As an atheist I cared little for “morality.” In fact, how others saw morality was often something I had to overcome to get what I wanted in life. So, when Christians who talked with me about the existence of God brought up the “law of morality,” it wasn’t something I was interested in discussing – at first.
I later learned that the moral argument for the existence of God is based on generally accepted points of morality within societies. It is based on the premise of moral normativity – the awareness of civilized human beings that some actions are right while others are wrong. Here are three ways I’ve heard to state the Moral Argument:
- Some aspect of Morality is observed
- Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives
- Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives
- If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist
- Objective moral values do exist
- Therefore, God exists
- Every law has a law giver
- There is a Moral Law
- Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver
Why do people have moral conflicts if morality does not exist? If people have moral conflicts, then morality exists. Without morality, there is no moral conflict. People do have moral conflicts, so morality exists. The word “morality” comes from the Latin moralitas (“manner, character, proper behavior”) and is concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Moral codes have existed for thousands of years – Adamic Code … Noahic Code … Egyptian Code of Ma’at … Babylonian Code of Hammurabi … Hebrew Law of Moses … Greek Moral Code … Chinese Code of Confucius … Roman Code of Morality … Christ’s Sermon on the Mount. The long history of moral codes demonstrates that people and societies are aware and sufficiently concerned about morality to define and codify it for the good of the social majority. These and other codes of morality have governed the populations of numerous civilizations as far back as evidence of the written word to explain them.
I was a child in the late 1940s and ’50s and teenager and young adult in the ’60s. The changes in morality during those years were amazing. How did we go from the strong moral values following World War II to the relativism of the 1960s? What was absolutely true in 1948 was not necessarily true in 1968. How can that happen in just 20 years? Doesn’t it take generations before morality shifts?
Atheism has been around for a long time, but it came of age during the 20th century. I wrote in another article about the impact the writings of Bertrand Russell had on me as a teenager and young man. Another influence was Joseph Fletcher. Fletcher was an ordained Episcopal priest who taught Christian Ethics at Episcopal Divinity School and Harvard Divinity School – and Medical Ethics at the University of Virginia. He later said he was an atheist. Fletcher wrote a book called “Situation Ethics: The New Morality” in 1966. I was in college at the time and was already attracted to atheism. Fletcher’s book and its presentation about morals and values supported what I was thinking and practicing.
Situation ethics attempts to remove the concept of absolutes in the areas of morals and values. Instead of following the directives of an absolute moral law, situation ethics determines morality and value based on the “situation.” Situation ethics said that moral principles can sometimes be cast aside if love is best served to do so in certain situations. Fletcher believed that the only law that was absolute was agape love and that all other laws could and should be set aside to achieve the greatest amount of that love.
As a budding atheist I liked Fletcher’s situation ethics. It fit very well with my desire to do whatever I thought was right for me. I became the definer of right and wrong for my own life. I determined what love was and did as I pleased. Situation ethics is very appealing to the sin nature. I had been raised in churches where moral law was taught continually. My desire to sin free of guilt and consequence responded to Fletcher’s view of no absolutes in life – no absolute truth, no absolute right or wrong, no absolute values, no absolute standards – everything is relative – or so they say.
The fact is people like Fletcher do believe in absolute truth, values and standards – theirs. They believe they are absolutely right and anyone who disagrees is absolutely wrong. I know that from my own pre-Christian thinking. I didn’t want anyone stepping on my rights, but I didn’t mind stepping on theirs because they didn’t have any rights – or so I thought.
Ask an atheist what they think about someone killing a member of their family. Since they believe everything is relative and situational, shouldn’t they embrace other people’s right to kill, maim, kidnap, rob and rape if they believe the attackers have a right to do what’s right for them? If someone who espouses situation ethics had a loved one or best friend on one of the planes that Muslim extremists flew into the Twin Towers in New York City, or the Pentagon, or the field in Pennsylvania, do you think they would say what the extremists did was fine since they (the extremists) did what they believed was the right thing for them to do? Since there are no absolute truths or right or wrong or values or standards – since everything is relative and based on the situation from the perspective of each individual – what the Muslim extremists did was good for them and therefore okay to do. Right? Of course not – and I dare say it would be difficult to find atheists who would embrace people who murdered, maimed or raped their loved ones.
There is something inside of most people that tells them violence against humanity is wrong. As an atheist I would talk a good talk about situational ethics and amorality, but I would defend friends and family against anyone who attempted to harm them. I viewed defending people I cared about as a duty, even though I didn’t want anyone to stop me from doing what I wanted to do – even if they thought what I was doing was wrong.
We’ll look further into the atheist’s dilemma with the Moral Law Argument as I continue to share how an atheist was convinced more than 40 years ago that there is a God.
How does the Christian apologetic counter the atheists’ claim that they are moral because they choose what is best (the situational is not dependent upon desire as much as positive self-propagation combined with a sort of philanthropy), and that choice in itself is a self-perpetuating necessity outside any obligation of theism?
It seems to presuppose some intrinsic value. Self-propagation is only an objectively good thing if we have value. They would then need to argue that they have value, but I have never heard an explanation that isn’t completely ad hoc and arbitrary.
Since they (atheists) believe everything is relative and situational, shouldn’t
they embrace other people’s right to kill, maim, kidnap, rob and rape if
they believe the attackers have a right to do what’s right for them?
Since you claim you were an atheist, then you know you never ’embraced’ other people’s ‘right’ to kill, maim, kidnap, rob and rape.
This is a clue…
Since christians are atheists in regards to all the other conflicting moral claims by other religions, do they suddenly ’embrace’ other people’s ‘right’ to kill, maim, kidnap, rob and rape?
Again, this a clue…
Why do people – believers and non believers alike – come up with codes of conduct about right and wrong human behaviour if there really does exist independent of mind an absolute moral law?
This, too, is a clue…
The heart of the moral law argument reveals its twin rot: what is determined to be right and wrong is – after all is said and done – is not owned by the individual (but by proxy meaning theists are morally irresponsible because they simply borrow someone else’s morality) nor is it supported by best reasons (meaning because theists yield to some external moral authority, they do not need to justify with best reasons and so are morally immature). What this means is that what is believed by religious faith and authority to be right and wrong is relative to what the scriptural gods purportedly say, what the scriptural gods purportedly do, what the scriptural gods purportedly determine to be right and wrong.
This central plank to the theists moral argument is antithetical to the very notion of an independent moral code the theist believes s/he is supporting (as demonstrated by the Euthyphro dilemma); instead, the theist’s moral code it is utterly dependent on what the scriptural gods determine to be moral.
This reminds me of the money quote in a little known film with Kathleen Turner when asked to think for herself: she cries out, “I don’t have to think. I’m a Catholic!”
In the same way, theists don’t have to think too hard about morality, about the shades of what is right and wrong based on any and all pertinent factors. They don’t have to account for the data about human behaviour we call ‘moral’ nor consider why these data crosses not just all artificial human boundaries but even across species.
In contrast, the atheist must develop a moral code based on best reasons rather than pass the moral buck as theists do to some fuzzy notion of something somewhere out there who is responsible on our behalf. Introducing god to explain morality does no such thing. All it does is create a pseudo-answer that impedes honest investigation and the acquisition of knowledge about what this word ‘morality’ actually means.
The only acquiescing Christianity makes in morality is to the “Great Commands” — to love God and to love our neighbor as ourselves.
These sum up the law and require “best reasoning” of the Christian to comprehend fully their outworking in life.
Thank you for your comments. I want to be as clear as possible. I was an atheist for several years after studying Buddhism as part of martial arts training. My comments about what atheists believe are based on living and thinking as an atheist.
If you take the tenets of atheism to their logical end, where will you go? I took my belief in the non-existence of God as far as I could without killing or maiming anyone, but that doesn’t mean that’s as far as those beliefs could take a person. If we believe there is no God and we are just random matter without soul or purpose, we would be no different than an animal, insect, worm or germ. The fact that most atheists believe they cannot avoid responsibility for their actions and should promote respect for nature and humanity demonstrates that they are not random matter without soul or purpose. Atheists are different than animals, insects, worms and germs. The question is why? What makes a person different than other life forms? Could it be that people are born with a sense that certain behavior is right, while other behavior is wrong? Could it be that in each of us is a sense that there are absolutes in life and that we have a responsibility to those absolutes?
I believed as an atheist that truth is relative. However, I came to see that belief as self-defeating. When I would say that truth is relative, was that statement true? If truth is relative, how I can know truth? Is it possible that what I believe is truth is not truth and what I believe is not truth is truth? What if I’m wrong? What if I’m right? How would I ever know if all truth is relative? Truth then could never be known for sure and we find ourselves in a continual quandary with no possible solution.
I used to believe that people who believed in God were irrational. I believed that truth could only be determined by evidence and logic. I didn’t see the rationality of believing in God. It was after discussing the evidence and logic of Christianity with Christians that I saw the rationality of believing in Jesus Christ.
As for the idea of an independent moral code, that hearkens back to relativism. What’s right for you may not be right for me. What’s right for me may not be right for you. Each situation is different, so there is no absolute way to discern right and wrong. Atheist say they promote social action for a better world, but what action? How can we agree on what’s a “better world” when everything is relative? What may be your better world is not necessarily my better world. What standard do we use to define the “better world?” What standard do we use to determine what actions would be appropriate to build that better world? What if the world you want to build is detrimental to the world I want to build? Who wins that discussion? On what basis if everything is relative? To what do atheists turn to determine the right or wrong way to promote social action for the better world? Opinion? Everyone has one. Consensus? Is that based on truth or herd mentality? Force? How is that right?
Jesus Christ is the absolute for Christians. He is our standard for belief and behavior. What He said, what He did, how He lived His life – those are the standards by which we determine right and wrong. I came to faith in Christ based on logic, reason and evidence. To Him I owe my life and allegiance. Many other atheists have come to faith in Christ for the same reasons. Christianity is reasonable and logical.
I’ll share more about morality and the moral argument for belief in God in future posts. Thank you again for your comments.