Can a person choose to be good without believing in God?

If a Christian ever challenged me and asked, “What scientific proof do you have for the existence of Allah,” would I start giving him evidence? Obviously not. I would respond, “What right do you have to demand evidence when you yourself believe in the existence of the Trinity? Whatever evidence you have for the existence of the Trinity, I can prove the existence of Allah with the same line of logic.” This is exactly how absurd it is when atheists ask theists for proof of the existence of God. When they hold their own blind beliefs, what right do they have to ask anyone for scientific evidence for their beliefs? The hypocrisy of atheism is to deny the validity of belief, all the while holding one’s own set of beliefs. When atheists hold their own blind beliefs, they have no right to ask anyone else for scientific evidence for their beliefs.

So what blind beliefs do atheists hold? Plenty, but let’s start with their belief in “free will.” Atheists assume that it is possible to have “free will.” However, “free will” is a concept that cannot be scientifically proven to exist, and without “free will,” the idea of a “good” or “evil” action cannot be conceived of. For example, we do not say that a volcano is evil when it kills the inhabitants of a village because we assume that it does not have “free will.” But on what basis do we assume that it does not have “free will?” Just like us, a volcano is a complex combination of molecules. Everything it does is the result of a series of cause and effect; everything we as humans think and do is also the result of a series of cause and effect. There is nothing that happens in our brains that is outside of measurable chemical reactions.

If we believe that a mysterious outside force called “free will” can influence the measurable cause and effect happening inside our brain, then we have no reason to reject that the same mysterious force of “free will” can affect the cause and effect happening inside a volcano. Why is it that when a volcano kills the inhabitants of a village, it is not evil? In the same way, why is it that when a tiger kills the inhabitants of a village, it is not evil, but when a human does, it is evil? Upon scrutiny, we find that just as there is no scientific evidence to prove that a volcano has “free will” or that a tiger has “free will,” there is also no evidence to prove that a human has “free will.”

One may argue that, “We must have “free will” because we are free to change our behavior anytime we choose. After all, a volcano cannot choose to change its behavior because, if we had perfect information, we could exactly predict the behavior of a volcano, we could predict precisely when it will erupt and exactly what chain of cause and effect will make it erupt. We can hardly consider it to have “free will” if we can predict exactly what it will do next and why it will do what it does next.”

However, scientifically, this is also exactly the case with humans. Our brains are nothing more than a combination of molecules; our lives a series of chemical reactions. The fact is that every one of our actions is the result of a long series of cause and effect. The assumption that a mysterious outside force called “free will” is influencing these chemical reactions is scientifically nothing but fiction. It cannot be said that a human has “free will” because, if we had perfect information, every chemical reaction and every action and reaction can be predicted in a measurable way.

Scientifically, “free will” turns out to be a baseless assumption. One way to understand this fallacy is through steps. We agree that a volcano does not have “free will,” but what about a tree which is slightly more complex; if not a tree, what about a mouse which is slightly more complex; if not a mouse, what about a tiger which is slightly more complex; if not a tiger, what about an ape which is slightly more complex; if not an ape, what about a prehistoric human who is slightly more complex? What was the point in our evolution after which we had “free will” and before which we did not?

The reality is that in principle, there is no actual difference between humans and volcanoes; they are combinations of molecules with different degrees of complexity, they are a series of cause and effect. Thus, to try and scientifically prove that humans have “free will” and other animals and objects do not is futile because there is no basis to define “free will,” no evidence to conclude that “free will” exists.

Our thoughts and opinions are nothing more than chemical reactions, and just as we can add baking soda to vinegar and make a model volcano erupt, in the same way, we can add chemicals to the human brain and make it react in different ways. For example, a mouse may seem to have more “free will” than a volcano because it is an animal whereas a volcano is an object. However, if a certain hormone is injected into a mouse, its behavior will change in a measurable and predictable way, and we can repeat the experiment in a lab with consistent results. If we had perfect information, we could precisely predict which chemical would result in which action. A mouse is no different from any other combination of molecules, and scientifically, neither are humans. To believe that free will exists somewhere in the unknown information about the brain that we do not have access to is the same as believing that God exists somewhere in the unknown information about the universe that we do not have access to. The only conclusion that science supports is that if we had perfect information, we would be able to predict exactly what the human brain is going to do next, and exactly what the universe is going to do next. To believe that somewhere in the unknown there is a mysterious force that is conscientiously controlling this system of cause and effect, according to science, belongs in the realm of fiction.

A chemical can be introduced to the human brain, and if we had perfect information, how that person’s thoughts and behavior will change can be predicted. The fact is that, scientifically, all of our opinions are the result of cause and effect, and these opinions dictate the decisions we make. Each of our decisions is a measurable chemical reaction that occurs in our brain. Again, there is no evidence of humans being anything more than a complex series of chemical reactions.

Another blind belief atheists hold is their belief in “good.” Atheists assume that it is possible to define morality without God, that the actions of humans can be “good” or “bad,” “right” or “wrong.” However, there is no way to scientifically identify anything as being “right” or “wrong,” it is a belief.
For example, atheists assume that murder is wrong, but on what scientific basis? Many supremacists argue that certain races are inferior, and that just as murdering cows and chickens is not wrong, similarly, murdering the people of certain races is also not wrong. On the other hand, many vegans argue that animals are not inferior and have as much of a right to life as we do, and that just as murdering humans is wrong, similarly, the murdering of animals is wrong. There is no scientific evidence on which one can establish the “sanctity of life” for the human species, no evidence that can prove or disprove any belief in a particular standard murder.

One way to understand this fallacy is through steps: at exactly what point does murder become wrong? If a plant does not have the right to life, then what about an insect; if not an insect; what about an animal; if not an animal, what about a prehistoric human? What was the point in our evolution after which we had the inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, and before which we could ethically be killed? There is no evidence for any such point, and any line atheists try to draw is imaginary. If we can justify killing animals for the “greater good of humanity,” we have no scientific basis to object to those who conducted ethnic cleansing for what they argued was the “greater good of humanity”; we have no scientific basis to object to those who conducted holocausts for the greater good of their race. Just as atheists consider animals and plants expendable for the greater good of our species, many supremacists consider certain races expendable for the greater good of our species. Just as atheists consider mass murders to be atrocities, many vegans consider the mass killing of animals to be atrocities. Atheists have no evidence on which they confine their belief in ethics to only a certain species.

Scientifically, there is no reason why anything can be considered universally good or bad. Even perpetrating a nuclear holocaust cannot be proven as “bad,” “wrong,” or “immoral.” For example, the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs was “bad” for the dinosaurs, but “good” for us. In the same way, a nuclear holocaust would be “bad” for us, but “good” for a possible species that succeeds us. Take the story of Planet of the Apes as an example; apes would consider the nuclear holocaust that wiped out humanity to have been good for them, the same way we consider the meteor that wiped out the dinosaurs to be good for us. What is disastrously bad for one could be very good for another. Considering how infinitely large the universe is, it is absurd to assert that a concept of right and wrong exists. There is no evidence on which atheists can define the actions of any individual or government as being good or bad, whether it is a nuclear holocaust or an ethnic holocaust, whether it is the destroying of a people or the destroying of a rainforest.

If believing in God is like believing in Santa Claus, then believing
in “free will” and “good” is like believing in the Santa’s Little Elves. So what should you say to atheists who challenge your beliefs, all the while holding a set of their own beliefs? There’s no need to say anything more than, “Yes, I hold beliefs, but at least I’m straight-forward about it.”

The inescapable reality is that any stance on something being right or wrong is simply a belief. The concept of goodness is nothing more than a blind faith that atheists hold; it has no more scientific value than a person’s belief on whether chocolate or vanilla tastes better. To believe in goodness is to believe in an arbitrary set of rules for no better reason than it being the way “it ought to be.” Atheists take up the position that they do not believe in anything until it has a scientific basis, and then proceed to propound their own beliefs that have no scientific basis. We have no logical objection to atheists denying the validity of belief, so long as they are straightforward with themselves and others about it. Our objection is with atheists critiquing theists for adhering to “baseless” beliefs, all the while adhering to beliefs just as baseless. Our objection is with this glaring contradiction, this hypocrisy of atheism.