Rethinking the Old “Atheists Just Wanna Sin” Argument

On first glance this is a pretty dumb argument. It went something along the lines of – atheists aren't really convinced God doesn't exist, they just convinced themselves of it so that they can wallow in sin... It sounds strange and doesn't make much sense for a couple of reasons, the first of which is that it attempts to psychoanalyze a stereotypical view of the atheist mindset instead of addressing the actual atheist arguments. Don't get me wrong though, psychology still plays an important part in the discussion, at least to me, and I've mentioned my thoughts about it very often, but it's still incorrect to use some armchair psychology as a way to minimize or avoid the actual arguments. And even if the psychological profile happens to be correct, it doesn't then follow that the philosophical arguments are incorrect. It could well be that the notion of God makes no sense and that religion is entirely man-made, even if in the atheist's mind there happens to be a distinct and selfish preference for the absence of religion.

Still, I've recently come to reconsider the whole atheistic mindset, starting with my own past self, but I've also been reconsidering what my fellow atheists have said. Regarding the argument of appetite for sin, which sounds like a really cool name to me, I suppose a second refutation would be that, if Christ's sacrifice forgives all sins, and if we can have our sins forgiven by a priest, then if we atheists did indeed want to sin, we could just as easily become christians. That way we could sin as much as we wanted, then we'd say a couple of prayers and we'd be good to go. For that reason, christians are actually the ones who sin freely because Jesus already picked up the bill for all of their sins. And if acceptance of Christ is the only ticket into heaven, more so than good works, then christians are free to spend all of their saturdays in Gomorrah, just as long as on sunday morning they swing by Jerusalem.

So why have I been reconsidering this? And I use that verb with a clear intention, because I don't mean this article to be any kind of refutation at all, I'm just thinking out loud. And the train of thought I've been recently traveling on is more or less that, if God doesn't exist, then it becomes true by default that, for good or for bad, this world is our only chance to experience life. So if religion forbids something that we, for whatever reason, happen to enjoy, then if you live your life in accordance with a religion that happens to be false, you're at a net loss. On that note, Pascal's wager is wrong because it's not true that you have nothing to lose by being religious, indeed, you stand to lose a chance at a better, happier and more fulfilling life.

Thing is though, this better life is only better, happier and fulfilling insofar as the practices of religion are bad. In a word, if religion is false but you waste your life believing in it, you'll never get to experience, for example, a delicious slice of bacon. And for the purposes of this essay, that slice of bacon will be symbolic of all possible hedonistic acts, because why not? And hedonistic really is the right word here, isn't it? It's not the case that the only reason, or the main reason, as to why atheists are atheists is because they wanna sin, but if you're an atheist, what's stopping you from doing the things your old religion forbade? At that point, you might as well enjoy the ride, right? And in fact I've heard this sentiment more or less echoed recently. When criticizing Pascal's wager, atheists bring up precisely that point, that is to say, on a human level, on an individual happiness level, you'll be missing out on the good side of life. For all I know that sentiment is even correct because if the hereafter is just a fairy tale, then all concerns regarding it are fruitless. So if you crave that forbidden slice of bacon, you have nothing to lose by eating it after you abandon religion. According to that line of reasoning, it could be said that atheism potentially leads to some kind of hedonism. I don't imagine atheists themselves would have many objections to that point, except perhaps to do some damage control of the term so as to have it be interpreted as a moderation of pleasures rather than the typical roman orgy stuff people automatically conjure up in their minds.

But the point still becomes, more or less, that without religion, whatever you do regarding pleasure is only “bad” when it harms someone else's rights. It sounds like a perfectly reasonable thing to believe in, but isn't it also a very reductionist way of seeing morality? This idea that no action is truly bad in itself, that it's only bad when it relates to tangible damaging consequences?... I've begun to think that way. Indeed, the recurring theme in our day and age is to value consent above all, that is to say, if the people involved are consenting to the act, and if nothing bad comes from it, then it's all okay. But shouldn't the moral value of some acts be placed higher than just consent? Does nobody else see the long-term consequences of reducing the morality of an action to just whether or not such an action was rationally consented to? Yes, yes, logic and reason, logic and reason... but where did modern atheists get the idea that we, animals that we are, are all that logical and reasonable?

Furthermore, to the second point, what is the cut-off line to determine the unpleasant consequences of certain acts? Let's say you decide you want to eat that slice of bacon, and because religion is false, not only are you allowed to do it, but you also probably should do it, as per the atheistic view that you only have one chance at life. So you eat the bacon and nothing comes of it, you then conclude that there's nothing wrong with eating bacon. But what about the next day? Or the next month, or the next year? Or what if this action you perform today has unpleasant repercussions ten years down the line? Will you retroactively change its moral value? Or will you wash your hands of the bacon grease?

In truth, the whole thing just seems random, it's yet another game where the atheistic side always stands to win. I have heard it said that in a philosophical debate you should never go up against nihilists, relativists and skeptics because you simply can never win against them, it can't even lead to a productive discussion. Against the nihilist, as soon as you attribute value to something you get buffeted, against the relativist, as soon as you attribute moral value to something you get buffeted, and against the skeptic, as soon as you claim a basic truth, he will tell you that for all you know you're just a brain in a vat... But I've come to wonder if modern atheists could be added onto that group. Because if God is too quiet, he doesn't give a damn, if God talks too much, he's a politician, if he doesn't care about us at all, then he's indifferent, if he cares too much, namely about certain aspects of our digestive tracts, then he's a tyrant, if the laws of religion are too vague, then we don't need religion at all, if its laws are too specific, then it's all clearly man-made... And so on.

And nowadays, as far as that godless hedonism goes, have we gone too far with it? Or maybe we haven't gone far enough yet... Are we doing badly or are we doing just fine? I dunno, I suppose in our modern day, bad or weird news always seem bigger than perhaps they are in reality, but then again they do seem to pile up... I for one am unsure of this whole discussion on a deeper level, but almost instinctively I wanna argue that this lack of a higher purpose really is the cause for a lot of senselessness in the world. Because why should I deny myself that slice of bacon if it feels so damn good? Well, because it might harm your health, the rational person would say. But why should I deny myself that slice of bacon if the pleasure I get out of it is worth harming my health?... And so, where does it end? I begin to think it doesn't, and that is because the secular view of logic and reason actually never went all that well with our biological natures. I've started to think we need a reason outside ourselves in order to change ourselves, but without belief in the existence of that reason, we fall into an atheistic worldview where nothing can be its own reward except perhaps as a mere illusion we willingly believe in. Because if a pious man would willingly trade the comforts of his body for the salvation of his soul, why shouldn't an unbelieving man trade a hundred days of boredom for one day of riotous living?

Then there's another funny thing... I've noticed that at times christians phrase their religion as an invitation, as a kind of party to which every single person is invited. Sounds nice and all, but there's a catch because if you refuse to attend the party, you'll go to hell. So it's not all that nice of an invitation... Of course, when I was a militant atheist I agreed with this logic, but now I hear atheists make this claim and I find it odd because the underlying truth here, at least as I see it, is that atheists don't wanna go to the party but they also don't wanna go to hell... So it's almost as if they would like it if God and heaven existed, but on the other hand, they don't wanna accept the requirements to get into heaven. Essentially, they wanna have their bacon and eat it too, they feel entitled to heaven if God exists and if he's good, but they also want to hedge their bets and take advantage of the world, just in case God doesn't exist.

So, in conclusion, no, I wouldn't say that atheists use atheism as a way to remain in guilt-free sin, but I do believe that a godless life, that is to say, a life without the belief in something superior to oneself, inevitably leads to an existential dread which, for some people, is only assuaged by hedonism in one form or another. Is it out of control hedonism? No, not necessarily, but it does seem to water our values down to the mere limit of rational adults making rational decisions. But whatever it may be, the fact that rationality is being used to defend hedonistic actions is a sweet irony I can no longer overlook.