No morals!?

[DeistPaladin]

What Ryaan said. Speaking as a deist, my morals aren't tied to God. My sense of obligation to my fellow sentient beings wouldn't be any different if I were to make the switch to atheism.

Let me break it down in detail as to why religion is neither necessary nor helpful in our understanding of morality:

1. It's a Non Sequitur (or Euthephro's Dilemma)

What does William Lane Craig, or any other apologist, mean by "without God, there is no basis for objective moral values"?

Does he mean that God decides what is right and wrong, as a celestial lawgiver? If that is the case, however wise or powerful God may be, it is still the act of one being making decisions and setting rules for others to follow. By definition, this is not objective. This is a being making decisions on right and wrong, or subjective values based on a being's opinions.

Does he mean that God determines what is right and wrong? By this reasoning, God is knowledgeable and wise, able to see a situation from all sides and make a non-biased assessment of the correct moral actions. If this is the case, morality exists outside of God and would continue to exist if God went away, died or never existed in the first place.

Christian apologists, aware of this dilemma, attempt to weasel out of it using the same tactics that likely created the Trinity (resolving a similar dilemma with the divinity of Jesus): babble incoherent concepts, make unsubstantiated assertions, bandy around some philosophy terms and hope it passes for philosophy gold. Specifically, they try to assert morality is grounded in the very nature of God.

The problem with this escape attempt, beyond the inscrutability of the claim and lack of evidence offered to support it, is that it's a classic case of "begging the question". Begging the question is a logical fallacy, similar to circular reasoning, where you make an unsubstantiated assertion and then use it to "prove" another assertion. One could just as easily say "God is love" or "love is grounded in the very nature of God" and then say that without a belief in God, you have no ability to love.

Any attempt to prove the assertion itself must inevitably be circular, at least as far as I can tell. "God is good". "How do you know?" "Because goodness is grounded in God." "How do you know?" "Because ...God is good?"

Maybe Ryft has a better answer for this one. He dropped our exchange just as I was nailing him down to answer this.

2. "GodWillsIt" is every bit as unsatisfying an answer to moral questions as "GodDidIt" is to science questions.

Let's say I state a moral no-brainer like "slavery is wrong". For the sake of argument, someone else responds "...according to...?"

If we say "God" as the answer, does that really contribute to our understanding of the moral issues regarding slavery or why it is wrong? Why does God feel this way about slavery or any other moral issue?

How about instead, "...according to the slaves themselves". What makes slavery wrong is that it injures our fellow sentient beings and violates their rights in a way that we would not appreciate if we were in their shoes. With this explanation, morality is explained as a matter of empathy for our fellow sentients. Explained this way, we understand not only why slavery is wrong but we can use the same sense of empathy to understand more complex moral issues.

3. Religion's conflict of interest

A religion's interest is to attract more followers and gain greater control over established followers. Religions that do not do this aggressively will learn about the pointy end of evolution.

Religions can be expected to demonize victimless crimes like blasphemy, heterodoxy and lapsing from church attendance, ritual performing, tithing, etc. In fact, reading the Bible or Koran cover-to-cover indicates that when these books speak of "evil", they often refer to idolatry, worshiping other gods or straying from the faith in some manner. The more impatient reader can simply review the "Ten Commandments" and notice that the first four (presumably the most important) deal strictly with issues of religious devotion:

1. "No gods before (Yahweh)"
2. "No graven images" (idolatry)
3. "No taking the lord's name in vein" (blasphemy)
4. "Remember the sabbath" (don't lapse)

Only four of the commandments actually deal with victim-related crimes (don't steal, don't murder, don't lie and don't cheat on your spouse). With all the religious admonishments, there's no room on the list for "don't rape", "don't abuse your kids" or "abolish slavery", commandments that could have been helpful if the OT is any indication.

All this is to say nothing about how religion often muddies the waters with all manner of taboos that have nothing to do with how we contribute to each other's happiness, ranging from "don't eat shellfish" to "love is evil when the body parts are similar" (or taboos against homosexuality).

Viewed from a secular perspective, morality is clearly understood as a matter of how we treat one another as fellow sentients. This is why it's OK to kick rocks but not puppies. Personally, I understand morality through three simple commanments:

1. Act with integrity
2. Respect the rights of others
3. Take responsibility for your actions.

Also note the positive language instead of the negative "thou shalt not".

4. The Biblical god isn't moral

This is a whole thread topic in and of itself.

5. The easy-out

Newt Gingrich felt all his adultery and cruelty to his former wife was all in the past, fully absolved, because he made peace with Jesus.

Secularists know we need to apologize not to Jesus but to the people we've wronged. Go apologize to your ex-wife Newt. Let us know how that goes.

6. "God is just like me, only bigger, stronger and immortal" - Zorba the Greek

I've yet to meet a Christian who didn't see Jesus as a glorified version of themselves. Jesus is a liberal, a conservative, a capitalist, a communist, or whatever you want him to be. How's that for an external and objective guide for morality?