On the Question of Morality

In the discussion of a rational view of reality, and reality in particular. The old canard concerning morality without god(s) will more than likely come up, usually as a conversation stopper. Which explains why it, upon closer examination, appears to be ill contrived in a historical context, especially with the positive affirmation of evolutionary origins of our behavior, including morality from great minds like George Williams, Robert Trivers and John Maynard Smith not to omit many, many others. But, like the stagnant bronze age morality of the Bible, the arguments for divine morality haven't changed for at least 2500 years as exemplified by Socrates' question,  also known as, Euthyphro's Dilemma:

"Is what you're doing pious, [moral] because it is loved by the gods, or do the gods love what you're doing because what you're doing is pious [moral]?"

 Now I bring this up to highlight an inescapable property of morality.

Morality is not a property of the universe (nature) like say; the freezing/boiling points of water, E=MC² or the properties of thermodynamics. This is to say that morality is not, nor has it ever been, an objective property of nature, i.e. the universe. Morality is the accepted convention of the majority, concepts learned through the experience of our antecedents, the surviving members of an evolving society, it is subjectively relative, (subject to an understanding of a given situation, relative to the circumstances). This is why we, as we gain understanding, alter conventional morality for the better: i.e. slavery, stoning (in more evolved societies), females as property etc. all eliminated from the list of acts considered pious, moral, or loved by the god(s).

Like the choice of which side of the road we drive on in the US as opposed to, say, Britain for example is a case where civil law is enacted to instill a convention throughout a populous that is neither right nor wrong, just accepted and practiced. Morality is the practiced conventions of a society, accepted by the majority as good and right for all, which is why societies are evolving toward the betterment for all in free societies, but stagnate into degradation in dictatorial societies like tyrannies or theocracies where a dictator or an oligarchy chooses (decides) what is right or wrong. This is also the proof anyone would need to verify that these United States are not in any way a Christian Nation, for the same reason that morality is a product of the majority's experiences as a practiced convention, allowed to flourish, grow intellectually, pragmatically and in freedom's vein as opposed to the dictates of an oppressor, dictator, oligarchy or patriarchal god(s). In other words, this country is based on actual morality, not the dictated precepts of a stagnant, logically inept tradition.

So, to the question; can one be good (moral) without god(s)? The answer is an emphatic yes! Now, the glaring question is, Can one be good (moral) with god(s)? I think I can give ample reason to doubt that very assertion, also emphatically.

Alas, I understand, totally disagree with, but understand the fears of people who espouse their concerns that without some central authority, all is permissible. They forget that the reason our Founding Fathers and this country's Constitution is the crowning achievement of the age of Enlightenment is because, "We the People" are our Government "We" have replaced the central authority and "We" decide right and wrong, that is morality.

Now Like I admitted at the outset of this entry, I have my detractors. One is @mmcelhaney on Twitter and he has a blog so after a long day of debating the existence of god(s), he decided to rip into the above tweet at length. Actually argumentum ad nauseam as far as I'm concerned. But, when nature calls: 

I've been debating Beechbum on Saturday on the basically the existence of God. We talked about scholars and he made some accusations against William Lane Craig who he says he can refute.  Craig has a  three-point  reasoning the  existence of God.

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.

2. Objective moral values do exist.

3. Therefore, God exists.

Subject: Slaughter of the Canaanites

Beechbum rejects the existence of objective moral values. He retweeted a tweet from last Thursday in which he tried to argue that a god is not needed to to have morality. I have represented his tweet below and will respond point-by-point. My comments will be in red font. In our interaction we focused on whether or not morals such as marriage was really universal and objective. He admits that it is rare for a society to reject marriage but he offered two such cultures: Kung San in Africa and The Na of China. I will be writing a second post on this.

(!Kung San is only a tribe in Africa, I implied nothing pertaining to their marital practices.)

Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't. As for slavery, the Bible neither condemns or condones slavery as institution because the slavery practiced in ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans. In no way were the Israelites were supposed to think of their slaves as their own personal property nor could they treat themselves that way. Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us. 

Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that  adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay. Remember when it was against the law to live as a homosexual? Just because a majority of people say something is right, doesn't make it right. Hitler and many others have done all kinds of things that we find reprehensible. But why? What right do we have to say that we are right and they are wrong? We all agree that it is wrong for me to come up to you, kill you, and take everything you have  even if you can't stop me. Why? Is it wrong because it is wrong or because we agree that its wrong?  We know it's not the latter because then you have to say why "your good" is just as important as mine. As a Christian I have a simple answer: God says your good is just as important as mine because he created both of us in his image. 

Not so fast. Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is. If I think that stealing your car is good, then why would I be wrong? What if I could convince the authorities that it was my car and not yours? Would I still be wrong? According to Beechbum, no. Do you really want to live in a world like like that? Didn't think so. Be glad that there is a God. .  

Maybe it's because Beechbum does not live on the continent, but he seems to have forgotten that the government ids organized in to representative democracy because they thought that the common man was unable to govern themselves. The checks and balances among the executive, legislative, and judicial branches were put in place because they didn't trust people to not become power drunk or abusive.  Trust had nothing to do with it. There was an elitist attitude coached in "We the people". They really meant "US" (meaning they) I was three-fifths a man back then!  And they could have never conceived that there would ever be a black man in the highest office in the land a scant 233 year later. Looking at all that I don't want me or any other human being determining right and wrong because it will not always be in my interest. It's far better to follow after God's interest and trust Him, because we sure can't trust our elected officials.  We need to pray for them.

To which I replied:

You don't think the bible treats women as property:

"Beechbum obviously believes that the Bible condones treating women as property but it doesn't."

Judges 19:23-25 (King James Version)

23 And the man, the master of the house, went out unto them, and said unto them, Nay, my brethren, nay, I pray you, do not so wickedly; seeing that this man is come into mine house, do not this folly.

24 Behold, here is my daughter a maiden, and his concubine; them I will bring out now, and humble ye them, and do with them what seemeth good unto you: but unto this man do not so vile a thing.

25 But the men would not hearken to him: so the man took his concubine, and brought her forth unto them; and they knew her, and abused her all the night until the morning: and when the day began to spring, they let her go.

And if you want a real good definition of chattel, read to the end of the chapter. But I have more, just in case;

Genesis 19:7-9 Another case of Women as property

7 And said, I pray you, brethren, do not so wickedly.

8 Behold now, I have two daughters which have not known man; let me, I pray you, bring them out unto you, and do ye to them as is good in your eyes: only unto these men do nothing; for therefore came they under the shadow of my roof.

9 And they said, Stand back. And they said again, This one fellow came in to sojourn, and he will needs be a judge: now will we deal worse with thee, than with them. And they pressed sore upon the man, even Lot, and came near to break the door.

But does god punish Lot for throwing his daughters to the mob, of course not, he protects him from the harm that besets the cities by sending him out of Sodum and Gomorrah, but wait the god is not done yet he then turns Lots wife into a pillar of salt just for looking back in remembrance:

26 But his wife looked back from behind him, and she became a pillar of salt.

No, your religion doesn't treat women as property, it treats them much, much worse. But you have asserted even more from your state of... anyway. From your point of view slavery of biblical times isn't real slavery, not compared to, as you say;

"the slavery practiced in  ancient Israel is nothing like the slavery of Africans and native North and South Americans"

Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to:

Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed.

So this is one heinous act regulated by the godly that proves morality is not objective, therefore can be changed and if it can be changed it is subjective but when it can be changed for the better, but is stopped by superstitions or a superstitious tyrant - that is truly heinous.

"Stoning was no different back then as firing lines, electric chairs, and lethal injection that we have today. Capital punishment is still with us."

Stoning is vastly different than capital punishment, not in the result of course, but for the crime that incited such action, i.e. being in the company of the wrong gender, or religious affiliation, being raped or molested. You know, crimes of the heart or mind, for the act of being too desirable or speaking out against the perpetrator.

"Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay."

Which side of the road one drives on is arbitrary as long as it is consistent and agreed upon by the community at large, that was the point. I wouldn't equate transportation regulations with a personal choice, that would be as silly as saying adultery was wrong because your sky fairy said so. Adultery is wrong (immoral) because infants without two fulltime parents are less likely to do as well in this world, and it was even worse in our evolutionary past when social cohesion was built on the family, even extended family, unit. Along similar lines, is the socially destructive nature of theft, societies that didn't curtail it did not persist through time. The motivation for attaining goods in such a society were greatly diminished without a trust that one would reap the full reward for ones labors. Like all of your "misguided" concerns with regards to morality, while this one is a vitriolic example of arrogance from ignorance, sex with little children has been a heinous act and treated as such for far longer than your superstitious god(s) have been poisoning the minds of man. But this does show the level one will stoop to protect their silly superstition. Do you honestly think anyone would condone a world view that would permit such an act, hardly, but the religious relish your decrepit attempt at fear mongering, disgusting.

The rights of one individual end where another individual's begin, that is why it is not your place to tell someone else how they can live their life, as long as they don't infringe on your rights. Like your use of the old canard about Hitler, the majority took him down because he was wrong, conducting himself immorally. The majority is the only authority, because of examples like Hitler's affiliation with the Church and their interpretation of what god(s) "supposedly" said or commanded him to do about the Jewish problem. The power of morality, moral choices of right and wrong, in the hands of the power hungry is what gave us a Hitler, or the Aztec kings, just about all totalitarians in history.

Since you cannot prove your god(s) even exists, how are you going to convince me that you can talk to him. Which means I would be a fool for taking your word for anything. But that doesn't matter, the community knows that your "good" is just as important as my "good" and it is the community that judges us on those grounds, because there is no god(s).

You had better be glad that morality is not stagnant and objective or we would still be living with the morality of Lot's daughters or the concubine, slavery or any of the bloodthirsty acts in the bible. The very fact that our morality has evolved is the proof that you are wrong about objective morality, it has already changed. You said the magic words yourself, "remember when it was illegal."

"Without a objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is."

Good evolves with our understanding of how our actions affect our surroundings, our society, and our future. Morality, improves as our understanding improves, there is no standard but that of Confucius, don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself, what Christians call the golden rule, and what every 10 year old in the world understands, it is innate in us all.

And one final note; You already live in the world I described, because it is only people that make it good or bad. There is no god to interact in the actions of man and if the bible is a testament to the world with a god, be very glad he does not exist.

Now to this @mmcelhaney adds a second blog post, me, I'm tired of commenting on his blog - which should explain this mess. I have tried to keep all of Marcus' work in red. But here is his second post on the subject:

All Beechbum has managed to prove is that he is so biased he can't read properly. No where in the passages he quoted does the Bible say "This is good idea...this is how you should live.". It's not God commanding the men in these passages to do these heinous things. The Bible does not condone these behaviors. It only describes what happened. Description not prescription. What does the Bible really say about the equality of men and women.

for all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are  Abraham's seed, and heirs according to the promise.- Galatians 3:27-29

I have written an extensive blog post truly describing how the Bible portrays women: An "Evil" of Christianity. Beechbum obviously needs to study more. I doubt Beechbum even knows why Lot's wife was punished. She wasn't punished because she was a woman. She longed for the life in Sodom that God was delivering her from. That was why she got what she deserved. And don't think that we all don't deserve the same. We should be grateful for God's mercy.

As for slavery, I was not referring to slavery practiced in all the ancient Mediterranean but only to the slavery as it was described in the books of Moses. Is Beechbum really trying to suggest that the same the same things as he referred to in the following quote happened in ancient Israel?

Men used as primitive boat motors, women used as sex slaves, even young boys used as sex slaves, if anything the slavery of the ancient Mediterranean was even more horrible than the slavery of early America, if you can imagine that, wait you don't have to: Slavery is now a crime against humanity, because it is universally proclaimed.

If such was practiced in ancient Israel. it was against scripture. No where in scripture does it say that one person can own another as property and be pleasing to God. Slavery is still with us today...denouncing it is not universal but I wish it was.

Working on Sunday is against scripture but everyone does that on a regular basis, with no ill affects. If the Israelites were anything close to the people of today, except for the fear, religion wasn't a big part of their workday.

for the act of being too desirable or speaking out against the perpetrator.

 Beechbum calls himself moral relativist but he feels like he has the right to judge ancient Israel for the crimes that were considered capital offenses in comparison to what is a capital offense today. The word "Hypocrite" comes to mind. "Deciding what side of the road to drive on is not a moral issue. It is no way that can be equated with the thought that adultery is wrong and stealing is wrong. If Beechbum is right then one day sex with little children will one day be okay.

sex with little children has been a heinous act and treated as such for far longer than your superstitious god(s)

 I wonder if Beechbum really does think that sex with children will never be the majority view? Just 50 years ago, homosexuality was wrong from the majority point of view and as far as I can tell had never been mainstream or a bedrock of any society. In ancient Greece and Rome, it was accepted as long as you kept a wife and family.. There are a lot of taboos and crimes that were shunned by the majority of people that are no longer viewed as wrong today. They are condoned and on public display. I agree that sex with children is awful and horrible and should never be considered as plausible. However not everyone agrees with us on that point. What if they manage to convince more people that it does not harm children and the majority starts thinking that adults can have sex with children and not harm anyone. They'd be wrong, but then that would be minority view. According to Beechbum, then sex with children would then be moral. This isn't attempt at fear mongering. This is the logical conclusion for Beechbum's worldview. If morality is subjective and depends only on the opinion of the majority, then what's to keep things from going in horrible ways?

Hitler, the majority took him down because he was wrong...

Who says he was wrong? By what right do we have to tell the Nazi's they were wrong. According your worldview we have nothing to stand on except  most of the nations on this world said "No, you can't just do what you want and roll over us.

The majority is the only authority...

What if the majority is wrong? The majority of the German people were wrong. What if the majority of the world had agreed with Hitler? Would Hitler still be wrong if the majority of the world agreed with him? According to Beechbum's worldview, no Hitler would not have been. According to mine, Hitler was wrong no matter who agreed with him.

that your "good" is just as important as my "good" and it is the community that judges us on those grounds...

The point having a personal relationship with God is the fact that you don't have to take my word for anything. You can go to God yourself and let Him tell you how things are. The argument that my good is just as good as yours carries little weight.  We have people in this world who are happiest and pursue happiness in denying you yours. Is their good just as good as yours? If so I hope Beechbum will give me all his money, because that would be consistent with His worldview. The morality in the Bible has not changed because it is based on the unchanging character of God. Our understanding has changed. Our moral views have changed not God. When I said "remember when it was illegal" I was talking about our culture not the one God has painted for us. In that scenario - theocratic Israel - there is no such thing as "when it was illegal".

But then he gets off on some tangent, anyway, this is my response to the above:

"No where in the passages he quoted does the Bible say "This is good idea...this is how you should live."

1 Corinthians 14 (King James Version)

34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.

35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.

"I wonder if Beechbum really does think that sex with children will never be the majority view? Just 50 years ago, homosexuality was wrong from the majority point of view and as far as I can tell had never been mainstream or a bedrock of any society."

It wasn't that homosexuality was wrong, it is that the bigotry concerning homosexuality is wrong, so through education, the bigotry is being corrected. Bigotry in any context, is wrong. So, why is it such predominate part of religious life? I will come to this answer later. But suffice it to say, that, if Homosexuals are allowed to live there life in the style they choose, free from persecution and in a natural state, there will be a balance to this proclivity through the distribution of DNA. Homosexuality came about naturally as a support for the extended family with non-reproductive siblings, so I see a role in support of society with non-reproductive couples as family units, even highly successful child rearing units.

Sex between two consenting adults is no ones business but those participating parties. A minor child, on the other hand, is by no means a consenting party. If anything, the legal age of consent will increase from 16 to 18 in states like Hawaii, because we are getting away from primitive indoctrinated life styles that insist a woman isn't whole without a man. It is becoming obvious, in this complicated society, a child doesn't a mother make.

Therefore, I predict that regardless of legislation the average age of maternity in the more affluent sectors of our society will continue increase. Unfortunately, in the less affluent sectors, teen pregnancy will continue to move in lock step with religiosity, due to many factors including but not limited to: abstinence only education, a total failure, and the fact that the less educated synthesize an anti-intellectualism that precludes any ambition to attain a higher education in far too high a percentage of that demographic. But I digress.

"what's to keep things from going in horrible ways?"

The fact that our intellect is progressing and likewise our morality is improving with time and not getting more primitive, or superstitious is a good indicator of where we as a species are headed. Our innate morality is a self correcting system, it always has been and it will always be such that a society that strays from a successful path will be selected against on an evolutionary scale, eg. Jonestown, French Guiana, gone. Anyone can think of many societies that have gone, or are going, the way of the Dinosaur because its practitioners died, left or are leaving for a better life, it's only a matter of time. Our innate morality is a self correcting system, ask Jozef Tiso... oh wait.

"Who says he was wrong? By what right do we have to tell the Nazi's they were wrong. According your worldview we have nothing to stand on except most of the nations on this world said 'No, you can't just do what you want and roll over us.'"

The majority of humans on this planet, with the use of our own innate morality is what we have to stand on, it's called principle. A morality garnered through thousands of years of co-existence, cohabitation, and cooperation in extended family groups. We as a species know that it is an inalienable right to believe what you will and that you are free to believe as long as that practice does not infringe on others rights to pursue happiness (does my choice of words sound familiar). We as a species know that it is wrong to attack without provocation, a sovereign country for what ever excuse the attacker wishes to espouse. And, we as a species know that the persecution of minorities, such as gays, gypsies, foreigners, etc., is immoral regardless of the precepts of the majority doctrine as it was espoused by the Catholic Church in support of Hitler's agenda, and we have the responsibility to defend those persecuted, because of those same innate morals. People, that are not sheep, don't need, or want, a dictator to do their thinking for them. I for one, can think for myself. So, I say he was wrong. And, since enough people of character agree with me, or agreed with that principle, well the rest is history.

"What if the majority is wrong? The majority of the German people were wrong. What if the majority of the world had agreed with Hitler? Would Hitler still be wrong if the majority of the world agreed with him? According to Beechbum's worldview, no Hitler would not have been. According to mine, Hitler was wrong no matter who agreed with him."

This is a good example for my assertion that people cannot be moral with god(s). It was the church that convinced the majority of Germans that Hitler was doing the right thing.  These people trusted the dictates of their doctrine against the better judgment of their values, against their feelings, and, except for the White Supremist hate mongers, it felt wrong because it was against their innate morality. But, the momentum was behind the Catholic Church, Mussolini and Hitler's hate mongers. Let us not forget the reason Mussolini was part of the Axis. It wasn't only that he thought Hitler would be successful, it was because he knew the Church's power, regardless. Even in the U.S., there was a strong push from Catholics to side with the Nazis. Why else would Joe Kennedy Sr. be blackballed from politics? So, even if not the majority a large percentage of the global population did side with Hitler - because of their religion. Is it really any wonder, why, the Nazis went to Catholic, South America when they were being pursued for the war crimes of WWII and the holocaust after the fall of the Third Reich. This shows without a doubt that it took people with my world view, in concert with others, to stop Hitler, regardless of your mischaracterization of what ignorance of my world view is. Remember that Europe is far more secular than the US, by any measure and I will spare you the whole Russian comparison except to say a very pious Italy with the Pope and Mussolini at the helm was in fact, complicit. But more importantly, it shows your world view, not only could not, or would not but did not stop Hitler, and moreover, because of the dogmatic nature of Christian doctrine, still harbors those same views that motivated Hitler and his ilk in the first place.

Ok, skipping the part where you get all misty eyed over your sky fairy, you write:

"The argument that my good is just as good as yours carries little weight. We have people in this world who are happiest and pursue happiness in denying you yours."

What I said still stands because you are talking about individuals, criminals, and I am concerned with society, the community, you know - the judicial system that we currently use with a jury of your piers and laws. Let me remind you;

"the community knows that your "good" is just as important as my "good" and it is the community that judges us on those grounds"

What you are talking about is a mugger,  and we already know how the community judges that pursuit, therefore it is your argument that... What are the words you use? ..."carries little weight."

 Now, I will reiterate my last paragraph from above for I feel it is worth remembering, for me at least and to emphasize that my interlocutor missed the point that Confucius was an earlier orator of the golden rule as it is known by the Christians.

"Without an objective moral standard, how do you know what "good" is."

Good evolves with our understanding of how our actions affect our surroundings, our society, and our future. Morality, improves as our understanding improves, there is no standard but that of Confucius, don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yourself, what Christians call the golden rule, and what every 10 year old in the world understands, it is innate in us all. And one final note; You already live in the world I described, because it is only people that make it good or bad. There is no god to interact in the actions of man and if the bible is a testament to the world with a god, be very glad he does not exist.

But in response to this, Marcus is only too happy to fire off a volley at, well see for yourself;

 Beechbum is incorrect about the "Golden Rule". Jesus and Confuscious actually said two different things. Jesus did not say "Don't do to others that you don't want done to you." Jesus said that we should do to others as you we want done to us. It included what Confuscious said but calls us higher.

          Just don't do to other what you don't want done to yourself, but do good to others as you want them to do to you! That's higher. We can't just not help others but help others the way we would want to be helped even if they are unable to help us. This is antithetical to what is in us inherently. We only really want to do these types of things for friends and family if that. Jesus is commanding more. We are to show love like this to everyone...even enemies.

"Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets." Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

"And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." Luke 6:31, King James Version.

I agree, Matt 7:12 is not nearly as clear as say any of these and the Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5,6,7) is as far as I am concerned, just as much a contrivance as the rest of Matthew, the New Testament and the Bible in total.

I am even more convinced now than ever that people in the deluded state imposed by dogma and arcane doctrine will find it much harder to be moral because of the stagnant, monolithic nature of these patriarchal commands from primitive myths. Morality is and must remain fluid, dynamic and progressive so thinking people can judge for themselves in a particular situation the best course of action. This is something that I have always found wrong with dogmatic doctrines, a moral act is relative to the situation and as is the case with Christianity, most of the commandments are no longer relevant and those that are, were innate in the first place.