Do atheists have any basis for morality?

[Paidion]

I would say, if a person is an atheist, how can they make any claims about the morality about what the people in the Old Testament did one way or the other? By what standard of morality do they make claims that, say, stoning a homosexual is immoral?

Perry, are you suggesting that there is no "standard of morality" other than the commandments of God?

Then I ask this question: Is an action morally right because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is morally right?
If it is morally right because God commands it, then of course stoning disobedient children or homosexuals, and cutting of women's hands are morally right (IF indeed God commanded these things).

It seems to me that morality transcends any laws regardless of who gave them. In Lawrence Kohlberg's "Stages of Moral Development" he puts obedience to laws as stage 4 out of 6 stages. In stage 5 the needs of society are considered, and stage 6 is the principled stage.

There are many atheists who have been involved in the philosophy of ethics. In one ethical theory, that which is morally wrong is that which harms others or oneself, and that which is morally right is that which benefits others or oneself (not merely perceived benefit, but actual benefit). I think that this is how most people intuitively view morality.

[Perry]

Hi Paidion,

Is an action morally right because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is morally right?

The former. God can make what would otherwise be morally neutral commands, which then become immoral to disobey. “Go get yourself circumcised!” he might say. It would be wrong to disobey that.

The atheist doesn't believe that God exists. But that fact is that God does exist, regardless of what the atheist thinks. The reality that we all inhabit, is one in which God exists, and therefore there is indeed an absolute moral standard. The atheist, bless his heart, inhabits this same reality. He can't escape the moral standard even when he tries to. All he can do slap a different label on it, like “ethics” or “philosophy”.

Since there is no reality in which God does not exist, all we can do is imagine what such a reality might be like. Such “realities”, then, are limited only by our imagination. But alas, our imagination exists in the real universe, the one with God in it. So, try as might, we're stuck with our “seeming” and “wondering” and “imagining” that are heavily influenced by the reality in which they exist.

Notwithstanding...

It seems to me that morality transcends any laws regardless of who gave them.

Whence this transcendent morality? What objective evidence can you give for its existence?

Remember, from the atheistic perspective, we have to operate on the premise that there is no God. I will now proceed to do this:

I cannot, intellectually, see any way that you can make any sort of moral pronouncement in the absence of some standard by which to measure it. All you have is preference and convenience.

To appeal to that which benefits of society doesn't help. For one thing, it means that the majority can do whatever they like to the minority provided society as a whole, that is the majority, benefits by it. As an atheist, I'm perfectly okay with that as long as I'm part of the majority. And what do you mean by “benefit” anyway? Surely you're not talking about something so prosaic as what's good for society. What's that supposed to mean?

Besides, to hell with society, I say, as long as I get to satiate my desires and get away with it.

I'm not sure who Lawrence Kohlberg is, but why should I care? He's nothing more than another conglomeration of atoms smashing about.

There are many atheists who have been involved in the philosophy of ethics.

No doubt. They're just another bunch of religious crack-pots. Don't try to foist that religious mumbo jumbo on me! Philosophy? Ethics? What are you talking about? That's just your brain chemistry fooling you.

And please, for the love, don't give me this business about morality existing as some sort of hyper-reality like mathematics. Mathematics works by convention. It's nothing more than a standard we've adopted to help us communicate ideas about the world around us. There are different kinds of mathematics that operate using entirely different rules (different morals if you will) and they're not transferable from one system to another. What works (is “moral”) in one system, doesn't work (is “immoral”) in another. Godel proved that none of these contrivances are self-consistent anyway. There's nothing hyper-real about mathematics. There is no absolute mathematics. They are, all of them, inventions of our own.

Same with your so-called ethics, and morality.

[Perry]

Is an action morally right because God commands it? Or does God command it because it is morally right?

This idea plays in very interestingly with a conversation that Sharon and I had just couple of nights ago.

Suppose what you're saying about morals is asked about reality itself.

Let me rephrase your question just a bit.

Is what God says the truth because He never makes statements contrary to some standard that exists outside of God? Or does reality itself leap forth and line up with whatever God says?

Is it possible that it's the second option that's true?

God says, “Let there be light,” and suddenly, there it is.
Jesus says, “No she's not dead, shes only sleeping.” Suddenly that's true too.
He says “Your sins are forgiven.” What changes, if not reality itself?
He says to Peter, “You will deny me three times.” Low and behold, Peter does. Reality conformed itself to what he said.

When Jesus said, “it is impossible for God to lie” was he defining a limitation of God, or describing an axiom of they way reality works? When he said, “Thy word is truth,” which was he defining?

Finally, as a practical matter, does it make any difference?

Probably not. But I think it's an interesting idea.

[Homer]

There are many atheists who have been involved in the philosophy of ethics. In one ethical theory, that which is morally wrong is that which harms others or oneself, and that which is morally right is that which benefits others or oneself (not merely perceived benefit, but actual benefit). I think that this is how most people intuitively view morality.

So under this ethical system can it be shown that consensual monogamous homosexual acts are immoral?

[steve7150]

I think since Adam and Eve ate from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil everyone knows right from wrong and since God made the tree it is because of God that we have morality.
Additionally since we are made in the image of God that also must include an understanding of right from wrong or else we would just be a hologram.

[Paidion]

Throughout the world there are a number of basic moral principles with which virtually all of mankind agree. From these basic principles, other moral imperatives are derived through reasoning. Indeed, if some group deviates from these basic moral principles, it makes headlines. One society admired those who were able to deceive and take advantage of others. Obviously such practices are recognized by most of the world as immoral.

Let's consider one basic moral principle, the principle of reciprocal treatment. If I do something to help you in a time of need, you are morally obligated to help me in a time of need. One day John borrowed a lawn mower from Bill. A few days later, Bill asked John if he could borrow his tiller. John refused. Bill said, "Well, I loaned you my lawn mower the other day!" Bill was appealing to the principle of reciprocal treatment. then John answered, "Yeh, but I just bought this tiller. It's new, and I don't loan it to anybody!" Notice that John, too, recognizes the principle of reciprocal treatment. If he didn't, he would answer, "So? What's that got to do with it." Rather, John recognized the principle, but tried to so that there were special circumstances, so that the principle didn't apply.

Consider the principle of taking care of one's parents. It has been said that in one society, people believe it to be right to kill one's father at age 60. So is that society an exception? Do they not see that it is immoral to kill one's father at any age? Actually, even in that society, the principle of taking care of one's parents is applied. The practice of killing one's father at age 60 is based on a false belief. The belief is that at whatever age one dies, one will live on through eternity at that same age. So it is believed that by killing one's father at age 60, one is preventing him from living forever as a cripple, or mentally disabled, etc., but rather to live on in good health forever.

Though moral practices differ from society to society, there are basic moral principles which pervade all societies. Sociologists are well aware of that fact.

Let's face it, Perry, most people, probably 80% or more, who disbelieve in any god, do NOT go around serving themselves and not caring about others. I have personally observed that there are basically two different classes of people in the world — self-serving, and other-serving — and these two classes do not neatly fit into Christian and non-Christian categories.

And, no, "for the love", I will not give you "this business about morality existing as some sort of hyper-reality like mathematics." I think it exists as normal reality, more like direct experience, such as experiencing the colour "blue". When a blue object is in view, everyone identifies it as "blue". When a moral act, such as saving a life, is observed, everyone identifies it as "morally right", though they may call it "good" or "kind". This doesn't mean they they would actually save someone's life if they were in the same circumstances, but they all agree that it is the right thing to do. They all agree that it is wrong to murder, even though some of them choose to murder for their own purposes. Anyone who thought it "wrong" to help other people or "right" to murder, would be considered insane.

[Perry]

Let's face it, Perry, most people, probably 80% or more, who disbelieve in any god, do NOT go around serving themselves and not caring about others... When a moral act, such as saving a life, is observed, everyone identifies it as "morally right", though they may call it "good" or "kind".

I agree completely. I'm afraid you may have missed my point. I'm not arguing that all atheists are morally bankrupt. I don't think that they are. I'm sorry if I was unclear on that.

But that's not the question posed by the title of this thread. They question is, is there any basis for it?

I believe that they answer is "Yes" there is a basis for it. It is because we all, atheists included, live in a reality that has a God in it. That God has given us a certain amount of discernment about what's morally right and wrong. (See Rom 2:14-15). We all have this law written on our hearts, and, therefore, as you suggest, anyone who behaves as though it doesn't exist is deviant. It's God that is the basis for our right moral behavior.

But in the absence God, what basis can their be? There's only a bunch of physical/chemical reactions. When water starts freezing at 32 degrees F, there's nothing moral or immoral about it at all. It's just nature taking it's course.

So an atheist, if he's going to be consistent with what he professes to believe, cannot make any moral declarations. Most atheists don't do this, of course. That's because they are not morally bankrupt.

When I took on the role of atheist in my earlier post, I wasn't attempting to portray atheists as they really are. I was, rather attempting to portray an atheist as he would be, if he were consistent with what he professes to believe.

[Paidion]

Thank you for that explanation, Perry. Now I understand.
It is difficult to guess what would be the case if God didn't exist. Indeed, if atheists were "consistent" then, I suppose not only morality would not exist, but people themselves would not exist, nor anything physical. Nothing would exist, and therefore space itself, as well as time would not exist.

[brody196]

Presuppositional apologetics does a fine job of answering the questions of atheist and morality. In the final analysis, the atheist cannot account for anything on an absolute level. Everything gets thrown into randomness and confusion is the best we can hope for.

What is really sad though, is that many in the religious world argue apologetics in the same way that the atheist do. They will start with a presupposition that is not rooted in the wisdom of Christ or His apostles(In whom is hidden all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge-Col 2:3)and argue from a neutral ground that gives the atheist an equal footing. The apostles never did such.

[Perry]

I'm not exactly sure what you mean.

I think it's important to try, as best we can, to meet people where they are.

It's impossible to give the atheist an equal footing, since he's wrong. I do think it's valid to demonstrate that, starting from his presuppositions, you can't really get anywhere. You can also show that his own behavior is inconsistent with his presupposition. That opens the door for starting with a different presupposition.

In Mere Christianity C.S. Lewis starts with hardly any presuppositions at all. In Letters from a Skeptic Greg Boyd meets his dad at the place where his dad is (i.e. that there is some "force" in the universe, but that it's not necessarily a personal God.)

The atheist is never going have a fair fight. The weight of reality is against him.