In early April, American Atheists placed its president, David Silverman, on leave in response to an unspecified complaint.
Silverman serves as a high-profile voice against religion in America. He frequently appears on news programs, and in recent years led the organization in a well-publicized attack against Christmas. Or, at least, against the celebration of Christmas.
A spokesman for the organization, Nick Fish, said that the complaint resulted from “alleged violations of the American Atheists code of conduct and staff handbook.” No other information was released to the media about the “complaint,” and the organization confirmed that their Board was actively investigating it. Good for them.
Hemant Mehta, an atheist blogger and friend of Silverman, responded that “this is disturbing news in part because we don’t know the specifics of the allegations.” But, he added, “I sincerely hope the investigation comes up empty.”
Code of Conduct. Expectations for a leader’s behavior. Hope for a positive outcome.
It all sounds strangely religious, even biblical, doesn’t it?
I commend the organization for investigating allegations of misconduct by a leader, and, for that matter for having a Code of Conduct to work with. What is puzzling, however, is that an atheist organization, likely made up of smart people, cannot grasp the inherent disconnect between their proclamations of the absence of God and the desire to have an absolute, measurable code of conduct.
Crafting a code of conduct and then requiring fellow atheists adhere to it poses an inherent problem for an atheist. Why, in the first place, do people have the notion that we should have an expectation of particular behaviors, judging some as “misconduct” and others as appropriate conduct? Where does the idea of proper conduct come from? Without God in the picture, standards are replaced by preferences, laws by personal choice, and moral codes by situational predilections.
It’s an unmissable truth, if you are willing to see it. The very Code of Conduct they want their members to practice declares that human beings have a Creator, who, Himself, is moral and has given us a sense of Right and Wrong, Good and Bad. If God didn’t install it in our DNA, who did?
In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis argues that the existence of a consensus for moral behavior, which he calls “the Law of Nature,” points to a common Source of a moral code of conduct, or, that is, a moral Law Giver. And when we “break” this law, we know it. In other words, “conscience reveals to us a moral law whose source cannot be found in the natural world, thus pointing to a supernatural Lawgiver.”
So how is it that people can agree on the existence of a universal code of moral behavior, but deny the same inner law points to a moral Lawgiver?
Ephesians 4:18 responds to that question with an indictment, “They are darkened in their understanding, excluded from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them and because of the hardness of their hearts.”
“Because of the hardness of their hearts.” That is, denying the obvious, the existence of a moral Creator, requires effort, especially when you are simultaneously living by the Creator’s moral code.
On the other hand, acknowledging this truth, that our sense of morality comes from a moral Law Giver, is liberating.
“You will know the truth, and the truth will set you free” (John 8:32). And sometimes that liberating truth is right in front of your face.
You just have to admit it.