But back to the main topic – distrust of Atheists has been with society for a very long time. This distrust covers nearly every area of social interaction – but the area where many people seem to think that this distrust is most reasonable is in the area of how society handles oaths. Many people not only doubt that the oath of an Atheist can be trusted, but even regard an oath from an Atheist as a kind of oxymoron.
At first glance, this may actually seem like a reasonable position. After all, the very first definition of “oath” in the Merriam-Webster dictionary (definition 1a1) is: “a solemn usually formal calling upon God or a god to witness to the truth of what one says or to witness that one sincerely intends to do what one says”. Since an Atheist does not believe in God or in any gods, how can an atheist possibly call on such an entity to witness to the truth of zir words?
However, there are a number of problems with this hasty dismissal of the notion of oaths from an Atheist. For starters, there is the very issue that dictionaries are not an infallible authority. Rather, they are the best efforts by their editors to summarize the way that words are generally used and understood in whatever language the dictionary covers. But even if you want to confer on the Merriam-Webster dictionary a level of trust that even they would probably not recommend, this is just definition 1a1. There are other definitions that they offer as well – including definition 1a2: “a solemn attestation of the truth or inviolability of one’s words”. By this definition, it is very easy to see how an oath can very validly be taken by someone who does not believe in any supernatural power at all.
However, while some pundits might argue against the idea of Atheists being able to validly take oaths on the basis of definition – I highly doubt that this is the most crucial reason why many people are skeptical of such a thing. I suspect that most people distrust an Atheist’s oath not due to a belief that such a thing would in any way be a contradiction in terms, but rather, due to not seeing how such a thing could work. The reason for this is not to be found in any dictionary, but in the common understanding of how an oath works.
The general view of the public is that when someone takes an oath, they invoke the name of a supernatural being to assure their honesty. Should anything said under the assurances of said supernatural being be a lie, that would at very least be highly disrespectful to the supernatural being in question. Depending on the religion in question and on the temperament of said supernatural being, there may be additional consequences that result from lying while under that supernatural being’s assurance of your honesty. As a matter of fact, lying in such circumstances is one of those things that the Ten Commandments prohibit – a distinction not granted to other heinous things such as rape, slavery, etcetera.
So in short – the reason why many people do not trust oaths from Atheists is that they believe that the most reliable incentive for someone to uphold an oath once given is belief on that person’s part that a supernatural being will smite them should they violate said oath. But is that really the best assurance that you can have that someone will uphold their oath? For that matter, what is the point of putting someone under oath if not to put them in a position in which they fear divine retribution should they shirk the responsibilities specified in the oath?
What could an Atheist swear by that would make zir oath meaningful?
For starters, I submit that such fear of Divine Retribution is a very flimsy basis by which to trust an oath that someone takes. For starters, a lot of people, even among those who believe in God, don’t really take seriously the notion that He is going to bother taking the time to smite everyone who swears falsely.
And even if they do believe that God will in fact smite takers of false oaths, that likely isn’t what is at the forefront of their minds when they are subjected to temptation to go against their oath. Far more likely, their primary concern is that doing so would be disrespectful to the God that they hold so dear. They would consider taking a false oath by the name of said God to be a violation of who they are. That would most likely be the primary force compelling them to uphold their oath.
So really, the glue that binds an oath isn’t really fear of Divine Retribution at all, not even for those who believe in God. Rather, it is the feeling that swearing falsely by something that is important to you is a violation of a core aspect of your identity. So – to answer the question of what an Atheist could swear by that would make zir oath meaningful – what you need to find isn’t something that the Atheist would fear might retaliate if the oath be a false oath, but rather, something that the Atheist values enough that zie would not wish to dishonor by swearing falsely by it.
In pondering this, it can be helpful to keep in mind that, realistically, it is not all Atheists who are affected by the decision whether or not to trust the oath of an Atheist. Some Atheists might pretend to believe in God just to avoid making waves or getting into trouble – and others, while being open about their lack of belief if asked, will out of simple acquiescence just cooperate with the religiously-based oaths imposed on them. They are not the ones who are most directly affected by the outcome of the public debate whether or not to trust the oath of an Atheist.
The ones who are really affected by this are the Atheists who refuse to toe this line – the ones who refuse to swear by the God whom they do not believe in. Some refuse to do this because doing so would misrepresent a part of who they are. Some refuse to do this because doing so would imply that they do in fact believe in God, which would in itself be an unacceptable act of perjury as far as they are concerned. Either way, such a refusal is a strong commitment not only to their lack of belief in God, but also to their honesty, to their very integrity – to their very honor.
For this reason, I submit that an Atheist could swear an oath by zir honor. This might not mean something to every Atheist in the world – but it should be very meaningful indeed to the kind of Atheist who is sufficiently open and upfront about zir atheism to realistically be affected by this discussion.
Very convincing and thought provoking.