Picking up where I left off in my series of responses to Clayton's essay, "Why Am I A Christian?" in which I post segments of his essay followed by my responses/critiques (which I've decided to group under the tag The Clayton Series), I want to respond to Clayton's assertion that there is no basis for morality apart from god, a proposition for which he argues in the section of his essay titled, "Transcendent Virtue." Here is that section of the essay, followed by my response:
Transcendent Virtue
An objective standard of right and wrong has always been intuitive for me, a thing I believed in my core to be true without having to be convinced of it.
The Christian belief is that right and wrong are present in a person's life because they are made, somehow, in the image of God and that God has imparted grace to all people in all times. Of course, there are always exceptions. Just as a person can have a genetic anomaly a person might have a moral one, but by and large people are born with some basic conceptions of right and wrong which are, I would contest, as universal as such a thing could possibly be.
To borrow again from C.S. Lewis, can you imagine a culture where it was seen as virtuous for a person to be a coward and run in fear from battle, leaving behind his compatriots? It is easy to see how evolution would pass that type of a trait on, but it is not something we see played out in any culture that I am aware of. Further, can you imagine a culture that believes that rape is virtuous? Not just that it isn't morally reprehensible, but that it is a good and noble thing for a person to go about doing? Or a culture in which men considered their wives better for having been raped, and were thankful to the rapists? I cannot.
A challenge to this particular aspect of objective morality comes from Darwinism. The theory is called the 'Sociobiological Theory of Rape'. A fascinating and very disturbing book called A Natural History of Rape: Biological Bases for Sexual Coercion has been written on the subject claiming that there are legitimate evolutionary causes for rape to enter into human behavior, and we ought not to classify it by definitions of 'right' or 'wrong', but something more akin to 'desirable' and 'undesirable'. Evolutionary psychology provides us with one logical conclusion of philosophical Darwinism, and it is a place I sincerely hope that our society is not headed. For rape to be a thing that is classified as within acceptable activity, or even to be unacceptable simply because it is no longer biologically necessary instead of being reprehensible and morally wrong, is a place I do not want to live.
I have no desire to live in a society embracing literal moral relativism, but Darwinism does not even promise us that. In a totally relative society, there are still justifiable reasons for behaving as we would today consider morally, because a person may behave any way they wish. In a fully Darwinist culture, altruism itself can be considered undesirable behavior if it is not beneficial to the progress of the species toward a goal chosen by the thinkers of the day. That society, more than any other, is one that I have absolutely no wish to be part of. And the call for the abolition of theistic religion that is present in many of the 'New Atheists' books is a step in the direction of exactly that type of society.
I believe that rape is wrong. I believe that it is always wrong, and that any justification of its legitimacy is in itself an anomaly and cannot ever be considered the norm. The charge that I've heard that the Bible endorses rape comes from a dramatic misreading (or a lack of reading) the stories in which the events are described. God never endorses rape, or ritual human sacrifice, or a whole host of other things He is accused of endorsing by those without an extensive understanding of the Bible. There is an unavoidable sense of right and wrong deeply known to us human creatures, and I do not see how that possibly makes sense outside of theism.
I'm going to ignore the bits about philosophical Darwinism and evolutionary psychology because that can take us in all sorts of directions (check out sites like TalkOrigins if you're interested in that) and instead focus on the crux of the matter: is god required for morality? Clayton says yes, explaining that he doesn't see how morality "possibly makes sense outside of theism." Clayton is arguing for a code of ethics that's both objective and transcendent, meaning that it's not contingent upon personal preferences and it supersedes personal preferences. In other words, we didn't create it and we are obliged to obey it. God, Clayton argues, is a necessary condition for such a code of ethics to exist.
My prima facie response to this is: how does he know? Clayton claims there is "an unavoidable sense of right and wrong deeply known to us human creatures" and "people are born with some basic conceptions of right and wrong," but what is the evidence to support these claims other than the general concern humans have for doing good? Do humans even agree on these alleged "basic conceptions of right and wrong"? Throughout history we see great variance among many different cultures. Naturally, one may find agreement on certain underlying moral issues, but how such morality is executed differs wildly from one culture to the next. My point here is that it's one thing to say morality is objective, absolute and transcendent, and quite another thing to provide evidence for that claim. Clayton hasn't provided any evidence; he, like C.S. Lewis did in his book Mere Christianity, simply makes an appeal to our feelings.
The next obstacle to overcome comes from the writings of Plato, and is known as the Euthphro Dilemma, named after a priest named Euthyphro, who engaged in a dialogue with Socrates on the topic of ethics. This discussion is found in Plato's book, appropriately titled, Euthyphro.
Socrates asks Euthyphro: "Is the pious loved by the gods because it is pious, or is it pious because it is loved by the gods?" To state the dilemma another way: "Is what is morally good commanded by god because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by god?" Thus the Euthyphro Dilemma is comprised of these two horns:
1) God commands something because it is good.
2) Something is good because God commands it.
The Euthyphro Dilemma poses a serious problem for those who want to base morality on god: if the first horn is true, then there is a standard for morality that transcends god, but nothing is higher than god, so that can't be right. If the second horn is true, then god's rules are arbitrary, and his commands are reduced to nothing more than "Do it... because I said so."
Most theists unwittingly align themselves with the second horn of the dilemma when they argue that god is necessary for (objective) ethics. What they fail to see is that, if they're right, then morality is wholly subjective, fully contingent on god's will, thus eliminating any objective standard for morality.
Theists say "god is good." Most of them also say "good is determined by god" (the second horn). If good really is determined by god, then the statement "god is good" will always be true, regardless of what god's nature or character is. And consider the inherent contradiction: when people say "god is good," they are judging god, evaluating his character, which means they are applying some standard of "good" that must be independent of god. Notice how fervently Clayton argues that his god "never endorses rape, or ritual human sacrifice, or a whole host of other things He is accused of." This is Clayton's morality, regardless of what god says.
But what if god ever decided to change his mind and say things like rape and child abuse and human sacrifice are good? If "the good" is based on god's whim and will, then that's a possibility. Many theists will respond with, "but god would never do that," but such a response misses the point. If morality is based on god, then it doesn't matter if god would, it matters that he could, again illustrating that god-based morality is indeed subjective morality, because if god says it's good, then it's good.
God-based morality is dangerous. People who argue in its favor perpetuate bias by bolstering the very wrong idea that "atheist" is equal to "immoral"; furthermore, it reinforces the "infidel" label religionists give each other because morality being dependent on god implies being dependent on the right god. If Clayton is correct, then it's not theism that's required for morality: one needs the correct religion. That means everyone who follows a false god/religion lacks a proper foundation for ethics too. In spite of how we may feel, we can't escape from a subjective morality. Theists can't escape it; they just make god the subject of moral standards.
What is the purpose of morality? I argue morality should be used for selfish (but not solipsistic) reasons. Theists want to turn morality into this selfless set of actions we should do for its own sake, but religion deals with selfish motives as well: avoiding hell, getting eternal joy and god's blessings, et cetera. By promoting morality, we promote a set of attitudes and actions which contribute to happiness and peace, less suffering and more fulfillment of our desires. The "Golden Rule" is actually a good idea, even though it's been hijacked by religion. A while back I shared an illustration by David Hayword (aka "nakedpastor") titled, "the senseless cycle of violence." When someone asks me why we should be moral, I point to this:
I am just one human, one small piece of life dwelling on a little drop of water floating in the infinite black. I am a child of Africa, one permutation of "star stuff" as Sagan would say, existing within and as an intrinsic part of the universe. I am one of billions like me. We all share the same tiny home, and we all desire to be happy. That is enough of a moral impetus for me. I embrace the ethics of reciprocal altruism grounded in the solidarity of all humankind and all life on earth, opposing racism, sexism, ageism and homophobia, upholding freedom of speech and freedom of thought, freedom of religion and freedom from religion, the separation of church and state, science, logic, critical thinking, literacy and proper education, and the pursuit of truth, wisdom and happiness.
This is my morality, and it's just fine.
Dead-Logic.com
