Myth: Only Objective Moral Standards Allow for Moral Behavior
Tuesday May 20, 2008
How can we adopt a moral system without there being a God? If God does not exist, is there any basis for ever being moral? That's the fundamental issue when discussing atheistic and theistic morality — not whether atheistic morality exists at all but instead whether any atheistic morality can reasonably be adopted. Thus some religious theists argue that only the existence of objective standards which we are required to obey provide a secure basis for morality and moral behavior.
Read Article: Myth: Only Objective Moral Standards Allow for Moral Behavior
Comments
I believe the atheist position on morality is strengthened by first pointing out the lack of any sort of evidence for meaning in the universe, rather than leaving this important detail unspoken for the theist to point out.
Only after being very clear that there is no “greater reason” to act morally, can the atheist begin with a blank canvas to paint a convincing argument for humanistic values. Any attempt to do so must be framed in the context of happiness for oneself and one’s loved ones, and must be very clear about the reasons for its existence, and in particular, its ultimate irrelevance.
For if the atheist does not point this out first, then the theist will exploit it and point to the death knells of atheist morals and its seemingly vapid claims about why one should act a particular way. Indeed, the atheist must attempt to embrace the benefits of morals which might exist independently of external influence, and point to them as a reason for atheism, which can be very tricky.
For me, I have always found it rather easy to demonstrate atheistic morality.
The rules which one lives by must be considered against laws. The overlap is largely discountable, as it represents, in a democracy, in theory, the average consensus on moral issues, or at least the extent to which the average individual feels their morals are worthy of widespread enforcement.
So I examine my discontinuities with law. Although smoking is legal, I consider it immoral for people who have dependents, as the thought of potentially orphaning one’s children due to lung cancer or heart disease is rather unconscionable to me. For others, I consider smoking outside to be immoral since it subjects other people to it against their will.
In the same vein, drinking is a moral issue for me because although (1) I personally do not drink, though it would be legal for me to do so and (2) it is illegal for my 19-year-old brother to drink, I have no moral objection to it whatsoever.
Everyone holds personal morals like these, theist or not, which are based neither on the law nor on religion. The Bible, for example, may contain one passage condemning same-sex relationships (although technically, it’s about specifically male-male physical intimacy), but it says nothing about same-sex marriage (nor about marriage at all as a legal institution). Even so, many Christians consider it immoral for reasons that, while supposedly religiously founded, actually aren’t.
More to the point, religious people make moral judgment calls every day on topics which their religions, and even their core religion-based ideals, do not address.
A specific example of this is whether or not it’s okay to spread a rumor. Religious people of all stripes tend to agree that science cannot be used to validate their claims and, thus, that belief must come from faith.
Since their belief is technically only based on faith, “spreading the word” would constitute spreading a rumor, yet they are eager and happy to do so. Despite this, they tend to consider rumor spreading, as most people do, to be at least annoying and rude if not quite immoral.
This is all there is to atheistic morality, which even theists have. It’s the bread-and-butter of morality that causes religious people to pick and choose which morals they’ll follow, which ones they’ll interpret symbolically, which ones they’ll simply ignore, and so forth. If it weren’t for this pruning, most all religious people would be socially incapable, stoning people in the streets for wearing shorts or drinking on Sunday.
I think the following data is telling in regards to atheism and morality:
“In regards to atheism and morality, the Barna Group also found that those who hold to the worldviews of atheism or agnosticism in America were more likely, than theists in America, to look upon the following behaviors as morally acceptable: illegal drug use; excessive drinking; sexual relationships outside of marriage; abortion; cohabitating with someone of opposite sex outside of marriage; obscene language; gambling; pornography and obscene sexual behavior; and engaging in homosexuality/bisexuality.
I think the above behaviors are destructive and cause things such as fatherless kids.
OK, prove it - but don’t forget to support all of the other claims you have made here thus far.
Or are unsupported claims the best you are able to do?
Oh noes, fatherless kids! That’s the worst thing EVER! Because we all know children who grow up without fathers end up as sociopaths, and children who grow up in “traditional” households (where the father is the master and the mother is a submissive servant) all grow up with the utmost of moral character and never do anything wrong.
I’m a bastard kid, and I turned out just fine. I jack off to porn, use foul language, drink, and engage in other of your so called “destructive behaviors” yet I’m still a better person than many “pious” Christians I have the unpleasantness of knowing.
What’s funny is that there is no “objective” morality. Ask a Xian if a woman who drowns her kids because she hears god’s voice telling her to do so has done the right thing.
I have never yet had anyone tell me anything OTHER than that the woman was misguided and not doing god’s will.
Generally, this objective divine morality ends up being filtered through “Do I think this is right, personally?” And if the Xian doesn’t, then it’s not god’s morality. In other words, if god tells them to kill 10 kids, they simply say, “God wouldn’t/didn’t say that…” and they don’t kill the kids. So, in the end, it really doesn’t matter to them if god tells them to do it. It isn’t “right” or “wrong” on god’s word. It’s “right” or “wrong” on their assessment of “right” and “wrong.”
Abraham, who was praised in the books of Hebrews in the New Testament was famous for his faith because when god told him to kill his own son, he didn’t question it. He simply prepared to follow through.
Today’s Xian, it seems lacks the faith that is praised in their own Bibles, because every one I’ve asked so far would not only NOT kill their children if god instructed it—they say outright that they would deny god to his face, and state that He couldn’t possibly be god if he instructed such a thing. Ironically, their own Bibles record god instructing EXACTLY that, and it’s considered a wonderful testament to Abraham’s faith that he would unquestioningly have followed through.
Jephthah is also praised for his faith. He promised god anything from his house as a sacrifice, and he left it to god’s divine choice. Whatever would come out of his house first, he would give to god. God chose Jephthah’s daughter, whom Jephthah obediently and faithfully offered as a sacrifice to god. Only god didn’t stay Jephthah’s hand like he did Abraham’s. Most Xians will tell Jephthah’s story as though Jephthah was foolish and rash in his promise to god, and that the death of his daughter was recompense for his lack of forethought. But in Hebrews, it says the world is not worthy of such great men as Jephthah; so, it would seem that New Testament writers hold Jephthah’s offering and willingness to give god what god demanded (as an all powerful god controls what comes through your door, correct?) in extremely high esteem, and do not at all reference that Jephthah was a rash or foolish man—only that he was an icon representing great faith/obedience to god’s will.
Anyway, point being that a Xian today will deny that god would do exactly what god is repeatedly described as doing in their own holy book, in order to justify his/her own morality—that god simply would not ask a person to do something that seems wrong from their personal perspective.
When I meet the Xian who says, “Yes, I would support genocide/infanticide (such as Yahweh requested toward the Amalekites), I would support murdering my own kids, I would stone a gay person to death, etc…” then I’ll at least be able to talk to someone who actually BELIEVES their own claim that whatever god instructs is what is moral. But until I meet that Xian, I will only have met Xians who adhere to the same subjective morality everyone else does.
Mark Davidson:
If one defines “morality” as holding conservative christian views, I not surprised that a study found that people who aren’t consevative christians are less “moral”.
Having read the study, I found the following data telling about you:
The study asked whether they thought that “enjoying sexual thoughts or fantasies about someone” was morally acceptable, not “obscene sexual behavior”.
Likewise “getting drunk” not “excesive drinking” and “using drugs not prescribed by a medical doctor” not “illegal drug use”.
The study does not mention “bisexuality”.
I found the following data telling about theists:
The results were much more consistent over age groups than religious affiliation.
“Even most people associated with the Christian faith do not seem to have embraced biblical moral standards”.
“Only four out of every ten born again adults relies upon the Bible or church teachings as their primary source of moral guidance”.
“Upon asking people to describe specific behaviors as either morally acceptable or unacceptable, many adults indicated attitudes that conflict with the moral positions advanced by their faith-of-choice”.
In reference to one of your earlier posts, I also found it telling that the study found:
“Among adults who said they had given ten percent or more of their income to churches and related ministries in the past year, an examination of their finances showed that two-thirds of those people were lying about their generosity”.