Can there be morality without God?

Home > Blogs > The Tentative Apologist > Article

Nov 13,2009, 9:01AM

While walking among the book tables at the American Academy of Religion conference in Montreal this year I came across Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's new book Morality Without God? (Oxford University Press, 2009). Sinnott-Armstrong is an atheist at Dartmouth College, a respected scholar (as employment at an ivy-league school surely implies!) and a veteran debater with the evangelical champion of debate William Lane Craig. And for a person like myself weary of reading 500 page academic tomes, at only 170 pages Sinnott-Armstrong's book provided a pleasant read on the flight back home.

I appreciated Sinnott-Armstrong's book for two reasons. First, though he is an atheist he deals with Christians fairly (for the most part, but see below) and asks the same of those evangelical Christians who are his main interlocutors in the book. The first couple chapters especially provide an intriguing analysis of Christian prejudicial attitudes toward atheists. I was interested at this point in the convergence between Sinnott-Armstrong's views and my own as developed in my forthcoming book Not All Atheists are Fools. We would all benefit from Sinnott-Armstrong's advice:

We all--atheists and theists alike--need to learn to listen and observe instead of trying to feel our way into the lives of people who seem distant to us. (41)

In other words, don't simply assume that we know what the other person thinks or intends to argue, but try to see things from their point of view. This will do wonders and may even result in the destruction of our enemies for, as Lincoln famously said, do I not destroy an enemy when I make him my friend? Needless to say both the new atheists and their Christian opponents would do well to engage in more sympathetic listening.

I also appreciated Sinnott-Armstrong's defense of an objective ethic based on avoidance of harm. While much remains to be said in order to develop and defend his view (for instance, I would like to know his views on the ontological status of these objective moral laws so as to understand which naturalisms it is consistent with; a treatment of his moral epistemology would be helpful too), he provides atheists with a much more plausible morality than the evolutionary and social constructivist accounts that are all the rage these days.

The most notable lapse in Sinnott-Armstrong's generally admirable and fair style comes with his treatment of scripture which is occasionally tendentious to say the least. For instance, this is evident in his treatment of the concept of blaspheming the Holy Spirit (Mt. 12:31 and Mk. 3:28) (15-16). Moreover, he cherry-picks certain passages from the Old Testament to support the conclusion that "the Bible suggests that killing nonbelievers is morally required rather than morally wrong." (121) Really? The Christian is obliged to kill nonbelievers? Come on Walter (if I may), surely your hermeneutical ability is subtler than that.

But those occasional lapses in discursive rigor and fairness should not deter us from an engaging and nuanced treatment of ethical objectivism, atheist-style.

Can there be morality without God?

While walking among the book tables at the American Academy of Religion conference in Montreal this year I came across Walter Sinnott-Armstrong's new book Morality Without God? (Oxford University Press, 2009). Sinnott-Armstrong is an atheist at Dartmouth College, a respected scholar (as employment at an ivy-league school surely implies!) and a veteran debater with the evangelical champion of debate William Lane Craig. And for a person like myself weary of reading 500 page academic tomes, at only 170 pages Sinnott-Armstrong's book provided a pleasant read on the flight back home.

Email |

Print |

Should we lend terrorists a sympathetic ear?

Urban Legends in the Pulpit

Most recent comments

1.November 20,2009, 8:57AM

@ RD Rauser

You wrote: "Of course it is evil, but it is an evil which is justified."

We may disagree on justification; (that's a moral issue in which you give god no responsibility to hold or to have because of his position -- while I on the other hand, believe he should be held to an even HIGHER standard than we BECAUSE OF his position); but we do *not* disagree that this god in fact does evil, causes evil, and does not hold HIMSELF to a moral standard equal to or greater than the standard he imposes on us!

In other words, his moral standard is clearly lower than ours (or at least lower than the one he imposes upon us). And this is the point you keep trying to evade (through justification, finite minds, and now poetic metaphor).

You keep trying to side-step the FACT (on which we both agree) that this god subjects himself to LOW moral standards even IF you feel they are justified!

How, therefore, can we look to such a being for moral guidance when his moral standards are LOWER than our own, or the ones he imposes on us? This is S-Armstrong's (and my) direct response to the original question "Can there be morality without God?"

To my statement: "A being of infinite intelligence and means can't even hold himself to the standards he sets for those of much less intelligence and means?" you reply: "Sorry, this is simply ignoring the argument."

No, Rauser, this IS the argument! How do we look to a Being for "our" standards who has no standards himself?!! Would there be any difference looking to the Devil for our standards?

If you had to distinguish the difference in moral standards between Devil and God, right now, how would you do it? Seriously, how could you tell?

You said: "On the view I am proposing, God always acts with the best intentions of his creatures, all things considered, in view."

If that were true, then you are also proposing that having a lower moral standard than the creatures themselves (and acting like it), is in the best interest of the creatures.

And if that were true, and we were to follow this logic as his creatures, we should wreck holy mayhem on each other without moral standards at all, as that would be following the lead of this god (as you propose).

You continued: "We rarely if ever do that both out of intrinsic epistemological limits (we don't know how things will work out) and because of our character flaw."

But who cares about character flaw when all you'd have to do is follow this god's lead? Isn't that what you're proposing? And since this god has low moral standards, if any that we can hold him to, following god's morality means having none ourselves! All we'd have to do is whatever we think this god wants us to do -- morality be damned!

And *that's* why people have, and continue to do EVIL in the name of a god. They are simply following the morality of their god!

As far as God's capriciousness? God bears no consequences for his actions. It matters none. And I'm afraid my cup is on it's last drop.

--AcesLucky

2.November 19,2009, 1:42PM

RD

I will look out for it. Thanks for sharing.

--MGT2

3.November 19,2009, 8:22AM

AcesLucky,

"When god does evil, or when he has others do evil at his command, it's not *really* evil, we just can't see the ultimate good because of our finite view."

Of course it is evil, but it is an evil which is justified.

"A being of infinite intelligence and means can't even hold himself to the standards he sets for those of much less intelligence and means?"

Sorry, this is simply ignoring the argument. On the view I am proposing, God always acts with the best intentions of his creatures, all things considered, in view. We rarely if ever do that both out of intrinsic epistemological limits (we don't know how things will work out) and because of our character flaw.

This is also a God who, according to Christians, incarnated as God the Son to offer a universally available means of reconciliation.

Your heavily rhetorical rejoinder depends on assuming that God is capricious when he subjects us to evil and suffering. But if that is not true, then all your objections evaporate like the morning dew on a desert cactus.

Do you not

--RD Rauser

4.November 18,2009, 9:21PM

@ RD Rauser

Re: my question: "If the god in question cannot retain a moral practice -- then, how can He be looked *to* for moral guidance?"

You wrote (in a nutshell): 1. it must be for some greater good, and 2. it's his prerogative.

Of course. When god does evil, or when he has others do evil at his command, it's not *really* evil, we just can't see the ultimate good because of our finite view. And besides, it's his right as ultimate creator to do immoral things, again for the ultimate good, of course.

After all this time, this is the best we can come up with?

A being of infinite intelligence and means can't even hold himself to the standards he sets for those of much less intelligence and means?

And the excuse is basically, it's his prerogative? I'm afraid you just made my glass a bit emptier. I would expect a god to hold himself to a HIGHER standard of morality, not a lower one!

Nevertheless, I have to reject your answer on the basis of "divine right". We can own our pets and can do great harm and injustice to them, but the right to do so in no way makes it "moral" to do so.

I must also reject your answer because you openly admit we have a "finite" view, and so to claim a "greater good" for god's immoral actions is to now pretend you knew god's mind after all! (As well as the outcomes!) Clearly this "greater good" concept is a rationalization you made up.

I must also reject your answer because if you are right, then you have no way of knowing if you are in fact serving a Devil, because in your view there is no difference. You cannot tell one from the other.

And lastly, (if you honestly believe what you said):

Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. -- Voltaire (1694 - 1778)

In other words, if all you need to do evil is to believe it came from a god, you are just as dangerous a human as the Jihadist flying airplanes into buildings. You cannot tell right from wrong.

And so given these points, again substantiating S-Armstrong's stance, "how can this god be looked *to* for moral guidance?"

Can following the morality of this god possibly be better than following the Golden Rule?

--AcesLucky

5.November 18,2009, 2:50PM

MGT2,

You ask, "How do you think the texts concerning genoside should be read?" My answer: in accord with the revelation of God in Christ, the authority of scripture, and our deepest held moral intuitions (e.g. that it is always wrong to kill infants in devotional acts). My long-term goal (e.g. the next 2-3 years) is to develop a hermeneutic of biblical violence that is rooted in God's reconciling work in Christ as the norming norm. Thus far I have only got as far as critiquing the standard view.

--RD Rauser

6.November 18,2009, 2:46PM

AcesLucky,

"I admit to taking a dissenting view of all the immorality of the bible god, from the slaughter of towns, women and children, to the sacrifice of innocent others (be they animals or people) as a means of atonement."

I understand the atonement of Christ to be a judgment on all systems of blood atonement, not their most perfect exemplar, so I would have some sympathy with what you say. However, I would also add that God has rights over his creatures that others do not have. We recognize this principle. For instance, a parent has a right over his or her child that other people do not have (e.g. to consent to medical treatment for the child). God, as creator of all, would have many more rights over his creatures. And thus just as a parent could subject their children to certain unpleasant states of affairs for a greater good, surely God could do so as well. And this even if we as finite creatures cannot conceive of the goods God might have in view.

--RD Rauser

7.November 18,2009, 12:30PM

RD

I read your journal article and I am sold (only because I was already inclined).

I started thinking about a couple of things and you may be really on to something about the historical misreading of the OT.

Jesus often chided the religious teachers for their misinterpretation of the OT Scriptures and even recommended that they should have love rather than hate for their enemies. In fact, if we contrast Jesus' teachings with the conventional reading of the OT, we will find that genocide is reprehensible to him. God even rejected his servant's offer to build his Temple because David was a warrior who was stained by blood (2Chronicles 29).

How do you think the texts concerning genoside should be read?

--MGT2

8.November 18,2009, 9:28AM

RD Rauser,

Thanks for your response.

"The problem is that most Christians do not realize that the background context of herem warfare in the Old Testament involves tribal human sacrifice to the deity. We no longer recognize human sacrifice to be a morally legitimate form of religious expression. If we concede that it could never be praiseworthy to kill infants as a devotional act of worship, then we are constrained by that moral sense to reject the straightforward historical reading of the narratives in question."

I am again in need of some clarification. Are you saying that each act of war, or more specifically, each time the Israelites defeated and wiped out a group of people, it involved a form of human sacrifice?

My reading of the OT leads me to believe that one of the reasons why God wanted certain groups wiped out was because of the detestable practice of human scafifices. I understand herem warfare and the tribal practices of the pagan people, but I doubt this was adopted by Israel. Even when the firstborn sons were dedicated to God they were not sacrificed, but redeemed by their parents for a price and a suitable sacrifice was substituted.

I think that these pagan nations never regarded or retained God in their knowledge, and He knew that they never would, thereby becoming hopelessly and forever devoid of true morality.

However, I am intrigued and open to your intrepretation of the historical reading of the OT. I will read your journal article.

--MGT2

9.November 17,2009, 12:09AM

@ RD Rauser

You stated: "On 1. You miss the point. The text in question never laid down a moral precept operative for all time. Some laws are understood to apply only to Israel and others apply for all time (i.e. the Ten Commandments)."

Perhaps you're right. I thought the point was to show the immorality of the bible god's commandments, not who they were meant for, or necessarily when. Didn't you state "I also appreciated Sinnott-Armstrong's defense of an objective ethic based on avoidance of harm"? Clearly this god does not share your ethical values! And yet you suggest the point is "who" and "when", and not the immorality of the commandments.

S-Armstrong and I, however, are looking at the immorality WITH this God as a precept to answering the question "Can there be morality 'without' Him?"

If the god in question cannot retain a moral practice -- it is assumed He understands the concepts of justice, fairness, morals, kindness, etc. -- then, how can He be looked *to* for moral guidance?

MGT2 asks a wonderful question about your response to point 5. You admit you take a dissenting view of the genocide, but I admit to taking a dissenting view of all the immorality of the bible god, from the slaughter of towns, women and children, to the sacrifice of innocent others (be they animals or people) as a means of atonement. (Except I make no apologetic for the behavior.)

This literally CAN'T come from an intelligent, loving being, Supreme or not, who understands justice, fairness, and morality. And it's unfathomable that a Supreme Being would need a man to do His dirty work. (Didn't He create an entire universe in 6-days without the assistance of men?)

To those not obligated to faith -- what's wrong with this picture is obvious.

--AcesLucky

10.November 16,2009, 1:57PM

MGT2,

Thanks for your comments. The quickest way to respond is to direct you to my journal article "Let nothing that breathes remain alive" available here:
http://www.randalrauser.com/index.php?pr=Academic_Articles

That said, let me briefly consider this: "Could it be that you are simply using a standard palatable to your moral sensitivities rather than seeing the situation from the perspective of God, who is unalterably just?"

Sure that's possible. Human beings are fallible in our moral judgments. However, do I have reason to think I am in error here?

Since the Enlightenment (really since the Peace of Westphalia or a bit before) most people will concede that the world community has been progressively becoming more humane in policy if not always fact. For instance, we no longer consider the targeting of non-combatants, let alone the genocide of an entire people including children, to be morally permissible. And I don't think those convictions represent the triumph of a non-moral (or immoral) sentimentalism. Rather, I think they are insights into the moral law.

The problem is that most Christians do not realize that the background context of herem warfare in the Old Testament involves tribal human sacrifice to the deity. We no longer recognize human sacrifice to be a morally legitimate form of religious expression. If we concede that it could never be praiseworthy to kill infants as a devotional act of worship, then we are constrained by that moral sense to reject the straightforward historical reading of the narratives in question.

--RD Rauser

11.November 16,2009, 10:37AM

RD,

I like reading your posts; they are very informative are good as a resource for Christians who want to understand some of the tough philosophical questions concerning our Faith.

Please explain your response in point 5:

"I have dealt in my published writings with the command of genocide given to the Israelites. I take a dissenting view by arguing that God could not have commanded what is recorded and thus that the texts have a different function for the community of faith than that which has traditionally been ascribed to them. This comes out of my moral intuition that it is always wrong to engage in acts of devotional killing (or herem warfare)."

What might that function be?
Is it such a radical notion that God, in his knowledge and wisdom, could judge and convict an entire nation and have the sentence carried out by people chosen by him?

Could it be that you are simply using a standard palatable to your moral sensitivities rather than seeing the situation from the perspective of God, who is unalterably just?

Could such commands be acceptable to you on the basis of the principle of relevant difference, given that God had clearly stated beforehand the consequences of actions such as these condemned groups are accused of--consequences to which Israel were not immune?

--MGT2

12.November 15,2009, 5:19PM

AcesLucky,

On 1. You miss the point. The text in question never laid down a moral precept operative for all time. Some laws are understood to apply only to Israel and others apply for all time (i.e. the Ten Commandments).

On 2. How could hatred of gays come directly from the OT when the OT never talks about homosexuals? The texts talk about certain heterosexuals engaging in a wide variety of acts considered to be morally aberrant.

On 3., I agree the OT God is the same as the NT God. But that doesn't mean we don't have to interpret what we read. That isn't special pleading, its common sense.

On 4., the first argument for religious freedom (of I am aware anyways) came under Constantine in the fourth century with the Edict of Toleration and Edict of Milan (311, 313) under the influence of Lactantius. The next major move toward religious freedom (or irreligious freedon as the case may be) came with the Baptists pleading for freedom under James I of England in the early seventeenth century.

On 5., I have dealt in my published writings with the command of genocide given to the Israelites. I take a dissenting view by arguing that God could not have commanded what is recorded and thus that the texts have a different function for the community of faith than that which has traditionally been ascribed to them. This comes out of my moral intuition that it is always wrong to engage in acts of devotional killing (or herem warfare).

Good to have you aboard!

--RD Rauser

13.November 14,2009, 7:31PM

@RD Rauser

You said:
"..to quote passages from one section of the Torah to suggest that even now "the Bible suggests that killing nonbelievers is morally required rather than morally wrong" (121) is absurd."

1. Then by your own admission it must be just as absurd to use said bible for today's morality, for exactly the same reason. (And I would agree.)

2. Hatred of gays, for just one example, is directly from the Old Testament. So it is clear that the 'entire' bible is being used for today's Christian morality. (Which makes it directly appropriate, as opposed to absurd.)

3. To the best of my knowledge there is no 'current day' bible that disavows the God of the Old Testament claiming the old vs. new Testament gods are in fact different gods. (A quote from the Torah is therefore as valid as any other.)

4. What prohibits killing heretics is secular law, not an evolution of god's morality or Christian morality. Notice the Muslims put their religious commandments before any secular law, and they are more than happy to kill the infidel. Do I need to cite a recent case? Pick up a newspaper.

5. The fact that you attempt to distinguish "required" from "morally wrong" admits that the LORD utters morally wrong commandments in the first place. You're simply saying that today's Christian is not "required" to do them.

But the fact that they are immoral in the first place, supports the position that morality from a god is nevertheless... immoral. Clearly, therefore, there is a great deal of immorality WITH god. HE is his own best (worst) example!

But do we really need a God to follow the Golden Rule?

PS: Glass almost empty. Pleased to be aboard.

--AcesLucky

14.November 14,2009, 12:05PM

AAN,

There are many challenges for the Christian in interpreting various passages of scripture, a number of which I have talked about here. The irony is that Sinnott-Armstrong "overplayed his hand" in the same way as a Christian who says "Without God everything is permissible". If you don't want your interlocutors to overplay their hands, then you shouldn't either.

--RD Rauser

15.November 14,2009, 8:37AM

While personally I’d like to think I would find it impossible to carry out such a command against family my refusal would hardly make me a moral person if by that refusal I condemned all future generations to misery in their short existence… in the example of Arliss in “Old Yeller”, if my love for my rabid pet and my inexorable belief in its right to exist kept me from eliminating it and therefore a greater danger to myself and others would I be morally responsible? By the way, our chances of physical death are exactly 100%, therefore morality has no implications for physical death but only for existence and has no eternal importance outside of a spiritual existence that transcends physical death.

--Crannog

16.November 14,2009, 12:38AM

The passages that AcesLucky cites, while certainly not a blanket commandment to kill nonbelievers, clearly demands that one kills any close family member who tries to get you to break the 1st commandment. Sinnott-Armstrong may have overplayed his hand here, but the passages are still not exactly morally praiseworthy.

--AnAtheist.Net

17.November 14,2009, 12:01AM

AAN,

I'll bring the guacamole dip.

--RD Rauser

18.November 14,2009, 12:00AM

AcesLucky,

You seem to be a "the glass is half empty" kinda fella. Be that as it may, to quote passages from one section of the Torah to suggest that even now "the Bible suggests that killing nonbelievers is morally required rather than morally wrong" (121) is absurd. Even at the time of the Canaanite occupation such an unqualified stipulation was never commended. Look to the book of Ruth for a standard example of the welcome of the foreigner. Such an unfounded statement does a discredit to an otherwise balanced book, and your espousal of it isn't doing you any favors either.

That said, welcome aboard friend!

--RD Rauser

19.November 13,2009, 4:43PM

"Moreover, he cherry-picks certain passages from the Old Testament to support the conclusion that "the Bible suggests that killing nonbelievers is morally required rather than morally wrong."

Deuteronomy 13:6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, ...

13:8 Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him:
13:9 But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people.
--

Yes, picking the right verses to substantiate the point is "cherry picking." What good would it do to pick verses that do not substantiate the point?

But why are these words coming from the LORD if they are morally repugnant while clearly being a commandment? Do we follow these particular commandments of god, or not?

The answer is: "no" we do not, because they are morally wrong and against the law. But one cannot deny that this commandment came from the LORD of the bible.

No, to follow god's morality would be no different than a Jihadist killing Christians. Can there be morality without God? Can there be morality WITH god is the better question. The fact that we do NOT follow those commandments answers that question directly.

--AcesLucky

20.November 13,2009, 3:19PM

No, it should not. So let's get this party started.

--AnAtheist.Net

Comment on this Story

About this blog

An exploration of faith, knowledge, reason and doubt (with the occasional trite pop culture reference thrown in for good measure).