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?"
