Some fellow atheist/materialists (atheists from this point on for brevity) out there may be familiar with a few popular theist questions dealing with morality. The questions usually go something like this?
Question #1:
If you don't believe in God (and thus a universal right and wrong), what basis do you feel entitles you to say someone else is "wrong?"
Question #2:.
How do you convince someone else to follow your morals if they are based on your impression of right and wrong and therefore hold no more authority than those of anyone else?
Now I'm sure many theists are also familiar with this question. The usual popular follow-up to the question is talking about the Holocaust or Apartheid. Basically, they wonder how an Atheist can condone these horrendous acts violence when he/she (he from this point on for brevity) has no God-backed authority to say his morals are any more "good" than those of the Nazis or South Africa.
First thing to notice is that this is basically a loaded question. The theist has the dichotomy stuck in his/her (his from this point on for brevity) head that either there is a universal authority for moral law, or else morals are completely relative. Now to be fair, I have seen many atheists brush this off a little too easily. There is an underlying point. At some level, there is a sort of relative nature about morals, even if there may be wide societal agreement over what is right and wrong. Various people have made arguments for compelling reasons to accept a materialist secular base of morality, for example John Loftus, Richard Carrier, Paul Kurtz, etc... . However, any question of morals is always going to be a difficult one. The question over right and wrong truly is a "million-dollar question." There has always been widespread disagreement over what is right and wrong, so an atheist is going to end up in a painful debate where he is constantly on the defensive if he is forced to answer this question. So personally, a better response is to turn this around and ask the theist what their response is to the problem of defining right and wrong. As I plan to demonstrate, this will put the theist on the defensive and they may find their response poses even more questions than it answered.
Interpretation of the theist response to Question #1:
Now the theist is likely going to say that either their morals come from God (Divine Command Theory) or that God is the enforcer of a natural good and evil (Natural Law Theory). Either way, both answers basically state their God as their authority for good and evil ("God-Derived-Morality"). So basically, any "God-Derived-Morality" theist can say that they are entitled to condemn the actions of the Nazis as bad because their morals are based on an authority that supersedes any human set of morals. It follows that their morals also supersede any of society's laws. So as a result, there is no reason to have any reasonable base for their morals, except that they are an obedience to their God. It may be clear where I'm going with this. The God authority for morals solves one problem (a little too simply), but also poses yet another problem. Basically, it is safe to say that most theists believe that the morals they hold in high regard are nearly identical to those held by their God. Add to this the fact that there are multiple religions around the world, comprising hundreds of denominations, each with a slightly different idea of what their God commands as right and wrong. As a result, their are many different ideas of what exactly is right and wrong, each idea supposedly held by the ultimate authority in the universe (according to the "God-Derived-Morality" theist). So as a result, morals are not only relative, but each person believes their morals, no matter how gruesome, are the ultimate morals of the universe, and thus supersede any law, person, or society. So even if a "God-Derived-Morality" Islamic extremist believes it is good to kill any person who draws a picture of Muhammad, he believes his morals still supersede any law, person, or society. If a "God-Derived-Morality" Pro-Lifer believes it is moral to kill an abortion doctor, he believes his morals still supersede any law, person, or society. If a "God-Derived-Morality" Ugandan Christian Fundamentalist believes that a person should be imprisoned or even killed for homosexual acts, he believes his morals still supersede any law, person, or society. If a "God-Derived-Morality" Nazi believes he should kill a Jew because he is obligated to as a Christian, he believes his morals supersede any law, person, or society. So it seems as though, if the "God-Derived-Morality" theist were to condemn these people, they may be slightly hypocritical because these people are doing just as they do, using their own interpretation of any one of the multiple Gods in existence as their ultimate moral authority. So the theist should be at least worried about setting such a dangerous precedent.
Interpretation of the theist response to Question #2:
As mentioned before, there are hundreds of denominations of Christianity alone, each with a slightly different interpretation of the Christian God and the Bible. So if you are trying to convince someone who holds to a different view of this authority than you, you may run into a snag. Imagine a member of the United Church of Christ trying to convince a Ugandan Christian Fundamentalist not to kill homosexuals. And an even worse situation is when a theist is trying to convince someone who believes in a different God than him. He has absolutely no leg to stand on! And since he has abandoned all reliance on a reasonable defense of his morals, and thus a reasonable way to demonstrate the efficacy of his morals, he is hopeless.
Now my point is that the issue of a standard for morality, what is right and what is wrong, has been a long standing issue that has plagued philosophers for ages. It is one of the "million dollar questions" of humanity. And yet the theist seeks to answer this question with a cheap two-cent solution that actually poses more problems than it solves. It should be obvious the theist's answer does not work. How many gruesome acts have been done under the supposed authority of the ultimate power? The Crusades, The Spanish Inquisition, 9/11, slavery, etc... It just seems dangerous for someone to think they have access to the ultimate moral authority in the universe. And this moral authority supersedes the authority of ANYTHING ELSE! This is worrisome to say the least...
No comments:
Post a Comment