Part I: Morality Without God?
Introduction
The notion that belief in a Supreme Being is necessary for the existence of morality has sometimes been been mentioned in passing, in this blog and others within the "Triumvirate." I've felt that this required a response in kind, but the scope is certainly big enough to require a separate blog, at least, to do the topic justice. I do not intend to give evidence that morality is possible without God. I intend to give evidence that morality - that is, the familiar sort of personal governance which we all use in day-to-day life - is not possible, or at least not compatible at face value, with the notion of a Judeo-Christian law-giving God.
Note: For the record, I state the obvious, which is that this blog is a "response" to a non-existent statement. My good friend John Stegeman, has not (I think) stated that he holds all of the positions that I will counter. This is, after all, a monologue, not a dialog. So, I'm using arguments from a theistic point of view which are my best approximation (in good faith, I'm honestly not trying to make a straw man) of the Christian perspective.
"God's Law"
Christian morality revolves around two tightly coupled ideas.
1. God defines morally correct action.
2. Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate.
Morality without a perfect author is seen as ludicrous by the Christian (or Jew, or Muslim, for that matter), simply because it's seen as a matter of truth. If morality cannot be known absolutely, then it becomes a matter of relativism. Who is to say that my actions are any less proper than yours? It's your word over mine, might makes right, etc, etc. This is the nature of the argument which I challenge.
Facts and Values
Before I go any further, I want to talk about the distinction between facts and values. A fact is simply a verifiable statement describing something about the world. A value is describing what "ought to be". In other words, describing an end or state of being as desirable or "good".
Wikipedia has an excellent article about David Hume's "is-ought" problem, which describes the extreme difficulty of translating a fact or an "is" statement, into a value or an "ought" statement. For example, if a person wishes to win a race, then they ought to train themselves to run quickly. That "if" is the critical word, there, since there's no absolute rule that says a person ought to want to win a race in the first place. That "if" is a marker for an implied value. But if you take it another step further and say, a person ought to win a race if they want to be a well respected athlete. Again, the value is implied an pushed out, forming an infinite chain where the value has no clear logical origin.
What has this got to do with our topic? Well, Christianity has a convenient work-around for this problem. Christian morals are not defined as facts or values. Christian morals are defined as facts and values. God's law is both a verifiable truth (well, verifiable through faith, I guess) and a value describing what "ought to be". Christianity does not say "A person ought to love their neighbor if they want to get along, and be a working member of society." Christianity says "A person ought to love their neighbor" - period. Why? Because. Because it's God's law, and God is perfect, therefore his law is absolute, therefore it is not subject to context, or your feelings, or your culture, etc, etc.
Well and good. Good for Christianity. My challenge is this - why should a person be motivated to act on that law? Is the statement of fact enough to actually motivate a person to act? Not without help. What help, you ask? Read again #2 under God's Law: "Your own behavior, in accord or discord with God's law, determines your eternal fate." This little stipulation, frequently swept under the rug by conscientious Christians when speaking about righteousness and love, is the missing piece of Christianity's fact-value equation. To update our example, "A person ought to love their neighbor, if they wish to be be in accordance with God's law and thus avoid eternal damnation." Now, please, be honest. Isn't that a much more compelling reason to act morally? And doesn't that statement resonate much more than it's "do it just because" predecessor?
My Catholic counterpart John might answer this by saying "Hell is actually irrelevant to the matter. Christians obey because it's the right thing to do, period, not because of the promise of paradise or damnation." [John - if I'm wrong on this, sorry for putting words in your mouth]
Ok. If so, I find that hard to believe. Have you ever tried taking heaven/hell completely out of your moral equation? Just to see what morality would taste like without it? It's got to be difficult to do, but here's a possible example:
YHWH: "John, I'm installing a moral button in your bedroom."
John: "What's that?"
YHWH: "It's a button. The important thing is that you not push it."
John: "Ok. Fair enough."
YHWH: "Right. Bye then."
John: "Wait"
YHWH: "Yes?"
John: "Hypothetically, what would happen to me if I push it?"
YHWH: "Nothing."
John: "Nothing?"
YHWH: "Right."
John: "I won't go to hell?"
YHWH: "No, you're guaranteed to go to heaven no matter what you do. Eternal bliss, etc"
John: "You won't be mad?"
YHWH: "Nope"
John: "But you'll secretly love me a little less, right?"
YHWH: "No, of course not. I'll love you just as much."
John: "Ok, why does it matter whether I push the button or not?"
YHWH: "Because! It's morality. That little button encapsulates everything I've defined as good and evil in this universe. All that is significant, important, crucial is within that button. It is really all that matters."
John: "Will it change anything here on earth?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "Will it change anything at all?"
YHWH: "No."
John: "I see. Well, I have no problem avoiding a button. I'll just throw some dirty clothes over it and forget about it. No problem."
YHWH: "Excellent! Oh, wait"
John: "Yes, Lord?"
YHWH: "I nearly forgot, the button does do one thing when pressed."
John: "Ah, I figured there was something!"
YHWH: "Yes. It dispenses orgasms"
John: "Uh, what?"
YHWH: "Yes, it dispenses orgasms. When you hit the button an orgasm comes out and floats around until it hits you, then you experience an 10 second orgasm"
John: "I see..."
YHWH: "Yes. Also, if you hold it down it goes into rapid fire mode, shooting orgasms in all directions"
John: "I see... Well, guess you'd better be heading out..."
YHWH: "You're not going to hit the button, right?"
John: "Right. Absolutely. You bet. I'll be seeing you, Lord..."
Now, tell me truly: Is there any compelling reason for John not to push and hold down that button for the rest of his natural life? I would submit that, no, there is not. An even more pressing question is, why the hell did God create such a button? What makes that button significant at all (apart from the orgasms, of course) if it doesn't change anything, or entail anything? Isn't an effect of some kind required for it to be in any way significant? Can it, in itself, mean anything without something else being entailed? I would submit that, no, it cannot.
Morality Without God
Concepts of "right" and "wrong" have been with us a very long time. Values like "kindness" and "charity" have probably been with us at least as long as we've been settled in cities. Values like "courage" and "prudence" have probably been with us at least since we've been hunting animals for food.
Good and evil are easy concepts to grasp, but difficult to master. It's hard to say, in clear unambiguous language, why a person should act properly apart from the selfish motivations (social incentives, wealth, safety, etc). Personally, I tend to liken good morals to good taste. Aesthetics, in other words. However, this is just as arbitrary and relative as any other answer that has been floated thus far. These are very trying, and indeed disturbing, moral dilemmas. If we dig deep enough down our chain of shared values, we may find no solid foundation except for our inherited material needs, or - an even more terrifying prospect - we may find no foundation at all but our race floating alone though infinity. That thought gives me no comfort.
I can offer no apology for this, and no obvious solution. This is the state of things, as they are, when it comes to morality. This is what we have inherited, through tradition and shared experience from our ancestors. It is not perfect, absolute or universal. It is unavoidably human, and subject to the human flaws of being arbitrary, limited, relative, and difficult to prove.
My point, however, is that Christianity - for all the claims of absoluteness - is not a viable alternative. If the afterlife is taken into consideration, the law becomes a simple matter of self-preservation, or self-interest. I do this for the sake of my immortal soul, and that's it. If the afterlife is not considered, then the law is absolute and immaterial, yet shallow and empty. The "meaning", the purpose of this law becomes so abstract as to be completely unapproachable, and unpersuasive in human terms.
The question is not whether morality is possible without God. The only morality we've ever known is, in fact, a godless morality. The question is, "How do we come to terms with that?"
Ok, first let me again compliment your eloquence. You have as much ability or more to write than I do if not more. Seriously that was fun to read all five times I did.
ReplyDeleteNow it seems to me that your main charge is the Christian reason for acting on God's laws. You are charging that if the motivation for morality is preservation of the immortal soul, then the morality is somehow void.
If I misunderstand, I'm sorry but I'll respond as though that's the case unless I'm corrected.
First, you're right. I would add more than saying we're afraid of hell but I'll work with that model for this response.
The basic Christian can argue back that all the morality we know, being nice for the sake of getting along, courage, prudence etc. comes from God. The Bible says God's law is written on the hearts of men, which explains why so much morality over all the earth has developed the in similar ways.
And even so, even if the motivation is hell vs. heaven, if such were the way the universe were created by God, what is the problem? Whether or not fear of hell is the same as true faith is a different blog but if that were enough to make one follow this morality, what is the problem there?
Moreover, the creation of morality is not something I feel able to argue anymore than the creation of the universe. I could just as well ask why only five fingers instead of six? Or wonder why gravity worked better than a floating dome with doors on the top for space flight (which to me sounds fun).
It's pure speculation as to why God made what seems to some an objective morality but since we're playing that game, I will say, and I think you'll agree, that Christian morality leads secondarily to earthly good. Loving your neighbor is good, laying down a life for a friend is good, don't steal, lie, adulter, etc.
So I know I've done more question asking than responding here but I challenge the only morality we've ever known is straight from God, and that he's even shown us the way to come to terms with it.
"the only morality we've ever known is straight from God."
ReplyDeleteSo, when the Israelites were stomping through the desert they had no idea that killing and stealing and lying were wrong until Moses received the commandments?
"Now it seems to me that your main charge is the Christian reason for acting on God's laws. You are charging that if the motivation for morality is preservation of the immortal soul, then the morality is somehow void."
ReplyDeleteI'm saying that Christian morality, on it's own terms, is in conflict with reality. And I'm saying that contradiction makes it void as a working moral system. I should have been clearer about that point in the intro and end of my blog post. I apologise for that.
When I say "on it's own terms" I'm answering to the claims that Christian morality rises above any other personal value system, because Christian values and laws come straight from God.
Christians - it seems to me, correct me if I'm wrong - claim that their values are pure and absolute because the origin is God himself. However, absolute laws alone aren't enough to work as a practical system of ethics for human beings in the real world (remember the orgasm button).
So, this is reenforced by fear of Hell. But acting out of fear for your soul, is just a kind of self preservation. The "value" there is self-interest alone. If your primary motivation is really just self interest, that certainly negates any pure and absolute law you happen to be patronizing, since you're merely using that as a means to an end (the end being your own salvation). Not so?
I don't have anything against self-interest, per se. Personally, I think much of the virtue in the world around me as originating at the root from self-interest. However, it disturbs me that you're cozying up to it as a proper motivation so quickly. Christianity, in my experience anyway, is a faith whose basic main tenet is AGAINST selfishness, and in favor of selfless thought and action. Are you proposing this as a hypothetical, or do you really believe it's appropriate for people to be motivated in that way? Does Catholic doctrine agree with that position?
Matt, c'mon man. Of course they did. That's my point. But what's written on our hearts doesn't tell us everything clearly, hence it was written on stone.
ReplyDeleteDungy, so if I gather correctly this time your issue is practicality. You claim that absolute rules don't work and therefore regardless of their claimed source, they're not a right source of morality?
Also I'm throwing some hypotheticals here because I don't believe that hell is a primary motivator for most Christians, but I also don't believe that even if it is, that's too big of a problem.
I'm not sure on the Catholic official position. I'll look it up later.
The Church teaching is tough to track down on this one but as far as I've found with the help of Catholic Encyclopedia, the fear of hell as a deterrent for sin is generally a good thing.
ReplyDelete"The eternity of the pains of hell responds to this demand for justice. And, besides, the fear of hell does really deter many from sin; and thus, in as far as it is threatened by God, eternal punishment also serves for the reform of morals."
Doesn't a person's motivation matter in distinguishing moral action from sin?
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like, no.
You could talk to a priest.
ReplyDeleteI can field this one I think. Yes motivation matters in this regard, but moral action is not per se required for salvation.
ReplyDeleteCommon perception is that Catholics believe it is (Faith vs. Works) but we don't.
We are redeemed by Christ's death on the cross, and saved by our faith, but that is something we can lose through continued sin. Sinning is essentially declining salvation.
Doing good works on the other hand is good, and should be done and can gain grace from God that could help us avoid sin and because of this, good works are required of a good Christian, but we can't work our way into heaven through moral action.
Make sense?
A lack of moral action (i.e. Sin) can prevent one from obtaining salvation, yes? That is what you just said...
ReplyDeleteThis really doesn't change anything about what we're talking about. Moral action is still related to salvation and damnation, even if indirectly. Whether it's "per se required" matters not, if it's true that lack of moral action can result in Hell.
Yes?
I have to strain myself beyond my imagined limits to continue believing that you are not intentionally trying to "run interference" by inserting distracting or diversionary lines of thought into this discussion.
I'm pretty well aware of the role faith plays in salvation. The topic currently under discussion is whether good (in this case selfless) intent is required for an action to be considered moral, under Christian teachings. I am saying "Yes, I would think it has to be". You seem to be saying "Eh, not so much. It's acceptable to be motivated by personal interest and self preservation".
I'm really not interested in hypotheticals. Who wins the rhetorical contest is of little import to me. What's most important is that we both faithfully represent our respective sides in this debate, and that as a result come to a conclusion that reflects reality. I would take it as bonum if I end up learning something new about true catholic docrine, even if it turns out my initial assumptions were wrong. You are tasked with being the advocate for Catholic doctrine.
Please present catholicism's true position on moral works, and personal motivation. I really, really find it hard to believe that they would be so OK with such un-altruistic motives.
Look you're asking a project manager with an English degree to explain the complexities of a 2,000 year old faith. I'm honestly giving it my best go and sadly I don't have any priests on speed dial.
ReplyDeleteI'm not trying to distract anything, just trying to answer the questions. Heaven isn't a reward for altruism though so I'm not totally sure what you want from me.
Based on 10 years of catholic schooling and google searches I gave you the answer I have.
"The topic currently under discussion is whether good (in this case selfless) intent is required for an action to be considered moral, under Christian teachings. I am saying "Yes, I would think it has to be". You seem to be saying "Eh, not so much. It's acceptable to be motivated by personal interest and self preservation"
Yes that is what I'm saying. Morality is objective even to that point. God says this is moral, then doing it is moral even with a selfish motivation. How that effects salvation though might be a different story.
I'm asking you to explain the complexities of your faith.
ReplyDeleteYou are not "just" trying to answer the questions. Neither am I "just" asking questions. We are both angling our questions and answers in such a way that our point of view will "win" or dominate the field. Which is to be expected. But when you go off topic to an unacceptably wide degree, I have to check you by calling you out on it. Don't take it personally. It's just necessary. For the greater good.
I'm not taking it personally, I'm telling you I was really just answering the question that time.
ReplyDeleteYes I'm angling, as you note we both are. But I'm answering in good faith. I don't always know the Catholic position, I don't assume what I think is that position though I strive for them to be the same.
John, if God gave us an innate moral sense, then what's the purpose in writing down certain moral absolutes like no killing, stealing, or lying? After all, arn't most people more likely to obey their emotions before something they have read?
ReplyDeleteDungy, forgive me if I missed your explanation, but I don't think you have really gone into detail as to why a selfish act cannot be considered a moral act.
Honestly, I suspect there is no such thing as a truly selfless act. Whether it produces a euphoric sensation, helps to cement or maintain a partnership or relationship, or meant to earn a material possession, every action we perform on behalf of another furthers our own interests. We may not always recognize this, but I think there is validity to it.
John - Fair enough. I'm getting testy and I apologize. I know you're acting in good faith.
ReplyDeleteMatt - I don't believe that a selfish act cannot be considered moral. I consider it a given that most accepted secular ethics are based around - to a certain degree - selfish motives, or self interest. And I think we probably all agree about the the impracticality of true altruism (John, I think you and I had a long back and forth about this some years ago).
I've always assumed, though, that a pretty hefty degree of altruism came with the "Christian ethics" territory. By pointing out that the laws themselves weren't enough to motivate (since, disconsidering the afterlife they seem totally arbitrary), and that fear of hell was necessary, with all motive of self interest naturally following, it seemed to me like a slam dunk at the time.
Now I'm really having to reevaluate that. John, if your blaseness about selfishness is really representative of the faith, then it seems I have no point at all. Christian ethics could be boiled down to "Do this" "Why?" "You'll burn if you don't". Which seems so.. empty that it just stops me in my tracks. But, I would have to concede, it demolishes my attempt at a point...
Why is it so hard to consider, "Do this." Why? "Because it's right."
ReplyDeleteThat's the why. The why is we should obey God because obeying him is an objective good and the well ordered person strives for that.
Another thing Christians often gloss over is this. God loves glory. God is jealous and wants to be glorified. Because he is omnipotent and he set up reality, giving glory to him is also an objective good. People obsess over Christ Jesus' humility but that's only one third of the trinity.
So by being obedient to God, one glorifies God. This is as much an objective good as helping the poor. We should do it because it's right.
Now as for hell, the issue there isn't so simple. God demands our belief, worship and praise. But his demand is impotent without consequence.
Hence he gives us the choice of following him, which does come with eternal life. Or not following him, which comes with eternal damnation.
----
Let me take it another way for a moment.
Motivation is important for salvation, not for moral action. What I mean by this is if a non-believer does all the good in the universe that he can, he will still go to hell. On the other hand if a devout Christian who truly believes does nothing, salvation is attainable.
Of course neither of those beings exists.
More likely we have people with different shades in the middle. Let's take me for example.
I'm a devout believer. I know the faith, I love God etc. However outside of some work mandated community service I haven't done anything for the less fortunate in some time. I gave a crackhead's car a push when he ran outta gas a while back but that's about it. Also I haven't been to confession in a few months.
So if I die today I have no certainty of heaven, but even with my failures, because I have faith, I may go to heaven. (Though I'm practically sure I'd be stopping in purgatory).
Now were I out doing moral things all the time, by odds wouldn't be that much better. My time would be occupied with good things thus leaving less room for sin, but I won't have gained salvation.
I agree complete altruism is impossible, but Christianity isn't about altruism. It's about doing the will of God. On the surface that will often look like altruism, but I'd argue it often isn't and that it doesn't need to be.
What atheistic philosophy, and in my opinion both you and Matt, fail to consider is the existence of God in these scenarios. I can understand that to atheistic sensibilities a philosphy's source must be their own idea of "the good" but that isn't Christianity.
The Christian source is God. If he says it's good. It's good.
-=--
Matt, you're right that moral absolutes probably didn't NEED to be written down. But where do absolutes stop? Yeah we can probably all get behind no killing, stealing and raping but some people are cool with open marriage. Some people think polygamy and homosexual relationships are just fine, others would find them absolutely wrong.
I look at it like this. If God was going to give us the rules, he knew we were legalistic bastards. If the big ones weren't on there too people wouldn't assume they still counted, they were likely to assume they were fair game. I don't know if people would act on it or not but still it makes more sense to give a complete law.
"Why is it so hard to consider, "Do this." Why? "Because it's right.""
ReplyDeleteThat's the point that I was trying to make with the button story. If the law is so objective that it stands utterly alone, dependent on no variable or condition, and it entails no other morally relevant consequence, can it really MEAN ANYTHING to a human being? If it entails nothing else than the notion of an abstract YES/NO, how does that mean anything to anybody? What resonance does such an idea really have to a person? Do it. Why? Because it's right. Why is it right? Because it's right.
Is it not absolutely necessary to suck another idea into that (like the consequences of heaven/hell, or notions of love, or the guilt of original sin) to give that notion of right/wrong weight to the human mind??
And if so, doesn't it speak something to the validity of such a moral code, that the central-most precept (that the law is objective and comes from God) cannot stand on it's own without support from notions of the afterlife and salvation?
I understand that faith is critical to salvation and acts are not. However, Christians do commit good acts, do they not? These acts are not done out of whim, are they? They are motivated by Christian teachings on morality, and the afterlife, right? The church certainly claims credit for such good works. Are you suggesting that the multitude out there was not motivated by salvation, but merely doing their duty? Nah, I think salvation (although I again acknowledge does not require good works) inspires such works. It may not "improve their odds" by much, but it certainly is a prime motivator.
OK. I THINK I have this now. You are saying that super objective rules from God can have no meaning to a human being. Because of that, it is void.
ReplyDeleteI see the point but what is less fun to say is that it works like this.
God said so. The end. Just a children don't like that response from their parents we may not find it intellectual satisfying but nonetheless that's the way of it in Christianity.
Maybe that's why God created heaven and hell, to help give those things meaning to the human mind. I rather believe that those things have meaning as long as one understands the three Os of God.
If one recognizes God's omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence, then one can easily understand to do what that deity asks. Why should we? Because an ultra-powerful, super smart, unbelievably good God says so. What is a human to question that?
As to the works bit, I'm sure salvation is in some people's motivation but here's my thing.
When I do bother to do a good deed, it never at least consciously occurs to me that it would have bearing on salvation. I think to myself often that it's what Jesus would do or the Good Samaritan or often of some other religious thought, and I do it. If the thought salvation is at stake for my doing so enters my mind at all, I'm not aware of it.
I imagine many are the same way.
Kind of sounds like this
ReplyDelete"My Catholic counterpart John might answer this by saying "Hell is actually irrelevant to the matter. Christians obey because it's the right thing to do, period, not because of the promise of paradise or damnation." [John - if I'm wrong on this, sorry for putting words in your mouth]"
We are going in circles.
Maybe you didn't help that crackhead because of hell, but you certainly didn't do it because of some objective law from an ungraspable parent figure. You did it because because of stories, examples and role models that you acquired over the years, both in church and outside of it. To put it another way, you did it because of values. Some of those values are related to religion and some aren't.
You have a well rounded ethical character because of a myriad of values that you hold for a myriad of reasons. I'm sure Christianity was at the center of that. But it wasn't all of it.
What I'm trying to say is, you gained values in much the same way that I did. Much of it was secular, and not related to "God's law".
The Objective Truth, from the 3 O God, what Christian's claim is the essence and prime source of legitimacy and supremacy of they're system, does not I think, have nearly as much bearing in the mind of the believer than the simple moral values that make up their character.
If you took away all that good stuff (and yes, fear of hell which I still maintain is a motivator) from the equation, the 3 O laws would ring hollow, I think. They, do not make a working moral system.
Does it help to say that we're not shooting for a "working moral system." We are a religion, not a philosophy.
ReplyDeleteNow in as part of this religion, God gave us the Bible and the Church and the theologians that it's spawned.
The meaning is simply yes God says so, but he saw fit to give us those stories to help illustrate the point.
Did that help or was that going down a different lane?
Yeah that's fair, but aren't the two kind of mutually exclusive?
ReplyDeleteI don't think so. I think they're complementary... but that's a gut reaction and I'm going to sit on it for a bit.
ReplyDeleteBy "the two" I mean religion and a moral or ethical system.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that religion would seek to supplant or replace any other non faith-based ethical system. At least that's my premise. That religion takes the stance of saying "you suck compared to our infallible objective morals". That wouldn't really jive with a mutually inclusive stance, but that premise might be flawed.
Yes I believe it is flawed.
ReplyDeleteReligion, at least main monotheistic ones, does supplant any non-faith based ethical system, but in the case of Christianity at least, it comes with it's own.
Why should we be good? Cause God said so. That is true and inerrant and we should do it because.
As you've pointed out there is some difficulty in getting humans to understand that so over the course of the years and time we've developed/been revealed a way of explaining things that jives with that.
Why should we be good? Well the answer is still because God says so but we are given the story of Job who gets his ever loving ass kicked, never curses God and is rewarded.
The absoluteness of God's commands is not diminished by illustrated examples, rather it is enhanced for our benefit.
Why should we have faith? God says we should. But we get the story of the person healed by touching Jesus' cloak.
It is very much the way we might serve to explain complex things to a child that God seems to explain them to us, which makes sense considering his infinite scope.
I'm beginning to feel a bit silly for starting this in the first place. The reason why is, I think I've forgotton an important distinction, which I've so often reminded you of with my J'accuses. "Anything religious in nature is ultimately based on faith, not reason. Thus reason can be taken or left in favor of faith." Maybe I should have that tattooed somewhere on my body.
ReplyDeleteBy framing this argument as a contest between a secular ethical system and a religious collection of commandments, I'm basically trying to compare apples to oranges. Even though there are some philisophical keywords like "objective" and "absolute", this is ultimately a matter of faith. It's not possible to judge the two on a common ground since they are different in essential ways.
Although I believe Christians do use secular values that do not necessarily correspond to god-given laws to help fill out their personal ethics, this is not a point that I can make "stick", and it's probably not worth it anyway. What does it prove?
In the future when I'm challenged by a fundamentalist type about the superiority of religious morals, I should just say "My ethics are based on reason, yours are based on faith" and leave it at that.
I cede this one to you, John. I bow out, I wash my hands! Mea Culpa.
Alright then. Someone tell Matt to get his head in the game and we can have another 64 comment debate.
ReplyDeleteMatt's probably studying... For classes... I'm Matt! I'm a learner! I do stuff on things!
ReplyDelete