a dark future.   

This entry was posted in atheism, Morality, Uncategorized and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Phil Zuckerman Swings Again. And Whiffs Again.

  1. Kevin says:

    There is also the other dimension of this issue, which is how so many of the proposed solutions would be devastating economically. To wipe out families’ livelihoods as a response to fear is not a sign of high moral character.

  2. Ilíon says:

    ==“When it comes to the most pressing moral issues of the day, hard-core secularists exhibit much more empathy, compassion, and care for the well-being of others than the most ardently God-worshipping.”==

    English Translation: “When it comes to doing what we already want to do, hard-core secularists exhibit much more determination to do what we want to do, while calling it “empathy, compassion, and care for the well-being of others”, regardless of the actual results of doing what we want to do, than the most ardently God-worshipping.”

  3. Ilíon says:

    As always with these self-refuting atheistic “We are more moral than you” chest-thumpings, Zimmerman is asserting that there is a “way things ought to be” to the cosmos (*), that people ought to do certain things and ought not to do other things, and that these moral obligations are discoverable.

    But, were God-denial indeed the truth about the nature of reality, then there is no, nor can there be, a “way things ought to be”.

    (*) and thus that “the universe” isn’t *merely* a mechanistic conglomeration of matter-and-energy, but is a cosmos.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.