Well, it's been way too long. But we're moved now, and I ought to have time to blog again. I think I will blog for a while about atheism, and why I am not an atheist. There are a number of possible routes one can take in making a case for the existence of God. Today I'm going to talk about what I call the "moral argument".
In summary, the moral argument for the existence of God is that if God does not exist, the concept of morality is meaningless. Humans universally possess a sense of right and wrong (our conscience). This is true in every culture, and while there may be slight variations in the specific behaviors that are considered good or bad, there is remarkable uniformity across all cultures and times in terms of what is considered moral. Therefore, I argue that the presence of a conscience is very difficult, if not impossible, to explain apart from the existence of God. Therefore it is much more likely that God exists, than that He does not exist.
In order to flesh this out a little bit, I would like to contrast my view with the most common opposing view that exists in our society today - secular humanism. Secular humanism says that there is no God, and therefore, humanity is its own authority. So we get to make up the rules as we go. According to secular humanism, we are the product of evolution, which progresses by means of natural selection. Natural selection is the process of weeding out creatures that are less well adapted to their environment, so that the only creatures that get to pass on their genetic code are the ones that can change and survive. In this paradigm, creatures are rewarded (with survival) for preying upon weaker, slower, dumber creatures. In this system, there can be no place for conscience. In fact, quite the opposite is true. If "progress" (this concept must be arbitrarily defined for an atheist - perhaps "increasing social and biological complexity" would be the best definition?) is achieved through doing whatever it takes to survive, then all notions of morality should be considered a hindrance to progress rather than a sign of progress.
To put this in concrete terms - If it helps my survival to shoot you and take your money, atheistic natural selection has absolutely no basis for declaring my actions "wrong". The consistent application of evolutionary philosophy will lead to a society where "might makes right". Adolf Hitler is a prime example of someone who believed in evolution, understood the philosophical implications, and applied his beliefs in real life. The results were horrific, and no one, least of all the secular humanists of our day, wants to identify themselves with that kind of thing.
What we have today in Western society is a lot of secular humanists living contradictory lives. On the one hand, they talk about human rights all the time, and they show genuine concern for poverty and stopping the genocide in Darfur, and all that, while at the same time denying the ultimate philosophical underpinnings of those values. How do we account for atheists who share so many of our moral values? I believe this is the result of two things: social upbringing (our society is loosely based on Judeo-Christian values) and the fact that people, whether they believe in God or not, are nevertheless created in His image, and therefore possess a conscience
If God does not exist there is no such thing as morality. There is so much more to say about this. But I am out of time, so I'll continue this discussion in further posts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The "presence of conscience" is explained easily and only by the fact we each have a conscious life and, due to that life's complete nature and the parameters set for it by the rest of nature, that conscious life requires values to guide its actions - i.e., what is contextually "good" or "bad" with regard to its overall intention to continue living or NOT to continue living. That human beings are perhaps the most intellectually sophisticated creature on the earth is greatly supported, however, it is not so easy to support a claim that only human beings form values and therefore can form a "morality" or "conscience" from those values. There is, in fact, a strong argument that many other species have something akin to what we call "conscience" and, just like us human beings, it is the fact they are alive and the characteristics of that life within the parameters set by the rest of nature that requires them to form values to guide their actions. Just like us, those values can be consciously or subconsciously formed, but they are formed all the same.
ReplyDeleteOne decides what is "good" and "bad" according to one's own values - some of which, yes, are formed based on values learned from others - but nevertheless accepted or rejected by oneself and thus they are YOUR values, YOUR choices. True, in human culture, there are many similarly-held values, however, this is more attributed to similarities in the requirements for a human life worldwide than to some predetermined set of values that can only be explained by an alleged "higher power". It is true, "good" and "bad" are contextual and must always be. When one claims a thing is "good" or "bad", one MUST have conscious or subconscious answers to the questions - Good or bad for who? For what? When? Where? Why? How? Values are necessarily contextual. The can be no "universal" or "unchanging values". To make the claim that a thing is "good" to all, for all, at all times, in all places, for all purposes, requires an enormous amount of support before such a claim is acceptable. It also rather requires one to reasonably support the claim that, even though everything, everywhere, everywhen is continually changing, this thing that is "good" somehow defies the very nature of the universe. A very tall order and extremely unlikely to succeed.
It can be said - the only thing that does not change is change itself. This fact is why a "value" cannot be what some would call "eternal". It must change because the basis of that value must and will change. To cling to a value when the basis of that value has changed or has disappeared entirely is madness.
What is "good" for the fish could be quite bad for the bear or the tree. What is "bad" for the bird might be quite advantageous to the salamander or grapevine. This is all true because "value", i.e. what is good or bad is determined by the specifics of the life involved and the context in which it finds itself. There is no need to invoke a "higher power" to explain values, morality or "conscience." It is the fact a thing is living, it's specific characteristics and the characteristics of the rest of nature that require it to make certain choices over others to remain living or to make a different set of choices if its goal is not to continue as a life.
Naumadd, thank you so much for responding to my post!
ReplyDeleteIn response to your comments, it seems to me that you are supporting my point, though you are not agreeing with it. What I mean is, you support my argument that if there is no God, morality is arbitrary. You said that our values must be determined on a case-by-case basis because circumstances are always changing. You said that we cannot support the idea of eternal or universal absolutes because the "nature of the universe" is change. This is partly correct. The universe is constantly changing. But there are universal absolutes within the fabric of the natural world, by which the process of change is carried on. The universe is constantly changing but the universe is not in a state of absolute chaos. There is a big difference between change and utter disorder. If the constant changes of each unique moment did not take place within a larger framework of natural laws, life could not exist and coherent thought would not exist. Winter turns to Spring, then to Summer, Fall, and so on. They change in a predictable way, according to natural laws that we can describe mathematically. So I do not think we can say that change itself is the primary controlling principle of the operations of the universe, though it is certainly a critical element that we must recognize and account for. Nevertheless, there must be a stabilizing factor operating underneath and within the change. Is not 2+2 always 4, no matter what the circumstances?
The proper way to incorporate changing reality into our system of morals is not to deny the absolute nature of those morals, but to recognize a certain flexibility in the application of those absolutes. For instance, I believe, based on my conscience, and on my religious faith, that it would be okay for me to drink a glass of wine with dinner, so long as it is in moderation, meaning I do not get drunk. However, based on the instructions in 1 Corinthians 10 and Romans 14, I believe it would be wrong for me to drink alcohol, even in moderation, if I knew that my drinking would cause a friend of mine at the table to "stumble". If he were a recovering alcoholic, or someone raised in a faith tradition where alcohol was completely banned, the Scripture says I should abstain. Not because there is anything inherently evil in the alcohol itself, but because, in that circumstance, I would be prioritizing my preference (to enjoy the wine), over the good of my friend. To put it simply, I would not be acting in love. I would be making my decision on a selfish basis. Love, defined Biblically, is putting the interests of others ahead of your own. This is the eternal absolute that guides my moral system, and it always applies, to everyone, everywhere, in every time, because it is a quality of God. God is love. The interesting thing is, that the same love that causes me to abstain from drinking with a friend who is a recovering alcoholic might compel me to have a glass of wine at the wedding of another friend where there was toasting going on. In either case, love guides the decision based on what is best for someone else. So there is an absolute that directs the changes in behavior.
I would like to ask you this: in your understanding of non-absolute morality, what guides you in any given moment? If morality must be determined on a momentary basis, apart from any external laws, what is the guiding principle, or is there any such thing at all? If there is one, whatever that thing is - that is your god. If you are a secular humanist, you are your own god, which is fine, unless someone else who really is God actually exists...
Finally I would like to ask, do you think the Holocaust was evil? if so, on what basis? I do not understand how you can say yes, based on your stated beliefs.
Naumadd, just a couple more quick points. I re-read your comments and realized there was something important I failed to address. In your first few sentences you defined conscience in terms of doing what is necessary for survival. This was the basis upon which you concluded that context governs morality. But actually that is not what I mean when I talk about conscience. Conscience refers not to mere survival mechanisms, but to questions of ultimate meaning and purpose. One's conscience dictates what one OUGHT to do, not only to survive, but to be good.
ReplyDeleteWhen I say that the apparently universal presence of a conscience within humanity supports the idea of God, I do not mean that it "proves" the existence of God in an empirical sense. I mean that it more strongly supports the notion that a personal, supreme being whose character is the definition of "right and wrong", exists, primarily because sometimes our inner prompting tells us it is right to do things that do not necessarily contribute to our survival. When I read about starving kids in other countries, I have an inner desire to do something tangible to help - ie. send money through a charitable organization. Now I would be wealthier if I did not do this. From a purely animalistic, evolutionary perspective, this does not make a lot of sense, it does nothing for my survival because it benefits someone I will most certainly never meet. But we call people "good" when they do this and "bad" when they ignore such problems. Why do we use these labels? How do you explain love and compassion for others, even those outside your own "tribe" or "pack" or whatever, from an atheistic evolutionary perspective? Would you personally want to live in a world without love? if not, then you are by default acknowledging the reality of hatred, and are making moral value judgments that don't make logical sense if God is not real.