The idea that there is an objective morality founders on the fact that our moral standards have changed dramatically over time. An objective god-given morality is one that presumably should be both universal and unchanging with time since god is presumably omnipresent and unchanging. And yet that is obviously at odds with history, where most moral judgments have varied from place to place and over time. Many of the most appallingly evil actions are condoned and even encouraged in religious texts as coming from god, though such actions are now disowned. If there is an objective morality, why was it not obvious to people before and why were there different standards for different communities?
What we do see, though, is a pleasing convergence in moral standards as time goes by, even though we still have far to go. This is almost entirely due to cultural awareness spreading. In just a couple of centuries we have decided that slavery is evil and that discrimination on the basis of gender, sexual preference, disability, race and ethnicity, and age is wrong. We no longer tolerate human sacrifices or child labor. We find torture abhorrent, which forces governments that still practice it to do it in secret or resort to euphemisms to hide their shame. We are less tolerant of wanton cruelty to animals, though we still eat them. Except for a few countries like Saudi Arabia, we no longer punish people for offences by amputating limbs or stoning or beheading.
These recent advances in our moral sensibilities are largely or entirely cultural developments that had nothing to do with god. In fact, they are counter to god’s supposed commands since many of these cruel practices originate in the allegedly holy books and are supposed to be god’s recommended policies. The importance of culture in advancing the idea of what is good is tremendous. We have made great strides in this area without appealing to god so those who argue that without god we would be morally worse off are fighting a losing battle.
This excellent video clip from QualiaSoup will give you, in less than ten minutes, all the arguments you need to debate anyone who claims that morality can only come from god.
The argument is summarized in the slide at the 8:10 minute mark where he says:
- NO ONE can claim to KNOW that any god exists
- Even if god does exist:
- NO evidence there is only one god
- NO evidence it is a personal god
- NO evidence its nature is perfect
- NO reliable source of divine values
- NO consistent morality among theists
- VIOLENT moral disagreement among theists
- NO objective method for deciding whose interpretation of divine values is correct
NO CONSISTENT INFALLBLE THEISTIC MORALITY
I find the idea that we can only have morality because of religion quite repellent. What does it say about someone that the only reason they don’t murder, rape, or steal is because they think god will punish them?
In this video clip, Edward Current imagines what would happen if god disappeared.
The idea that we need a god in order to arrive at moral principles on which to base our lives and societies seems to me to be so self-evidently absurd that I really cannot take seriously anyone who advocates it.
Thanks for linking to the Ed Current one. That is the one I referred to in an earlier comment. I think it’s his best one. Hadn’t laughed so hard since the double rainbow guy. Really, though, he poses a great question to believers, what would the world be like without God?
Mano,
Going back to Harris debating Craig (fileting would be more apt) which was about this one thing -- No God = No Objective Morality; Craig is very smart in not ever arguing in favor of th e two things at the same time. Craig either argues for the presence of god, or for No god=no morality. It’s circular. But what was truly an eyeopener was the attitude of the questioners in the audience. The first questioner (the only woman to ask a question) put Craig on a spot very nicely, when she asked about whether we are waiting for a better understanding of our senses to discover the real source of moral values. Of the the next two -- the student wearing a U of Florida tee, seemed to be clearly faking it, when he talked of miracles and the reality of the cracker being of Jesus’s flesh. Although this was directed at Harris, I am sure it was done to embarrass Craig, who being a Protestant rejects transubstantiation, but being at a Catholic institution would have to necessarily keep quiet and squirm he did. The last person to question Craig was the young man who asked Craig about a vision he had from Jesus endorsing his sexual preference. This angered Craig and put him off balance completely. Craig must work hard on his intellectual facade, because that’s all he’s got to keep his business going. To his left are the liberal Xtians and further left are the atheists who are all vastly more successful than him. To Craig’s right are the fundamentalists, charismatics, pentecostals, who have no need to affect any intellectual airs at all and can use the megachurch pulpit at will. As his position loses support commands neither respect nor affection. If youth at a Catholic institution could be so harsh with him, imagine what his standing must be with the general public.
kuraL,
You might be amused at Craig’s patronizing dismissal of the audience after the debate.
Mano,
Read Craig’s remarks (can’t understand why he is Facebook). The man is a delusional snobbish mediocrity. Only two types of believers will be left with Craig should he be fileted in yet another debate -- highly observant Catholics who take orders directly from their priest, (like Bill Donahue) and fundamentalists.
God given morality smacks of fear and selfishness. If you do this, you go to hell, therefore don’t do it. If you don’t do this, you won’t go to heaven, therefore do it. What a basis for morality?
Well well My friend when talking about hell and heaven, everybody uses a carrot and stick policy in life -- at work, with kids, with friends, etc. If people use it, it is fair but God should not use it. Is that what you are trying to say.
A government for the people must depend for its success on the intelligence, the morality, the justice, and the interest of the people themselves. And a system of morality which is based on relative emotional values is a mere illusion, a thoroughly vulgar conception which has nothing sound in it and nothing true.
I believe talking about Hell and Heaven should not be an issue why we live. The best would be talk about Gods love. His love is what changes the world. The unconditional love.