Discerning? writes:
"if there is no God then there is no moral absolute"

If there IS a god, it doesn't make a difference, since people don't agree on what god(s) exist or what moral absolutes these gods insist upon.

For example, is polygamy moral or not? Some religions say yes, some no. Since their respective gods NEVER show up to settle the matter, it's humans all the way down.

Thanks!

"To put it bluntly, how often does our witness in the world offer moral justification for atheism?"

Well, maybe this is my strange way of looking at things, but:

I would answer that it never does - and that there is no such thing as a 'moral justification' of atheism. Atheism or theism are positions about whether or not there really is 'one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe' or not. No moral considerations speak on this question. If you have some reason for thinking that there is such a being but the being is evil / capricious / cruel, you are still a theist. Technically a dys-theist. Eutheism is theism with a wholly good God.

Qshio,

Thanks for your response. I offered a brief response at your blog (brief because your blog is rather draconian in the limits it places upon responders).

It seems the first part of my position's summary didn't make it in the comment for some reason. Here's the first part it left out (and you can of course see the original post):

"So where I disagree with Rauser is the idea that because someone may become a nonbeliever because of a bad encounter with a harsh or heartless representation of religion, they may be 'blameless' (my words, not his), and therefore what follows is that any atheist who comes by their nonbelief honestly ought not be let off the hook so easily. One is an accident, manslaughter of the soul, if you will, while the other is premeditated murder. Rauser offers an outstretched hand for the atheist-by-mean-God, but implies an upturned nose to the atheist-by-independent-thought."

Then I continue with "Indeed...."

thanks

Mr. Rauser:

Thanks for your very interesting post. I blog on secularism for Examiner, and I responded to your post, and I'd love it if you wanted to do the same in whatever form you like. Here's the link to my post: http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-4275-DC-Secularism-Examiner~y2009m7d5-Does-atheism-need-a-moral-justification

To truncate, the points I made were as such:

<<
Indeed, according to his last sentence, atheism requires a moral justification, not an intellectual one.

I don't know what the statistics are, but I would imagine that most atheists arrive at their atheism by means similar to my own: Exposed to the various inconsistencies and the logical impossibilities of religious claims, our reason simply said, "no, you'll have to do better than that." I was a doubter long before I was revolted by Jerry Falwell or Osama bin Laden, or knew anything about the burning of "witches" or the Spanish Inquisition. I would not fall under the understandably-atheistic category for which Rauser shows sympathy, nor do I imagine would most atheists. But I could be wrong (please correct me if I am).>>>

Many thanks!

Soulless,

Frequently people attempt to argue against the existence of objective morals by providing examples of moral disagreement and then inferring that because people disagree, therefore there is no objective fact of the matter. Thus you provide disagreement over the morality of slavery (which I'll grant for the sake of argument) and then infer that therefore there is no objective morality.

Do you reason this way in science as well? If there is disagreement over a scientific theory does it follow that there is no fact of the matter? What about economics? History? Or political science?

I suspect you don't reason that way in these other areas, for doing so would saddle you with a most implausible form of relativism. So then it seems that you are assuming that morality is the exception here, that it is morality alone which is not objective. But if you do that then you are merely begging the question. You need to provide some independent evidence for your position.

@Discerning?

I'm sure you've seen this question before, but why aren't you a slave owner? The Christian god was entirely okay with slavery. Yet, we as a society have decided it is immoral. How can a society determine something immoral that the supposed "creator of the universe" has determined to be moral? Isn't it moral? Your god said it was okay with him.

How about one punishment for all crimes? We have determined that one punishment for all crimes is immoral. The punishment should fit the crime. Yet, the Christian god has decided that burning eternally in Hell for all criminals is just and good whether they are an unrepentant man who raped and murdered tens of thousands of 6 year old girls, or if they lived a perfectly moral and upstanding life but just didn't believe he existed. They both go to Hell to burn for all eternity, or so your Bible would have us believe.

How can anyone justify those things apart from the "might makes right" proposal? So the question again bringing up this little nugget of wisdom, "Is it moral because god does it, or does god do it because it's moral?"

Either way, the answer doesn't look very good for theistic idea of moral absolutism.

@Soulless... thanks for the dialogue.

You say:

"Atheists and people who follow other religions can be exactly the same way which says that these are human traits and not Christian ones."

I don't think I said that atheists and people of other beliefs do not have these traits. ( as per my second post ) In fact, as I'm sure the host of this blog would agree... I've met much more gracious and kind atheists and people of other faiths than I have some folks professing to be "Christian" so no... these traits are certainly not exclusively Christian. What I was trying to say here is that not all "Christians" are narrow minded, rigid, hateful, homophobic... ( insert other judgments that some atheists may have come to, sadly, at times, based on truth )

You say:

" Really? Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no moral absolutes right now. Why aren't you a petty thief or a pedophile? Why aren't you a murderer or rapist? I do not believe in moral absolutes yet I'm none of those things. Clearly without god belief in one's life there is another means by which one can come to the conclusion that thief, pedophilia, murder, and rape are immoral. Perhaps you should try to discover what that might be."

Notwithstanding that my choice to follow Jesus takes away any interest to engage in these behaviours...Jesus tells us that it is not the outward action that we should be focusing on ( because any smart person knows those actions would get us in trouble) , rather the inner motives.

Ever called someone an idiot? an A__hole? or worse? ( I certainly have ) Jesus says I've murdered that person in my heart.

All of these things are heart conditions. Murder, rape, theft, The bold and honest follower of Jesus would say, but for God's grace go I... because they recognize their capacity to do such things.

Therefore the Christian has no right to say " I'm none of those things " rather the honest Christian says... I could be those things and thank you Lord for having mercy on me... a sinner.

Of course we recognize murder, rape, pedophilia as being immoral ( Christian or not ) because we live in a society that have deemed them to be immoral, as well as criminal.

But what of a society that does not deem sleeping with another persons spouse as immoral? Does that make it moral?

What about greed? Is it immoral? Our society says it's not, in fact in Western culture it is most often encouraged.

Some cultures say that what we call pedophilia is acceptable. Does that mean that we can't decry it as wrong? By what standards are we decrying it as wrong? By the standards of our Western world as defined by government or media? ( the powerful ).

Sorry, those standards that are deemed to be acceptable by our society - Lust ( for power, money, sex, pleasure ) Greed, hate, envy , all conditions of the heart... I have to reject as immoral. Not because I don't still struggle with them, but because I have seen them bring nothing but emotional/spiritual bankruptcy and death.
You said
"there is another means that we come to the conclusion that these traits are either moral or immoral."

I can only come to the conclusion by carefully following a train of thought that says there has to be an inner conscience that is unsullied by the social norms...again, what C.S. Lewis would so rationally and convincingly describe in 'Mere Christianity'

The moral conscience that is inside of the atheist and theist alike comes from God whether the person wishes to acknowledge that or not. Recognizing that it comes from God strips away any pride in ourselves.( look how good I am that I don't do these things)

Soulless, I lived for 38 years with your worldview that insisted I tell myself that I'm not that bad... I had compassion and empathy, I was on the right side of the law... and then I came face to face with my dark side ( and we all have them ) and was appalled at what I saw, even though no one else could.

Then I met Grace...as U2 describes:

Grace
She takes the blame
She covers the shame
Removes the stain
It could be her name

Grace
It's a name for a girl
It's also a thought that changed the world
And when she walks on the street
You can hear the strings
Grace finds goodness in everything

Grace, she's got the walk
Not on a ramp or on chalk
She's got the time to talk
She travels outside of karma
She travels outside of karma
When she goes to work
You can hear her strings
Grace finds beauty in everything

Grace, she carries a world on her hips
No champagne flute for her lips
No twirls or skips between her fingertips
She carries a pearl in perfect condition

What once was hurt
What once was friction
What left a mark
No longer stings
Because grace makes beauty
Out of ugly things

Grace makes beauty out of ugly things

I think Discerning? is basically right on this one. There may be subjective morality in the absence of a God but there surely is no objective morality.
There are many different moral arguments for the existence of God. Lewis and Dostoyevsky offered arguments based on moral value. Kant offered an argument based on the satisfaction of justice (that is, the final settling of all accounts in favor of moral value). Either way two things are clear:

First, objective morality exists. Atheists know this -- they know that there is a moral difference between preferring to eat chocolate ice cream over vanilla and preferring to eat human livers over ice cream (as indeed, was Jeffrey Dahmer's choice). And if they tell you otherwise then they are choosing to deny what they cannot not know. In other words, they are choosing to be dumb to prop up their atheism. (And this is true even if they can pass a lie detector test question where they deny that this is the case.) Two generations ago my claim would not have sounded half as controversial and offensive as it does at present, but the natural law has been battered for several years now, even by well meaning Christians (e.g. Barthians and postmodernists).

Second, the existence of objective morality is fully consistent with Christian theism but it tends to count against atheism, as leading atheist philosophers like J.L. Mackie recognized.

@Discerning?

You say: "if there is no moral absolute then we can neither judge the petty thief or the pedophile"

Really? Let's assume for the sake of argument that there is no moral absolutes right now. Why aren't you a petty thief or a pedophile? Why aren't you a murderer or rapist? I do not believe in moral absolutes yet I'm none of those things. Clearly without god belief in one's life there is another means by which one can come to the conclusion that thief, pedophilia, murder, and rape are immoral. Perhaps you should try to discover what that might be.


You say: "If humankind by its social norms are allowed to be the arbitrators of right and wrong then we are in grave trouble. What becomes the accepted norm of right and wrong becomes the domain of the powerful and we know that without a sound moral compass ( God ) power corrupts."

And the fact that an absolute moral compass doesn't exist is precisely why morality is different from one culture to the next, and from person to person. All morality comes from our intention for ourselves, our culture, or our society. Things that are contrary to our intentions will automatically be deemed "wrong" or "immoral". Many people argue over differing morality but that conflict is created only when someone else decides to dictate the intention. There are no moral absolutes, only similarities with our intentions. And another thing, if you believe power corrupts and you believe your god has absolute power then your god must be the most corrupt being imaginable.


You say:
"The thinking followers of Jesus who I have had priviledge of being in relationship with are thoughtful, kind, compassionate, intelligent, articulate and sensitive."

Atheists and people who follow other religions can be exactly the same way which says that these are human traits and not Christian ones.

I could not possibly think that an atheist has no standard of good and evil. As a former atheist with many friends who are atheists , our lives ( when I lived as an atheist ) were primarily governed by trying to live for good and fight against evil ( former cop, you see, who has seen alot of evil, and worked alongside some of the best crime/evil fighters in the world. ) The problem becomes that the lines between good and evil become blurred and even flipped around when we start to earnestly study the concept.

What of the "evil" cop who is mean spirited and sadistic in his dealings with people... what of the "good" petty thief who is stealing just to survive. See what I mean about blurred lines.

The words of Everlast ring true

I've seen a rich man beg
I've seen a good man sin
I've seen a tough man cry
I've seen a loser win
And a sad man grin
I heard an honest man lie
I've seen the good side of bad
And the down side of up
And everything between

The Christian tradition tells us that we all have the capacity to do evil. Sometime that bent is fuelled and encouraged through the absence of restraint... and sometimes it is kept in check by one's level of intelligence (ie: this activity doesn't bring what I want it to bring out of life so I won't do it.)

But, the capacity is there nonetheless... and when we are able to see the darkness of our own hearts and in the words of the twelve step program... conduct a fearless moral inventory...we recognize the need for transformation and the need for someone/something to get us right with God.

I thank God the father, daily, for his Son who got this guy right with Him.

Theists often accuse atheists of not having any standard of "good and evil" because atheists recognize no god(s). But by what standards do theists judge God or Jesus worthy of trust? How do theists "know" which of the conflicting messages they portray are "correct"? Morality is not the province of gods or other supernatural deities; it is part and parcel of the evolved mind. Neuroscientists studying brains--rat, chimp and human alike--find that traits such as empathy and compassion are inborn. Neither Dostoevsky nor Lewis could have been aware of such studies since they've only become possible in very recent decades. Humans evolved in social groups that demanded give-and-take and fair play; indeed, many animal groups recognize cheaters and fair-players. This is quite convincing to the atheist that morality is not something handed down from "on high" but has been part of life since time immemorial.

I've never been one to wade into the atheist/theist debate as I'm not very good at debating. I do, however, find it very interesting that many of the commenters on this blog are atheists. Perhaps that is due to RD's openness and grace towards the debate itself.

As a devout follower of Christ, ( we'll leave the term "Christian" aside for now as it clearly means many things to many people) I continue to wrestle with the difficult passages of the Bible, the apparent ( or at least presented ) God in some of the OT genocide passages... etc.

But what is as clear to me today as the nose on my face... ( and shamelessly stealing from Dostoyevsky and Lewis ) if there is no God then there is no moral absolute... and if there is no moral absolute then we can neither judge the petty thief or the pedophile. If humankind by its social norms are allowed to be the arbitrators of right and wrong then we are in grave trouble. What becomes the accepted norm of right and wrong becomes the domain of the powerful and we know that without a sound moral compass ( God ) power corrupts.

Another thing I know. The thinking followers of Jesus who I have had priviledge of being in relationship with are thoughtful, kind, compassionate, intelligent, articulate and sensitive. All traits that, coming from an orthodox understanding of our heritage, are something we grow into by the power of the Holy Spirit who indwells the true believer.

Not long ago I was in a grumpy mood while at a large conference. This one young lady had been causing problems amongst a group of volunteers. I had offered a group to go and get some Starbucks and everyone placed their order, including this young lady. To put it mildly, I was not feeling the love for her... When it came time to pay I told the others it was on me. " You're awesome." she stated. At that point it was confession time ( to myself anyway and then I thought..why not state the truth )

" Actually, I'm not awesome... I can be a jerk, judgmental, and often very shy on patience... in fact I was feeling that way about this situation...but in this instance I chose to let the Holy Spirit have his way. It is Him who is awesome and takes flawed adn prickly human being and transforms him into a kind and caring man."

The sad part is, I didn't say that. Why? ... because I'm a flawed, prickly guy with still alot of pride left that needs refining. But, it's the truth.

I'll take Jesus and what he has done for me over my former atheism ( or was it apatheism )where I got to be god and judge what is morally right or wrong.

It doesn't matter if believers think god is good, bad, or indifferent, I still have no belief in any kind of supernatural entity.

"arbitrary, capricious and unjust".
I have read the Old Testament. The God presented flooded the Earth, called his "chosen" tribes to kill others and who is sexist, racist, and homophobic. Is "arbitrary, capricious and unjust" not an accurate description? Do they not say the God of the OT and Jesus are the same being?
As far as the childhood Jewish friend, doesn't the Bible clearly state non-believers in Jesus will burn in a lake of fire? Please explain,

As an atheist, I would at least have some sort of respect for a Christian (or other religious follower) who admitted that if there is a god, that god is "arbitrary, capricious and unjust". It still wouldn't be evidence for the existence of such a being, but at least it would suggest, however tenuously, that that person's beliefs are not entirely divorced from the real observable world.

Wow, this is a professor at a seminary? No wonder the Christian intellectual tradition is dying. What would it mean for atheism to ever be not "morally justified?" Most of us don't accept or reject truth-qualitative claims based on whether they are "morally good" or not. Most us of accept or reject them based on whether or not they're true.