This is an additional entry to politics professor Robert George’s series “Keeping Faith,” recently published in The Daily Princetonian, comprising conversations between Professor George and other professors of various faiths.

After much effort, Dr. Zack was able to unearth Hugh Manist, a professor in the Department of Mundane Studies (affectionately referred to among its graduate students as ‘Wysiwyg.’) Professor Manist was kind enough to consent to be interviewed.

Brian Zack:

The usual designation for those who, like you, do not subscribe to a belief system based on a god or gods is ‘agnostic’ or ‘atheist.’ Why do you prefer to avoid these terms when speaking of yourself?

Hugh Manist:

First, both terms are negations – roughly ‘one who does not know’ or ‘one who does not believe in a god.’ I prefer to regard my faith in a positive light. As importantly, these designations carry a lot of emotional baggage, especially in a religiously-oriented culture such as we find in the United States. As just one example, it is sadly inconceivable that a self-described agnostic or atheist could become a nominee for president. I see no reason to be confrontational about my beliefs.

At the same time, I readily acknowledge that I do not know whether or not there is a god, any more than – in my assessment – do those who profess to be believers. If I were a betting man, though, I would certainly bet against.

BZ:

Why so?

HM:

Because it seems to me incontrovertible that there is a prima facie case against a good and powerful god being in control of this world.

Let’s put aside the question of why a god would create humanity with the unbounded capacity for evil that we have demonstrated we possess. Arguments have been made that god, in his or her wisdom, gave humans free will, and that the rest is therefore all our fault. I would want to ask, couldn’t god have come up with a more felicitous form of free will, or might not god, as a loving parent, do a better job of protecting us from ourselves, but this conundrum is probably undecidable.

This still leaves the issue of natural disasters, which have destroyed an incalculable quantity of innocent humanity, often in horrendously cruel ways. This is not to mention the effect on so many other sentient animals which presumably do not have free will or moral responsibility, and therefore could not deserve punishment.

I have seen no theodicy which comes close to explaining why a beneficent god would create a world which could consume a child in a fire or drown an infant in a flood.

BZ:

Speaking of betting, what about Pascal’s wager, the argument that it makes sense to bet that a god exists, since if it turns out that god does exist you win big, whereas if there is no god you have lost nothing?

HM:

Notice that Pascal didn’t come up with his wager until after he became a believer. You can’t just rationalize your way into such a life-changing belief. And I do think that by making the wrong bet here you do, in fact, lose a lot – the opportunity to live a life filled with meaning which derives from your sincere understanding of your place in the universe, rather than from a blatantly self-serving calculation.

BZ:

In this light, I want to get back to your reference to your ‘faith.’ As one who does not believe in god, what can you mean by ‘faith’?

HM:

Well, at the great risk of sounding very trite, I mean faith in humanity, faith in the natural world, faith in our capacity to live deeply meaningful lives despite the lack of a higher being from whom that meaning derives.

BZ:

Where does that meaning come from, then?

HM:

From within ourselves. Because of the kind of beings we are, we are able to care deeply about many things which make our lives worth living – love, of course, and also caring and compassion and doing for others, as well as art and science and creativity, and the feeling of awe that comes from simply contemplating the works of men and women and the magnificence of nature.

And it goes without saying – but I’ll say it anyway – that all of these are available to us whether or not we believe that their worth derives from a higher being. I’m just inclined to take the Occam’s razor approach – why postulate a god if he or she isn’t needed?

BZ:

Many would answer that a god is needed, certainly to explain our existence. How else could the universe have come into being in the first place? Science does not pretend to be able to explain that, even if one accepts that science can potentially explain everything that happens subsequently. Simply saying a random quantum fluctuation “just happened” does not explain why it happened just then, in just such a way as to lead eventually to human life.

HM:

Explaining the origin of the universe scientifically is indeed problematic. But why should it be more so than explaining the origin of god? Insisting that the existence of the universe needs explaining, but accepting that the existence of god is just a mystery that we cannot inquire into, is a rather extreme case of question-begging. It only pushes the issue back a step, while adding nothing to our understanding.

BZ:

Doesn’t that still leave us, though, with the question of why be good and not evil, why be moral at all, if there is no god to dispense justice and provide appropriate rewards and punishments, either in this life or the next?

HM:

This, for me, is potentially the strongest argument for religion, the strongest argument for supporting the maintenance of theistic belief in society. But it is an instrumentalist argument: It says that society is better off when individuals believe in god because, as a result of that belief, people will behave more kindly and morally towards each other, and there will be less war, murder, rape, pillage, and suffering.

Now, that leads to an empirical question: Has religion, in fact and in sum, led to more or less moral behavior, more or less of man’s notorious inhumanity to man? I am not a scholar of this issue, but I feel comfortable in saying the jury is still out. It is far from obvious, at least to me, that the net effect of religion on humanity has been positive rather than negative.

That begs the question, though, of whether the motivation for sincere religious belief is, or ought to be, instrumentalist or absolute. That is, should believers have faith because they expect that faith to be of positive value for society, or because they consider what they believe in to be absolutely true? I think that almost all, if not all, would say the latter.

BZ:

With respect, Professor Manist, you haven’t answered my question. What motivates a non-believer such as yourself – or, as you prefer, a believer in humanity – to be good and not evil?

HM:

I’m afraid you will not find my answer very satisfying. It is simply – that is the way I am, and that is the way, I believe, most people are, at least those who have been brought up in an environment of love and compassion. It is just a bedrock belief that human flourishing is a good thing, and that contributing to human flourishing by leading, in the broadest sense, a moral life is what gives life meaning.

The last chapter in Peter Singer’s excellent Practical Ethics is entitled “Why Act Morally?” By rights it should have been the first chapter. I suspect that Professor Singer tucked it in the back of the book because he couldn’t come up with any deeper reasons than I have just given. The rationalist in me finds this reassuring. I want to be clear, however, that the strength of this bedrock belief is, for me, every bit as powerful as I take it that religious faith is to believers.

BZ:

If you’ll forgive a hypothetical, Professor, I am wondering, if you could have checked off a box for ‘believer’ or ‘non-believer’ before you were born, which you would have chosen?

HM:

Honestly, all other things being equal, probably ‘believer.’ I can certainly see the advantage in a belief in an all-good, all-powerful being who loves and cares about you. As I have discussed, though, I just think the evidence is pretty strong that, if there is a god, he or she cannot possibly be both all-good and all-powerful. This is very obviously not the best of all possible worlds.

For that reason, if I were a believer, I doubt that I could hold to ethical monotheism.

BZ:

Really? What would be your religion of preference, then?

HM:

Paganism. If there are, in fact, supernatural powers at work in our world, that seems to me most consistent with a group of emotional and capricious beings of limited power who sometimes cooperate but who are perhaps more often pitted against one another, and whose aims and desires may or may not have anything to do with the good of human beings.

BZ:

What, then, is your attitude towards believers? Some of your best friends…?

HM:

Brian, let’s be serious about this. I have the greatest respect for those of sincere religious belief. I see no reason why this difference between us should in any way interfere with the establishment of close relationships. I hope that they feel the same way.

BZ:

Finally, any last thoughts that might summarize your attitude towards living a life without a belief in a god?

HM: Yes. One of Nietzsche’s most profound aphorisms speaks to this: “One should part from life as Odysseus parted from Nausicaa, blessing it rather than in love with it.” I hope that, even while we realize our lives will someday end, and that there may well be nothing beyond, we will be able to bless the time we have had and appreciate the great privilege of being alive.