Just so that it is clear, there are many possible deterrents to murder. Fear is only
one of them. This is the one that Voltaire seems to rely on in his "argument", and he seems to assume that it is the
only one.
However, there are other deterrents to murder and other misdeeds, such as a desire for a peaceful and orderly soul/psyche, as Socrates points out to Thrasymachus and others in
The Republic. Socrates refers to this as the virtue of justice, and his argument doesn't rest on fear of divine punishment. A well-developed moral awareness, such as Socrates had, would do very well to make him a trustworthy Philosopher-King, or counselor to such a King, even though he did not believe in either the Christian God or Christian Hell. Justice and moral awareness are attributes that atheists could have.
So it is unsuccessful to argue: atheism does not in and of itself provide a deterrent to murder, therefore atheists can't be trusted. Only atheists, and theists, of poor moral character can't be trusted. One needs to look beyond this to the actual character of both, and theists have no special monopoly on moral character.
Voltaire is very stoppable. I did enjoy his
Candide, though.
eudaimonia,
Mark
It is true that atheism has tried over the years to compensate.
The majority of people find atheism irreconcilable with morality for a number of reasons, including but not limited to the obvious motive for becoming an atheist as well as the utter lack of any atheistic basis for morality.
Readers should bear in mind that we're not dealing with a definition of atheism subject to equivocation.
What's suggested is that, unbeknownst to Voltaire, there may be substitutes, there may be some way to compensate for the atheist's shortcoming, and provide alternative restraints in place of those he lacks.
This isn't so much of an objection as some would have you believe. Suppose one of those with an interest in poisoning Voltaire has secretly discovered some private delusion which might serve to restrain him. Will this secret help matters? Will Voltaire not yet be taking antidotes? Will he not be in peril from the others?
One might quibble over what is and is not absolutely and totally necessary, but we all can see what's prudent. Secret, privately maintained restraints are out of the question.
Strength is added to Voltaire's conclusion by contentions such as we've witnessed here: that atheism can provide its own basis for morality, and one example can be found in "the Republic".
The atheist "paradise" imagined, ruled by elitist "philosopher kings" is a prototype for despotism, perhaps the authoritative recipe. It is a police state with all the trappings you may be familiar with and probably more.
It features secret police and an higher tier of secret police to police the police. The citizen is continually mislead by the elite. There is systematic eugenics, enforced by bloodthirsty means. Rules on who can and cannot breed are only the beginning.
"The Republic" eliminates family outright. Children are seized and raised by the state, and it is already foreseen that in some cases mothers will have to be deceived about which is whose child.
Nobody is to know brother, sister, mother, father. Each individual, even in the upper tiers of the secret police, is on his own, at the mercy of the elites who run the state.
Although not strictly required, it is deemed desirable to create a false religion to help pacify and manipulate the masses.
This is what a good many atheists - not just one - take for "morality". Are there other counterfeits for atheists to claim? Certainly! Others delude themselves with moral relativism, which is no restraint at all. Still others openly profess a standard of "whatever one can get away with", although as one might expect they try to conceal it behind other terms and phrases such as "the greater good".
The very term 'good' itself has no substance under atheism.
Although natural selection can act only through and for the good of each being, ...
- Chapter 4, sacred evotext
"Thus, from the war of nature, from famine and death, the most exalted object which we are capable of conceiving, namely, the production of the higher animals, directly follows."
-Part of final paragraph, sacred evotext
Some atheists have confessed to parasitically adopting theist morality as a guide. It's better than nothing for individual use, and certainly better than anything penned by the likes of Plato. But it's not an answer to Voltaire's argument. What one finds convenient one day, one may find inconvenient the next. Is the parasitic atheist like a tick, which bores in with its head and becomes affixed; or is he like the mosquito which might alight for a moment to take a sip and then fly away?
Now let's have a look at a little of what one finds in "the Republic", just as written.
Has there ever been such communism?
"And so, Glaucon, we have arrived at the conclusion that in the perfect State wives and children are to be in common; and that all education and the pursuits of war and peace are also to be common, and the best philosophers and the bravest warriors are to be their kings?"
"Yes, I said; and we have further acknowledged that the governors, when appointed themselves, will take their soldiers and place them in houses such as we were describing, which are common to all, and contain nothing private, or individual; and about their property, you remember what we agreed?
Yes, I remember that no one was to have any of the ordinary possessions of mankind; they were to be warrior athletes and guardians, receiving from the other citizens, in lieu of annual payment, only their maintenance, and they were to take care of themselves and of the whole State. "
Classify this elitist fantasy
"But I hear some one exclaiming that the concealment of wickedness is often difficult; to which I answer, Nothing great is easy. Nevertheless, the argument indicates this, if we would be happy, to be the path along which we should proceed. With a view to concealment we will establish secret brotherhoods and political clubs. And there are professors of rhetoric who teach the art of persuading courts and assemblies; and so, partly by persuasion and partly by force, I shall make unlawful gains and not be punished. Still I hear a voice saying that the gods cannot be deceived, neither can they be compelled. But what if there are no gods?"
Here you go
Why, I said, the principle has been already laid down that the best of either sex should be united with the best as often, and the inferior with the inferior, as seldom as possible; and that they should rear the offspring of the one sort of union, but not of the other, if the flock is to be maintained in first-rate condition. Now these goings on must be a secret which the rulers only know, or there will be a further danger of our herd, as the guardians may be termed, breaking out into rebellion. "
"The proper officers will take the offspring of the good parents to the pen or fold, and there they will deposit them with certain nurses who dwell in a separate quarter; but the offspring of the inferior, or of the better when they chance to be deformed, will be put away in some mysterious, unknown place, as they should be.
Now one may follow the link provided. At the bottom of the wiki page there are links to texts of "The Republic". Any search feature should allow you to locate the portions quoted and verify I have invented nothing.
