Secular Right’s readers have been raising the hoary “without God, no morality” topos again:
The problem with creating a notion of “secular authority” is that you run into . . . the “great sez who?” Eventually, without a belief in a transcendent moral order . . . appeals to authority eventually are futile. . . . Maybe two or three generations can feed off of the inherited patrimony of the civilization without embracing its underlying ethos, but eventually that patrimony gets exhausted and the “grand sez who?” phenomenon sets in.
Would someone please provide an actual example of such endless moral regress without the God trump card? If I may borrow a phrase from my misspent youth, it seems to me that we are “always already” embedded in a moral environment far more complex and sophisticated than the blunt pronouncements of the Ten Commandments (i.e., those not commanding obsequiousness before God). The question of some original source beyond human law and custom for our most basic principles, in my experience, never comes up.
Would someone please provide an example of
a. someone actually claiming that murder, say, (or theft) is fine at all times and places, or
b. someone claiming that murder (or theft) is fine at all times and places because there is no God, or
c. someone claiming that murder (or theft) is fine at all times and places because there is no God, and then being recalled to sanity by an invocation of the Sixth (or Eighth) Commandment?
I have simply never witnessed the need to reference to God to establish the validity of our laws against extortion, say. Real-world moral disputes are more complicated: Is health care a right? Who should pay for it and how much should one group pay for another’s health care? Is economic regulation theft? Is theft admissible to stave off starvation? We answer these questions by drawing on our innate and developed moral intuitions and our society’s legal framework.
Does anyone really believe that Denmark and Copenhagen are going to stop enforcing contract law because they have “exhausted the patrimony” of Leviticus and are uncomfortable invoking God as the source of their commercial code?
During large swathes of European history when religious belief was at its pinnacle, burning heretics at the stake and bludgeoning to death members of opposing sects were considered perfectly compatible with the Ten Commandments. Today, we would disagree, not because we have suddenly discovered that murder is wrong, but because that inevitable human taboo has been fleshed out differently, under pressure from Enlightenment values. In 1608, Pope Paul V ordered that Rafael’s Deposition, painted to honor a mother’s fallen son, be spirited in the dark of night away from its home in Perugia’s church of S. Francesco al Prato. Paul V bestowed it on his nephew, Scipione Borghese, for his art collection. Today, a pope would not secretly purloin an altarpiece painting, not because he has suddenly discovered the Eighth Commandment, but because our conception of the proper scope of papal power has changed.
It seems to me, Steve, that your parable is one of the best pieces of evidence for the absence of god, period. How can anyone believe that there is a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent creator when he allows such atrocities? If you saw a kid on a playground repeatedly kicking another kid in the face, would you worry for a moment about whether either of them was your kid before you pulled the kicker away? If your answer is no, then your ethics are stronger than this purported god. S/He/It does nothing to stop unethical or immoral behavior and never has.
Having read the Bible, I am regularly puzzled by arguments made by those who consider it a holy book. For example, Steve, your citation of the millions killed by the Soviet Union, People’s Republic of China, and the Khmer Rouge seems to imply that because these numbers are larger than the number of protestants killed by catholics (and vice versa), ‘heretics’ killed by christians, Axis soldiers and civilians killed by christian Allied soldiers, free and enslaved blacks killed by christian caucasians, etc., that somehow makes the ‘godless’ countries worse. Two of the teachings of Jesus show this to be a fallacy to christian morality: (1) “That which you do to the least of my brothers, that you do unto me;” and (2) when asked how often one should forgive, Jesus replied “not seven times, but seventy times seven.” This does not sound like the morality of a bean-counter.
What about this:
Someone claiming that murder (or theft) is fine at all times and places for God.
Pingback: The Abyss at the End of the Weekend « Just Above Sunset
@Clark
Clark, yes of course some Christians are willing to kill fetuses, infants, “useless eaters”, etc. But traditional Christian authorities (I guess I should have specified “traditional”) tend not to legitimize these practices, as far as I know. The practices are opposed on explicitly Christian grounds (also on natural law arguments, which are weak); they tend to be supported on non-Christian grounds. The news for Heather Mac Donald is that what has traditionally called murder is being legitimized, against Christian opposition.
My point wasn’t that one’s metaphysical beliefs influence one’s behavior. My point was that, contra Ms. Mac Donald, you can’t count on what she calls “morality” surviving the loss of traditional Christianity. A morality, yes – there will always be a morality. But probably not Heather Mac Donald’s morality.
Re Dresden, Hiroshima, etc., that was separate from my earlier point. I was replying to HMD’s cheerleading for modernity. But since you mention it, my guess (just a guess) is that these mass murders were opposed on Christian grounds more than they were supported on Christian grounds. Either way, if your point is that it was always thus, then fine. I’m not saying that everything has changed or is liable to change – only some of the most basic things.
You may be right about God’s death not invalidating utilitarianism. Still, I think you could argue against utilitarianism on Nietzschean grounds. You could argue that in practice it’s often (not always) been just an expression of faith in (essentially) the prevailing morality. More generally, I think Nietzsche’s whole morality of individualism (for noble souls) is an argument against any kind of utilitarianism, even a “utilitarianism of the noble”. I don’t think he’d be much against utilitarianism for the “herd”, if it weren’t for it dragging down those noble souls.
The way I see it, Hell is full of Christians, right? I’ve read my Dante. So, clearly, professed membership in a faith is no guarantee of ethical behavior. A person’s professed faith tells you nothing about their proclivity towards ethical or unethical behavior.
(In fact, if someone brings up religion out of context, it may be an attempt to win undeserved trust, perhaps as a kind of affiliation scam.)
“It seems to me, Steve, that your parable is one of the best pieces of evidence for the absence of god, period. How can anyone believe that there is a benevolent, omniscient and omnipotent creator when he allows such atrocities?”
What’s the alternative? That whenever somebody does something bad, God sends down an angel to beat the crap out of them? Seriously, if we’re going to argue the existence or plausability of any sort of supreme being, one of the first things that has to be acknowledged is that such an entity IS NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY BEHAVE LIKE A HUMAN BEING. The argument that “If I were god, I’d do X, Y and Z. X, Y and Z have not been done. Therefore, there is no god” doesn’t demonstrate anything of the kind. It just proves that any such god is not like you.
Mike
“Seriously, if we’re going to argue the existence or plausability of any sort of supreme being, one of the first things that has to be acknowledged is that such an entity IS NOT GOING TO NECESSARILY BEHAVE LIKE A HUMAN BEING. ”
So why pay any attention at all to what it supposedly wants us to do?
No, it just proves that the “God idea” is meaningless since you cant spit out ANY CRAP about God without the slightest bit of reason or evidence.
Not only He hates shrimps and shrimp eaters but he could positively despise anyone called Mike and send all Mikes to hell without further consideration.
How could you know?
😀
This blog entry is either disingenuous, or else the author has misunderstood the point being made. It is not necessarily true that people will jettison morality if they jettison the idea of God, but it is certainly true that any attempt to establishing an objective morality becomes completely irrational. This doesn’t mean people won’t still behave in mostly upright ways, at least for the foreseeable future (an important caveat), it just means it won’t really be logical for them to in many instances.
But Aaron, that seems an odd critique. Morality isn’t static. The morality of people in 1820 isn’t our morality today. (And, I’d argue, we’re largely more moral) So of course morality would change if there wasn’t Christianity. But so what? If the criteria is stasis of morality it’s already a lost cause.
I think the claim that Utilitarianism has always just been a way to support the prevailing morality demonstrably false. After all J. S. Mill, whatever you may think of him, really radically changed prevailing morality. And most of the more interesting writings by Utilitarians are those arguing against the status quo. So N. could make that argument, but it’d be an easy one to refute.
The answer to the tired old argument about the deadly purges carried out by “atheists” Stalin and Mao is that those killings were performed with the intention of securing power, just as has been true of every mass atrocity since the beginning of time, whatever “ism” is trotted out as its excuse.
Jon H. I think the argument is that God has to allow freedom for humans but will either inspire people towards morality – which they are free to reject – or else gives a modicum of intervention to let people know what is moral. One can argue against that line, but the simple appeal to the existence of freely chosen evil really isn’t that compelling when one gets down to the nitty gritty. Now one can ask why on earth God would value freedom. And that’s fair. But I think just neglecting that as a doctrine for the believer is problematic.
Now one can salvage the problem of evil and ask about evils due to nature or ask why, given a baseline of “hiddenness” why God couldn’t do more. And that’s the typical fruitful line to take when debating the problem of evil. Just be aware that various answers are possible. (Although they usually vary according to the doctrinal commitments of the person you are arguing against)
@Chris
I protest here… You don’t make a morality “objective” by preceding it with “God says”.
If some god kept an office on Earth where anyone could make an appointment and go in to ask “Did you really say THIS?” then we could make the minimal claim that this ethic is objectively the one that this god decrees. But even that wouldn’t make the ethic “objective”, any more than an ethic made up and decreed by anyone else.
An “objective” ethic is one that is “in the realm of the senses”, observable by multiple independent observers. NO ethic that depends on faith is “objective”. On the contrary, all “hearsay” reports that some man claims he heard from some really big ghost who claimed to be the Creator of the Universe and who decreed ethic Z, have no apparent objective basis whatsoever.
I suggest, if you want an “objective” ethic, construct a consequentialist ethic, made entirely of statements of the form “If you want X, then you ought to do Y”, with an ultimate goal that is objectively measurable. Then it becomes an objective question, testable by scientific methods, whether following that ethic does or does not lead to the goal being achieved. Such as: If you want to maintain peaceful and cooperative relations with your neighbors, don’t kill, steal, lie, or break agreements.” There are many possible “objective” ethical systems, one for each coherent strategy toward each objectively measurable goal. Religious ethical systems typically have some supernatural goal that is not observable, so they are not objective.
Adding Marquis de Sade to the growing list that answers your question – I suggest the author do some research.
Now one can ask why on earth God would value freedom. And that’s fair. But I think just neglecting that as a doctrine for the believer is problematic.
I don’t think nonbelievers ignore the “free will” argument, it’s just that, well, we don’t believe it. I can very easily imagine a world where free will exists and there is no evil. All you have to do is give everyone the same moral views as me (Or if you don’t agree with my moral views, substitute your own).
God, all you have to do is make sure everyone knows and agrees with what is right and wrong. People will still be free to choose, and they will choose the right thing. Problem solved. If you need more advise, I’ll be in tomorrow.
Having lost the science wars, digging in their heels on morality is just religion’s last stand. There’s nothing to take seriously about, intellectually speaking – it’s just an emoting of religion’s desperation to remain relevant.
Well one can imagine such a world, I’m not sure one can imagine such a world with most senses of “free.” Of course many Christians have trouble here too. The Calvinists try to treat “freedom” such that only one possibility will occur. I think under most definitions of free the point is that people and not God control things. Once again though there are lots of complex issues here. I can certainly respect those who don’t believe the free will defense. But I think the arguments are actually stronger than some assume. Although as I noted they do play havoc with some theologies within theism. (Once again Calvinism being the obvious example)
I think the problem comparing ethics and science is that science is about patterns in the physical world around us. Ethics, on the other hand, is quite different. It’s not at all clear what The Good is. Further it’s much more open to philosophical and not scientific inquiry.