Someone recently asked me, “How could God judge all unbelievers (e.g., atheists) when so many of them are good, moral people? Would God really be so picky as to care nothing about living honest and compassionate lives and eternally judge a person simply because he or she got some ‘details’ about God wrong?â€Â I would certainly agree that many atheists live ethical lives, caring a great deal about personal and social morality. And I would suggest that while the God of the Bible will judge all people based upon their relationship to Jesus, He will neither dismiss the moral actions of unbelievers, nor disqualify someone based upon a “technical†intellectual mistake.
Will the moral lives of unbelievers be dismissed by God?
In a previous post (“Questions about judgment dayâ€), I pointed out the Bible’s teaching that there will be two judgments. The first judgment will be one determining where (with God or apart from God) we are for eternity. This judgment will be based upon our relationship to Jesus. The second judgment will be to determine how (degrees of reward with God & degrees of punishment apart from God) we experience the where of our existence. The basis of this judgment will be upon our deeds. So, God clearly does not ignore or discount what any of us does during this life. Rather, there are eternal consequences for all our actions.Â
What could God judge unbelievers for?
There are two biblical answers that are appropriate here. The first is more obvious, something we have probably thought about, while the second answer is maybe less obvious. However, they are compelling arguments when used together.
Reason 1
The first reason why God will be just in judging unbelievers, even though they have much good in their lives, is clear when we pause for a moment to think of the standard by which He will judge them. God tells us that there will be no ‘grading on a curve’ in the judgment of where we spend eternity. Our righteousness or goodness won’t be compared to others. The benchmark to determine whether we are good enough will not be our neighbors (as good or as bad as they might have been). Rather, the standard of measurement will be God Himself. Because God is maximally good or holy He must judge evil wherever it appears. Therefore, if we are not absolutely perfect in our goodness (“For all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God…†Rom 3:23), God must condemn us. Of course, it is for this reason that the message of Jesus is “good news.â€Â After all, what would you call the message telling you that someone had paid an insurmountable debt for you?
Reason 2
The second reason is maybe less obvious, but is, I believe, equally persuasive. We moderns tend to have a myopic or narrow-minded view of what morality involves. We wonder what God could possibly have against someone who happens to be an atheist but treats his neighbors with the highest level of kindness and respect. In order to see a full picture of what morality truly involves, take a look at how C. S. Lewis explains the “The Three Parts of Morality†in Mere Christianity:
“There are two ways in which the human machine goes wrong. One is when human individuals drift apart from one another, or else collide with one another and do one another damage, by cheating or bullying. The other is when things go wrong inside the individual—when the different parts of him (his different faculties and desires and so on) either drift apart or interfere with one another. You can get the idea plain if you think of us as a fleet of ships sailing in formation. The voyage will be a success only, in the first place, if the ships do not collide and get in one another’s way; and, secondly, if each ship is seaworthy and has her engines in good order. As a matter of fact, you cannot have either of these two things without the other. If the ships keep on having collisions they will not remain seaworthy very long. On the other hand, if their steering gears are out of order they will not be able to avoid collisions. . . .
But there is one thing we have not yet taken into account. We have not asked where the fleet is trying to get to. . . . And however well the fleet sailed, its voyage would be a failure if it were meant to reach New York and actually arrived at Calcutta.
Morality, then, seems to be concerned with three things. Firstly, with fair play and harmony between individuals. Secondly, with what might be called tidying up or harmonizing the things inside each individual. Thirdly, with the general purpose of human life as a whole: what man was made for: what course the whole fleet ought to be on . . . .
So, Lewis reminds us that morality is broader than we might have first thought, having three parts to it. There is the relationship from one person to another (social morality), the internal soundness of each individual person (personal morality), and each person’s relationship to the purpose of life (the summum bonum or “highest goodâ€).Â
When we talk about people being good, moral, or ethical, which of these three aspects of morality are we meaning? I believe we’re usually thinking of, and nothing other than, social morality. Therefore, we say things like, “Don’t tell me what I’m doing is wrong. After all, it’s not harming anyone else.â€Â These sins are what we often refer to as “victimless crimesâ€â€”some evil which we engage in, whose consequences are, at least temporarily, only seen within the bowels of the individual ‘ship.’ (Of course, from a Christian perspective, no one is really the “captain of their own ship,†but only stewards: 1 Cor 6:19-20). But as Lewis points out, we can’t very well imagine that a ship’s steering system—long neglected—won’t some day cause it to crash into another vessel in the fleet. We could say much more about the social consequences of one’s personal morality. However, what I’m really concerned about here is the last part of morality—the reason or purpose of being at sea in the first place.
Why God cares about all three parts of morality
I don’t think many of us would be pleased if we got through school with straight A’s, and through our careers with top-notch reviews but then flunked life! In truth, we think this sounds so odd because we understand that lesser goods in life (grades & reviews) are only means to achieving higher goods, which are, in turn, means to achieving even higher goods. Yet, if there is no summum bonum (highest good or point to being at sea), then all the lesser goods become purposeless. If none of us is going to reach a destiny then why not sideswipe another ship? And if it doesn’t matter how I treat other ships, then why take care, in any particular way, of the engine room of my own ship?
All the sudden it becomes clear why God would have something to say about the ‘socially good person’ who not only disregards the harmony within his own ship (since he is but the steward), but even more so disregards the highest of all goods—the power that made him and who is now calling him to Himself. Therefore, in the full sense of the word, can there really be such a thing as a “moral†atheist or unbeliever? He or she cannot be moral in relation to the most important aspect of morality—the highest good in life.Â
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS:
1. How does Lewis’ explanation of the three parts of morality expand your understand of what it means to live morally?Â
2. Do you think it’s an accurate description to claim that our culture tends to focus on the first part of morality (social ethics) while avoiding the other two?
3. What other thoughts do you have when contemplating the interconnectedness of the three parts of morality? Do you think it’s possible to be “immoral†in one part without it affecting the other parts?
39 Comments on “How could God judge a good unbeliever?”
I frequently see suggestions that atheist cannot be moral. Usually the argument is based on the false assertion that religion is the only source of morality. However, C. S. Lewis follows a much more creative approach. He simply redefines morality, excluding those who do not share his faith.
I don’t have many philosophy books on my shelf, but I do have The Cambridge Dictionary of Philosophy.
The definition continues for several paragraphs without any suggestion of the other two parts claimed by C. S. Lewis.
I therefore consulted the far longer entry (by the same author) in the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy which addresses this issue more directly.
The entry goes on to shed some light on a possible origin of C. S. Lewis’s confusion.
When C. S. Lewis uses “morality” he actually means “religion” and specifically “Christianity.” The question that Brent poses in the final paragraph of his post should more accurately read, “Therefore, in the full sense of the word, can there really be such a thing as a ‘Christian” atheist or unbeliever?” The answer is clearly no. However, it is rather dishonest to claim that this shows atheists and unbelievers to be immoral simply by redefining moral to mean “Christian.” C. S. Lewis is welcome to sail his ship to New York, but it is not immoral for me to sail to Calcutta, as long as I do not ram him on the way.
Lack of interest in the afterlife and God is not directly immoral behavior, even if it is irreligious, un-Christian, or even foolish. There is no evidence that atheism leads to immorality in the true sense of the word. If I believe that my ship is my own and that there is no rescue for me if it sinks, I have every reason to take good care her. If I wish to go to Calcutta, I would be wise to avoid collisions with other ships, allowing ships headed for New York to continue unhindered. Morality is reasonable and rational, so there are many examples of truly moral atheists and unbelievers.
Gavin,
You are correct in saying that modern philosophers like Hobbes, Bentham, and Mill relegate morality to mere “social morality†(the interaction between ships, to use the original word picture). But this is in no way an argument against Lewis’ position, as Lewis has already recognized the trend within modernity to narrow the definition. Further, Lewis is in no way substituting “morality†for “Christianity.†After all, Lewis isn’t coming up with this more broad definition of morality which includes its 3 parts. Rather, he’s referring back to the ancients (Socrates, Plato, Aristotle, etc.). As a trained professional is classical literature, Lewis knew well that the ancients talked about all three parts of morality. If you doubt this, just pick up a copy of any of these thinkers. (And remember, all of them were non-religious!). Aristotle is very well known for his Individual Ethics or Virtue Ethics (harmony within the individual ships—“What is a good person?â€). And all of the ancients (excluding the Sophists) believed that the most important philosophical question of life was the summum bonum, the highest good, or life’s ultimate aim (“What is the ship’s mission?â€). So, Gavin, it simply isn’t accurate to consign any of these 3 parts of morality/ethics to the domain of religion. Up until the modern era, as Lewis has pointed out, all 3 of them have been the primary topics of discussion throughout the history of philosophy. This is why it is said that the number one question which the ancient philosophy wrestled with was, “What is the good life?†And this question includes all three parts of morality.
I’m not saying that individual ethics and the summum bonum aren’t important philosophical issues, discussed for centuries by philosophers, both religious and secular. I’m just that they are not part of “morality” in the English language. To say that everyone who does not share your summum bonum “cannot be moral in relation to the most important aspect of morality” is to misuse the word. That’s all.
While the summum bonum is not necessarily a religious issue, I think you and C.S. Lewis advance a purely religious test for this part of morality (in the expanded definition). In particular, you suggest that how I regard God is moral issue, since He is the highest good. In order to be moral, I must be religious. If I am not religious, then I cannot be moral. Am I reading that paragraph correctly? That certainly wasn’t a morality test promoted by the ancients.
I have heard it said in my workplace and in various bible studies I have been in that Ethics can be defined as common sense rules that everyone should live by, that aren’t really based on a belief system…for example, no one should murder, steal, or cheat. These are simply unethical in any culture. I have come to understand Morals as being defined as beliefs you adopt based on a certain belief system. For example, not everyone thinks it’s important to wait until marriage for sex between a couple, but this is a Christian moral. Not all belief systems think hold forgiveness to such a high esteem, but this is a Christian moral. (whether or not we all do so well at it…well, that is what grace is for. Another Christian moral.)
Morals are, indeed, based on a belief system. Whether that is Christian or another belief system is up to the follower. C.S. Lewis was a Christian, so it stands to reason that his moral beliefs mirrored those of his faith. His fictional writings did.
I thought that our standard of “morality” comes from God Himself. It is wrong to lie because God is a God of truth. It is wrong to commit adultery because God is a God of faithful, covenant love. It is wrong to murder because God is a God of life. When we do such things, we are not violating merely a set of laws or codes, but we are violating the very Person of God Himself. I am not a theologian or a philosopher, but living life this way makes sense and is infinitely satisfying.
I just want to clarify that I am not arguing that people’s morals are not or should not be based on their beliefs. I’m only saying that to judge a person’s morality you must look at how that person treats others. That is what morality is about. Atheists can, and usually do, behave morally towards others, so there really are moral atheists.
Gavin, when you say “atheists can, and usually do, behave morally towards others,” what do you mean by the word “morally”? By what standard do you judge someone to be “moral”? Are there absolute morals in the universe that you think that all people, whatever they believe, can be judged by?
Research shows that standards of morality are shared by nearly everyone. Whether a person is Christian, Jewish, atheist, conservative, liberal, etc. doesn’t have a very big affect on what we think is moral behavior. Lying, murder, and cheating are universally agreed to be wrong, while charity, fairness, and honesty are good. So when I say “morally” I mean the same thing that everybody else means.
There are some disagreements about morality in certain specific situations. For example, some people think that divorce is a moral issue, while others consider it more of a contractual issue. What is amazing is that people who believe it is a moral issue are no less likely to get divorced. Evangelical Christians get divorced, have abortions, etc. at about the same rate as other member of society. In the areas of disagreement about moral standards the Christians don’t follow their Christian morals any better than Atheists do.
So when I say “morally” I mean the same thing that everyone else does, but in cases where there is disagreement about details I’m happy to let you use your own standard. The only rule is that the standard must involve behavior towards others, since that is the domain of morality. Using your definition of “morally,” atheists can, and usually do, behave morally towards others.
I think all people have the potential to act morally. It certainly doesnt mean that they do, but we all have the potential to. Atheists, Christians, Muslims, Agnostics, whatever your specific belief is, you can and should act morally. Since God created everyone in His image, we all have an inborn knowledge of right and wrong. We know if the action we are engaged in is good or bad, but we still make the choice to do it or not. What you believe or dont believe about God affects every decision you make. If you don’t believe in God then it seems that you can justify or rationalize your own set of standards. If you believe in God however you should do your best to live up to His standards.
On a side note.
Saying your a Christian doesn’t make you a Christian.
And to steal a quote I heard somewhere. “Going to church doesn’t make you a Christian any more that going into a garage makes you a car”
Surrendering your life to Jesus and His Lordship makes you a follower of Christ, hence a Christian.
Yes, but if you believe in God it seems you can justify or rationalize ignoring your moral sense (here’s an example). If you don’t believe in God, however, you should do your best to live up to your moral instincts. “Just following orders” doesn’t work for an atheist. We have to take responsibility for our own moral choices.
Gavin,
Regarding comment # 8 above:
Comment 1: You mention research which has shown that people at all times, places, and cultures share the same basic moral principles. How do you explain this universal experience of moral obligation from a purely naturalistic worldview?
Comment 2: It seems as though you’re continuing to assume that I’ve suggested that an atheist can’t act morally toward other people (social morality). I’ve never made that point (nor, do I believe, has anyone else on this blog). So, I’m not sure why you insist on returning to that argument. It seems as though you’re arguing against a position which no one here holds to.
Comment 3: Christians claim that even atheists can and often do act in accordance with social morality because they are made in the image of God (a God who is a moral being Himself). All that’s being argued here is that while an atheist may subjectively choose to act in accordance with morality, he or she has no objective reason to do so. What reason can a “moral†atheist give to another atheist who cares nothing about treating other people with kindness and dignity? What reason can you give them for not harming others with it is not in their own best interest?
Comment 4: Your argument that a portion of a group of people who claim to believe in a particular moral standard do not act in accordance with that moral standard does not say anything about the existence of an objective moral standard. It only says that some fail to live by it. But we all are already aware of this. So, you may have pointed out inconsistency and hypocrisy, but you haven’t shown the Christian explanation of an objective moral standard to be false or wanting.
“Just following orders†doesn’t work for an atheist.”
This is an interesting thought, and I can only speak for myself, but I certainly dont feel like Im following orders. I obey God because I love Him. I want to live out a life of gratitude for the wonderfull new life He has given me. I choose to follow Gods orders, if you will, because I know that He only wants whats best for me, and that He loves me more than anyone else ever could. I thank God that He created us with free will, so that we even have a choice in this. He could have made us without it and then we would all be like puppets “just following orders”.
” We have to take responsibility for our own moral choices.”
Why do you “have to” ? Don’t you mean that you “choose to” ?
I’ve read some of your comments on this site before, and wasnt sure what you really thought about God. Can I assume from your last comment that you are an atheist, and not an agnostic? If so, how can you be absolutely, positive that there is no God?
The quotes in comment 12 are taken from comment 10. I can’t figure out how to do the cool quote box thing
Dan,
I don’t think that most Christians are suppressing their moral sense in order to follow God’s orders. However, I do find often find it very difficult to discuss moral matters with Christians. We have the same moral sense, so the discussion often goes very well for a while. Then they start bible-quoting and the discussion is over. A perfect example is the issue of same sex marriage. I think this is an important moral issue, and I have seen not even a slightly convincing argument against same sex marriage other than “God says ‘no.'” How do I work with that? Christians may see it as holding to God’s standard while we rationalize, but I think you can understand why I might see it as Christians abdicating their duty to look to their own moral sense while we struggle to do the right thing even when it is a break with tradition. It’s a different perspective.
There are stronger examples, some close to home. I went to lunch with two devout Christians, one a physicist from the Institute for Creation Research, the other a local pastor. When they learned that I wasn’t Christian, the physicist suggested to the pastor that they pray for God to bring suffering into my life until I realized my need for Jesus. He was serious; the pastor was appalled. This guy needs to get reconnected with his moral sense.
Regarding the second line you quote, how about, “We bear the the sole responsibility for our moral choices”?
I am an atheist. I am confident that there are no unicorns, even though I cannot be absolutely positive. I feel exactly the same way about God. I think that level of confidence is sufficient for the label atheist rather than agnostic. If you consider yourself and agnostic on the issue of unicorns, you can consider me an agnostic as well.
The block quotes are made by typing
(blockquote)The text of the quote(/blockquote)
But the parentheses are angle brackets, a.k.a less-than and greater-than signs. Brent’s blog gets the award for the coolest looking block quotes.
Hi Gavin,
To quote you from #10:
“If you don’t believe in God, however, you should do your best to live up to your moral instincts. “Just following orders†doesn’t work for an atheist. We have to take responsibility for our own moral choices.”
Explain to me why an atheist “should” do this. Just because you decided atheists should do this? What if others don’t share this moral stance of what an atheist should do? When you say “should” it implies to me that you have a standard of behavior that you believe others should adhere to. You still haven’t answered where this comes from other than that it is an instinct. How should it be handled when what you instinctually believe should be done in a given situation comes into conflict with what another instinctually believes should be done?
Brent (and Nancy),
I’ve had computer trouble this week and am about to leave town for the weekend, so I won’t be able to respond to most of your questions until next week. However, I’d like like some help understanding one of the issues you raise
You ask how I can convince an atheist “who cares nothing about treating other people with kindness and dignity” that he should behave morally. I’ve never met such an atheist, so I haven’t given it that much thought. How do you convince a Christian who cares nothing about the will of God that he should behave morally?
Gavin,
Hope you had a good weekend. Thanks for continuing to dialoge.
I’ve only been a Christian for a few years now. I grew up in a loving Christian family and went to church, bible School, private Christain schools, the whole nine yards. When I got into my mid-teens, I really started questioning what I had been taught and told. I began to put up resistance to going to church, and couldnt wait till I was in a situation where I didnt have to go. There was nothing particularly wrong with my church, in fact I liked many of the people I saw there.
I guess I just had this feeling that I had been sort of force fed christianity, and didnt think I really believe it. Or maybe I just didnt see many Christians living out what they said they believed
During this time I started doing drugs, getting drunk before school, sleeping with girls. I guess sort of rebelling against what I had been taught. Anyway this continued through college and after, and I was quite happy with out faith, God, or any of that. Or so I thought.
Im not sure how to put this in words, but here goes. I began to get this overwhelming feeling that something was missing, and that there was more to life than what I knew. I couldn’t put my finger on it. I was doing, whatever I wanted, when I wanted, and answering to knowone, except maybe my girlfriend (who is now my wife). I certainly knew what right and wrong was, and that some of the actions I was taking ( most of them actually) were affecting more people than me in a negative way, I just didn’t care. I was extremely selfish, and am surprised looking back that my wife never left me.
I began to be drawn to a bible that was in our house. I didnt even know where we got it actually at the time, but that didnt matter. What mattered was that I couldn’t stop thinking about this stupid bible, it drove me crazy!. This went on for a few days, and finally I picked it up and began flipping through, no real ryhme or reason, just flipping around. After maybe twenty seconds of this, I thought this is dumb lets just start at the beginning.
Like I said before I grew up a christian, I knew about the bible, and most of the stories and all that. But this time when I began to read it, it was different. I only read the first four words. ” In the beggining God..” That’s all it took, and I couldn’t read anymore if I had wanted to because my vision became blurry as tears poured out.
You see Gavin, when I was growing up I had only a “head” knowledge of God. Now I have a “heart” knowledge of Him. When I read those words that I had heard countless times before, words that had never really meant anything before, this time they came alive in me. I knew without a doubt they were true, and that changed everything. I fell to my knees, and things that I had heard as a child came flooding back to my memory, things about Jesus and his sacrifice on the cross, for my sin. Sin, a word that never meant much to me other than don’t do it, became so much more. It became the barrier, the obstacle, the wall that stood between me and God. I dont recall the words I prayed that day, other than that I poured my heart out to God. I believed that Jesus died for me and I put my faith in Him.
My life soon began to change and I was overcome with a peace, never before experienced. I soon realized that the addictions to pot, porn, and alcohol, that had been with me for years were broken.
I am a new man, and God is as real to me as you are my friend.
Please don’t let the shortcomings of those that call themselves christians keep you from the one they follow. We are not the standard. If you choose to make comparrisons to christains then compare them to the Christ. He is the standard, we are not.
I saw a bumper sticker once and I think it was a quote from Gandhi.
It said something like ” I like your Christ. I don’t like your christians, they are not much like your Christ.” This absolutly cut me to the core because I know it is a common conception.
We are only men and women, and “man” will always let you down, because we are imperfect and capable of great evil.
God will never let you down. He is actively and passionately pursuing your heart, you were created for a relationship with Him. He got a hold of me ( for which I am so gratefull) when I wasnt looking for Him, my prayer, and Im sure for many others is that He will do the same for you.
in His love,
dan
Some say ” I’ll believe it when I see it”
I say “Believe, and then you will see!”
Gavin,
“an atheist “who cares nothing about treating other people with kindness and dignity†that he should behave morally. I’ve never met such an atheist, so I haven’t given it that much thought. How do you convince a Christian who cares nothing about the will of God that he should behave morally?”
I think we could agree that Mao Zedong is an example of an atheist who did not care about treating others with kindness and dignity.
I would submit that a Christian who does not care about the will of God is an oxymoron.
Brent,
In response to your comment 11: My comment 8 was addressing barb’s question about judging people’s moral behavior, nothing more. I was not implying that anyone had said atheists couldn’t behave morally, nor was I arguing that “the Christian explanation of an objective moral standard to be false or wanting.” I hope this clarification addresses your comments 2 and 4 (in comment 11).
You also ask, “How do you explain this universal experience of moral obligation from a purely naturalistic worldview?” Our universal moral drive is a result of our common ancestry. The ability to understand the feelings and experiences of others is very useful in a social species like humans, it is also the foundation of morality. Evolution of morality makes sense.
Nancy joins Brent in wondering why an atheist should be moral. Although I’ve never met an atheist who needed convincing (Mao never consulted me), I have discussed this on this blog on several occasions, especially in the comments to School Shootings . . . Why? and in the discussion “Mere Christianity†by C. S. Lewis. I also discussed this with Nancy in person. Do you both want me to summarize these comments again here, or do you want something clarified?
Gavin,
I went back and reread our discussion on Mere Christianity and the School Shootings one I had never read before. Thanks for reminding me to review those. A lot of territory was covered in those blogs and somehow I am not seeing the direct response to my direct question. So yes, could you summarize your answer to:
Explain to me why an atheist “should†do this. Just because you decided atheists should do this? What if others don’t share this moral stance of what an atheist should do? When you say “should†it implies to me that you have a standard of behavior that you believe others should adhere to. You still haven’t answered where this comes from other than that it is an instinct. How should it be handled when what you instinctually believe should be done in a given situation comes into conflict with what another instinctually believes should be done?
I will give a summary of my naturalist argument morality, but let me make one comment first. I find the arguments below convincing. Every atheist I have spoken with has similar views. If I met an atheist who was a raging jerk, could I convince him with these arguments? Probably not. You have Christian arguments for morality. If you met a Christian who was a raging jerk (Paul Hill comes to mind), could you convince him? Probably not. You, however, could claim the the jerk isn’t a “true Christian” and be off the hook. I can’t do that, because I can’t define atheism to include morality. You can define Christianity to include agreement with your moral conclusions. That doesn’t make your argument more persuasive, it just makes your club more exclusive.
I also understand that these arguments are going to sound rather hollow to a Christian. That is, at least in part, because you don’t see the world as an atheist does. Remember, I’m not making this argument to a Christian, I’m making this argument to someone who shares my view that there is no God. Try to put yourself in that mindset when you read the argument.
All of these are from the discussion of “Mere Christianity.” First the short version.
Here’s some more detail
Finally, the issue of “should” or “ought” gets a lot of attention, so I better address that too.
I hope that is helpful.
Hi Gavin:
I want to thank you for your willingness to engage in this forum, and for stimulating all of us to think more about both what we believe and why we believe. My name is Matt, and I have not, until recently, been following this thread very closely. I should also make a few disclaimers in fairness to you: I am a close friend of Brent’s, and have taught with him at Timberline on bioethics and presently on Christian doctrine. I am on the faculty at CSU, and chair a committee on research ethics on campus. Lastly, I have a joint appointment in the Nutrition department, and have taught a graduate course in nutrition for several years 🙂
Couple of introductory thoughts:
1. I agree 100% with both Brent and you that an atheist can have a strong and stable “moral sense”. I have some dear friends on the ethics committee who do NOT share my world view, yet are so very solid ethically. They are delightful friends to me, and I wholly trust their moral intuition. The question at hand, it seems to me, if what is the BASIS for this in an atheistic or naturalistic world view.
2. I would gently suggest that your “diet” illustration rests on a category mistake; we can “dissect” nutrients in the lab, test their biological actions in cells, animals, and humans, and make clear dietary recommendations. (On a simpler note, we can also eat something “yucky” and learn from our mistakes – sometimes the hard way). As you note, whether anyone follows this advice is another matter! David Hume, no friend of theism, famously argued that one cannot derive an ought from an is. That certain foods are “good for you” does not translate into a convincing moral argument to follow “Diet X”. I might simply say “Sez who”? Why should I “take care of myself”? Why not enjoy myself instead; who do I have to answer to? Eat, drink, and be merry, no?
As you know, we can not dissect morality in the same sense that we dissect foods. Morality is an abstract/intangible or “metaphysical” principle that is not subject to the physical dissection one gets in the lab. Now, we can have a go at something like a “clinical trial” of morality in the field, but this falls back on debates about how to judge the “success” of morality (or “goodness”). If we view through the lens of pragmatism, we might simply say “Does it work”, but even then, who decides? What “works” for one person may be a living hell for another. We might, in the light of your comments, simply aim to maximize our joy and minimize our suffering (and thank you for clearly extending this to consequences of our actions to others)- so, be happy/content/fulfilled, but not at the expense of others, if I may paraphrase. Seems hard to argue with this utilitarian perspective. But, who are the “others” that merit consideration, and WHY should I care? History has shown us that mankind has a terrible tendency to justify abuse of “others” on the basis of a “consensus” that “they” are not fully human, or do not merit full moral consideration. ANY form of slavery would be an example, the “Final solution” of the Nazi’s justified the horrendous treatment of Jews because they were “subhuman”, contemporary debates about abortion & embryonic stem cell research often provide ethical justification on the basis of the argument that a fetus or blastocyst is either not a “person”, or not fully human with the full measure of moral worth. This despite the crystal clear biological fact that BOTH are members of the human species, distinct from Mom and Dad. This is a tricky road to walk.
3. Do you suggest that morality can be explained by biological evolution? That morality confers some “survival value”? That we will one day find a “morality” gene? I would differ strongly here. Morality is taught, in the context of culture/society, not passed on generation to generation by a putative “morality gene”. Our kids are not “born” with innate morality or ethics – we must teach it. From a strict Darwinian sense, what matters in terms of success or “fitness” is solely passing on one’s genes to offspring. HOW that happens is irrelevant. If rape, or sexual promiscuity, or killing off my competition will get the job done, then so be it.
So, whence cometh an “ought” without an external or independent frame of reference on what is “right” or good?
Anyway, many thanks for your stimulating posts.
Warmly-
Matt
Matt,
I’m with one of my atheist friends. He is thirsty and looking at a bottle of antifreeze. I say, “Antifreeze is poisonous, so you ought not to drink it.”
Are you saying that my comment to my friend makes no sense in an atheistic or naturalistic worldview?
Hi Gavin:
I am sorry, I clearly misunderstood you, I thought your illustration spoke to “DIET”; I was unaware that anti-freeze was part of anyone’s diet. Now, if we are talking doughnuts, or ice cream, or “saturated fat”, which we may “recommend” someone stays away from because they are “bad for you”, I think we might be able to make progress on a real discussion 🙂
So, if we now shift gears, as you appear to desire, let me know on what basis a naturalist makes a moral judgment with the same clarity as you do (and clearly should) with your friend and his refreshing anti-freeze. Nobody here disputes this “illustration” (“Don’t drink antifreeze”), whether it speaks to your diet analogy or not. However, I am not at all sure it speaks to (any of) my response- can you help me understand a bit better?
My thanks!
Matt
Thanks Matt. I was confused about the argument you were making in the first paragraph of thought 2 of your initial post. Now it is clear.
We agree that even within a naturalist world view, we can make certain statements about what we should and shouldn’t eat. We shouldn’t eat rocks or antifreeze, we should eat things that will give us the calories and nutrients that we need. These things items are beyond debate in the nutrition world. However, there are many issues that are not forced by nutritional consideration. For example, if I like asparagus but hate broccoli, it is entirely appropriate for me to chose asparagus rather than broccoli as a vegetable. They are similar enough nutritionally that I can base my decision on personal preference. Finally, it is not necessary for me to eat only nutritious foods, donuts aren’t really good for me, but once in a while they are fine, if I enjoy them.
What is guiding our eating decisions? It is the desire to get enjoyment and sustenance from our food, while not making ourselves miserable or doing harm to ourselves.
What is guiding decisions about my behavior towards others? It is the desire to provide happiness and support to those who are affected by my actions (including me) while avoiding harm and suffering.
Using this philosophy to guide my actions leads to many conclusions that are in close analogy to the nutrition example. There are some things that are clearly unacceptable, like murder. There’s no room for debate on that since murder is so flagrantly harmful. There are some things we should definitely do, like be polite to others and build relationships. Many of the details can be determined by taste. If I wish to offer tutoring to poor children, but my wife prefers to volunteer at a soup kitchen, either is good and we should not judge one as being right and the other wrong. I also enjoy listening to music, which doesn’t benefit others. This sort of thing is fine in moderation, as long as long as it isn’t done to the exclusion of helping others.
For me, eating decisions and moral decisions are very similar. Both are based on trying to find enjoyment in life while avoiding suffering. In the case of moral decisions, my actions affect others. Since their enjoyment and suffering is just as real as mine, I consider it as my own in my decisions (“love your neighbor as your self”).
This naturalist method of making moral decisions gives results that match much of what is taught by Christians, but not everything. Most of the places where it disagrees are also areas of disagreement within the Christian community (for example, stem cell research and same sex marriage).
I hope this addresses the issue of the “category mistake.” I don’t know what a category mistake is. Since I’m making my moral decisions and my dietary decisions in basically the same way, I don’t understand the distinction you seem to be making.
Regarding your discussion of “other” and the history of people making stupid choices about who is human: it is clear that the joy and suffering of slaves and Jews is the same as mine. I can’t exclude them from my consideration.
I’m going to save the evolution discussion for another comment.
Hi Gavin:
Many thanks for your response. I share a few thoughts.
1. I want to be crystal clear that we do NOT agree that a naturalist worldview allows one to say ANYTHING with confidence about shoulds or oughts. My agreement that an atheist/naturalist can exhibit moral behavior should not be confused with agreement that atheism provides rational or philosophical support for moral behavior. I’d submit that naturalists justify moral behavior in spite of their worldview, not because of it. To be clear; I am not suggesting that a naturalist/atheist cannot be moral any more than I am suggesting a Theist is incapable of immorality. I am simply suggesting that atheism provides NO support for any confidence in moral truths.
2. The question at hand throughout this thread is what is the BASIS of moral/ethical statements. In other words, in response to a “Why†or “Sez whoâ€, a naturalistic worldview is limited to arguments that rest either on personal preference ( your “joyâ€) or an appeal to “social consensus†as a basis for ethics. If my personal preference differs, or I live in a culture where the behavior you wish to condemn is “acceptedâ€, why should your argument carry any weight? How do we judge who is right?
3. Interestingly, we do agree, it would appear, that there are objective moral truths (murder, in your illustration). Where, in a naturalistic worldview, does one explain the existence of any objective moral truth? If God does not exist, all things are permissible, as Dostoyevsky rightly observed. Absent a transcendent, eternal, unchanging, and JUST moral lawgiver, where do moral absolutes come from? From an evolutionary perspective, how do we judge the merits of one morality vs. another? Why not appeal to a “will to power� Moreover, if you and I are both a product of an unguided, wholly random conjunction of chemicals that is without purpose or design, why are we “worth†anything from a moral standpoint? Because we are at the top of the evolutionary heap? Why be ethical? What is the survival value of ethics?
Many thanks for being willing to engage-
Best-
Matt
Matt,
I am confused again. You say:
I thought that we agreed that a naturalist worldview allows one to say with confidence that my friend should not drink antifreeze. Did I misunderstand?
Thanks for your patience.
Gavin
Hi Gavin:
My apologies, but we continue to dance arond the central question with out stopping to address it. I still have not seen, within a naturalist worldview, where the should or ought is grounded, even in the unrealistic example of the antifreeze. I agreed (and agree) with the observation that antifreeze is not to be recommended as a refresher. No qualms there. I confess, however, to still missing the grounding or basis of the ought part or any putative moral or ethical statement within a naturalist worldview. So, whether it is antifreeze, which might kill me quickly, or fudgie bon-bons, which do the job slowly, but with the same result, why “should I” listen to you? Let’s extend the analogy a bit to something that is, unfortunately, a bit more realistic. I have a bomb in my backpack and plan to blow myself up. You tell me “Don’t do that, bombs aren’t good for you. You shouldn’t blow yourself up.” Aren’t I an autonomous, free being? What if this act, even if it is my final one, brings me joy? I have no “higher power” to answer to, and, I repeat, am simply a result of a long, utterly random process of chance events that have brought me to this day. As a product of chance and time, I have no purpose beyond what I ascribe for myself. Who are you to tell me I shouldn’t? Why not?
Do you see that while we agree that antifreeze is bad, and that murder is bad, I am having some difficulty seeing where naturalism begets OBJECTIVE moral truths that lead to the “ought”?
Amidst all of this, I continue to plead that you understand that I am in no way suggesting that an atheist/naturalist cannot possibly act in a commendable moral fashion. I am not driving so much at the act (or actions), but the basis for the act/actions, In other wrods, I am simply questioning the basis or grounding of this moral behavior within a naturalist worldview. I think we’d both prefer to have solid ground for such acts. I also freely confess that while I am convinced that the basis/grounding for moral discourse and conduct is FAR superior within the Judeo-Chrstian wordview, this does not necessarily translate into consistent moral conduct. I am a sinner, I have acted in ways that are contrary to the objective moral claims embraced by my worldview. But, I have a firm foundation (firm because it does NOT come from me, a fickle, selfish, weak, and fallen man). Despite my own moral teetering, I am so thankful I have an unchanging rock I can cling to and learn from.
Again, my thanks for being willing to engage!
Warmly-
Matt
Matt,
We can investigate objectively what gives people joy and causes suffering. Drinking antifreeze brings suffering and, through death, ends joy. Blowing ones self up with a bomb does the same thing. These are the OBJECTIVE truths that lead lead me to say, confidently, that these things should be avoided.
Most people who blow themselves up have been told that this will bring them joy in the afterlife. While people may think this, they are mistaken (because there is no afterlife in the naturalist worldview). They should not blow themselves up, even though they think they should. If these religious fanatics would embrace the naturalist worldview, they wouldn’t blow themselves up.
There are many other situations where people want something even though it will bring them suffering and not joy. This isn’t surprising. We have a lot of urges that aren’t based on good sense, and we often misunderstand ourselves and the world. I careful to not argue that people are shoud do “whatever they want.” People should do things that will actually benefit them.
Are you making a distinction between a practical “should” and a moral “should”? For me there is only one “should.”
Gavin
Gavin:
I find myself repeating the same point; naturalism provides no basis for making an objective MORAL statement. I fail to find any substantive response from you to this throughout the thread. You note that we can investigate “objectively” what gives people joy and causes suffering, and move from this assertion to OBJECTIVE truths about right and wrong. I submit that what you are investigating is merely personal preferences (i.e., SUBJECTIVE). One person’s joy is not necessarily another’s. So, if we wish to make OBJECTIVE moral statements, from which SUBJECTIVE perspective do we do so?
So, one more time, what is the grounding for moral statements within naturalism?
1. Joy (This is by definition subjective, not objective, and a very weak basis for grounding morality). At best, the joy might be defined by some communal consensus, but then, it is no longer my joy; someone is telling me what to do/how to act. If we leave it up to the individual, this opens the door for “fanatics”, who define joy differently than we do. Why should I rob the joy from a person who wants to kill themselves (or me?)? Is it my place to do so? if so, on what basis? Whose joy?
2. Reducing suffering (commendable, to be sure, but WHY, within a naturalistic worldview, is this important?) What is it, inherent to naturalism, that demands this? Naturalism would demand only my own survival, no? Passing along my “selfish genes”?
Matt
Matt,
I’m sorry that you have found this discussion frustrating. I’ve been trying to find something we could agree upon to use as a starting point. I will stop trying to start at the beginninig, and will instead try to address your points directly.
I think joy is a strong basis for grounding moral decisions. Whether it is strong or week, it is certainly a basis. Some sorts of enjoyment are subjective. I prefer strawberry ice cream, my wife prefers chocolate. Luck for us, picking a flavor of ice cream is not a moral decision.
Some sorts of enjoyment are not subjective. Nobody enjoys being torn apart by an exploding bomb. That is an objective fact. Since decisions about blowing people up clearly have moral implications, I’m glad to say we have an objective basis, within naturalism, for this moral principle: Don’t blow people up.
Thanks Gavin.
It is clear that we disagree on starting points (the basis for a moral decisions) and what, if anything, follows. That is not terribly surprising. But, we can agree to disagree, no? So, I think I’ll simply say best wishes to you & happy blogging!
Thanks for your patience!
Matt
Matt,
The idea that our fellow humans deserve our respect and compassion, whether God exists or not, seems so obvious to me that I am actually very surprised that we could not agree on this point. If we cannot find common ground on this, then we can only agree to disagree.
Best wishes,
Gavin
Thanks Gavin:
This is clearly true, and it is a shame. I simply try and stimulate some thought on how morality flows self-evidently from the naturalist world view. Human dignity or moral worth does not appear (to me) to flow
“naturally” from a naturalist world view (i.e., from the grounding of naturalism, it isn’t obvious).I am hardly the first person to make this observation, by the way. Nonetheless thank you for walking with me though these thoughts.
For readers of this blog, I commend some writings which may be of interest should the impasse between Gavin and I be unsatisfying to you. There are a number of recent popular books which support an atheist world view (among them Sam Harris’ “Letters to a Christian Nation”, Christopher Hitchen’s “God is not great”, Daniel Dennett’s “Breaking the Spell: Religion as a natural phenomenon”, Richard Dawkins’ “The God Delusion”). I also commend a video debate between Hitchens and Alister McGrath posted on the Ethics and Public Policy Center website. NOTE: I am not implying that any of these authors represent Gavin’s particular take on atheism/naturalism.
For Christian responses, I suggest Alister & Joanna McGrath’s “The Dawkins Delusion”, Norm Geisler and Frank Turek’s “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist”, Alister McGrath’s “The twilight of atheism”. In addition, an interesting new book which I recently started reading is Anthony Flew’s “There is a God: How the world’s most notorious atheist changed his mind.” Flew does NOT profess Christianity, but after 50 years of strong philosophical support of atheism, he has become a theist. Interesting story of one man’s life (and covers some of the ground we have touched on in this exchange).
For more thoughts (and far better ones) on my point about atheism/naturalism being unable to support moral statements, there are several resources. CS Lewis and others have made the argument that naturalism is self-defeating because it leads us to a position where we would not have confidence in ANY of our thoughts, moral or otherwise. Charles Darwin himself expressed this concern in a letter to a friend in 1881; “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are convictions in such a mind?” This argument has been made most forcefully in recent years by Alvin Plantinga, a philosopher at Notre Dame, in a highly technical book called “Warrant and Proper function”. Similar arguments have been made elsewhere, including in the “Philosophical foundations for a Christian worldview” edited by JP Moreland and WL Craig.
Best regards!
Matt
In the Mere Christianity discussion Jim observes:
He outlines two of them and gives references. His comments can be found here.
Opps. I thought my link would connect directly to Jim’s comment, but it goes to the top of the discussion. The comment I quote is number 47.
There is an article about Anthony Flew and his book in the New York Times Magazine today, The Turning of an Atheist. Flew did not do any of the original writing for the book. It was actually written by Roy Varghese, a computer and business consultant, and evangelical Christian. It looks like Varghese, having no credibility as a philosopher himself, is using the aging and memory deprived Flew as a trophy. For example, the book’s title refers to Flew as “the world’s most notorious atheist” when, in fact, almost nobody had heard of him until evangelicals began trumpeting his conversion. An interesting story indeed.
Read the article, not really that good. Ive never heard of Anthony Flew, maybe my parents have, talks about him being a big deal to atheists in the 70’s. Im not sure whats so special about this particular case. There have been countless people who at one time where atheists but ended up followers of Christ. It you really want to read an intersting story about a one time atheist read ” Surprised by Joy” the autobiography of C.S Lewis.
Gavin:
I am surprised by this response; the lack of civility does not become you. You resort to ad hominem attacks against both Flew (“aging and memory deprived”, “trophy”) and Varghese (“having no credibility as a philosopher himself”). Have you read the book? (Did you notice that Flew’s book was only a small part of what I commended?) Is the Times review good enough for you to judge both the book and the men themselves?
Name calling is not helpful, and it does little to build your case. Flew’s stature as a philosopher is beyond serious question – he is widely viewed as one of the most influential philosophers of the 20th century. As for Varghese, he has authored or edited a number of books on the faith-science interface including “Cosmos, bios, theos” in 1992 with the Yale Physics Professor Henry Margenau which has reflections on God & science from a number of Nobel laureates from different disciplines. This is also an “interesting read” – you should try it. Varghese has written a number of other books (including a Templeton Prize winner). This would appear to belie your claim that he lacks credibility.
Flew’s is the story of ONE MAN only. It is “influential” because he is influential. As Dan notes, there are many examples of similar stories. As you note, Gavin, there are also stories about “conversions” to atheism. Nobody denies this; it is for this reason that I commended books that argue BOTH sides of this debate so that anyone interested can come to their own conclusions, irrespective of what you and I believe.
At the end of the day, what you and I have attempted to do is engage in an exchange of ideas. We do not see eye to eye, but we can make an effort “agree to disagree” in a civil manner, no?
Matt
Gavin (Re: comment #36),
I echo Matt’s disappointment over the seemingly lack of thoughtfulness in your response. If I may, I’d like to bring up what seems to be a tendency in many of our discussions. As in your above comment, I feel as though you often don’t offer a reasoned respond/answer to the ideas and questions in these threads of discussion, but tend toward unfounded claims and cheap dismissals (ad hominem attacks, the genetic fallacy, etc.). For instance, I would like to have read a counter “argument†(a reasoned disputation in matter of facts) to Flew’s arguments as referred to in his book. But unfortunately, your comments here sounded more like the personal attacks characteristic of the political campaigns. I’m not surprised at your disagreement with Flew’s current position on the existence of God. However, address the arguments not the person.
On one specific point from your post—I’m not sure what pool of knowledge you’re pulling from in claiming that “almost nobody had heard of [Flew] until evangelicals began trumpeting his conversion.†I came across Flew’s writings years ago in my undergraduate while taking philosophy courses. Though he may not be well known to you, he is a significant philosophical thinker within the discipline of philosophy. In fact, as pointed out in the book in question, his well known paper, “Theology and Falsification†(which was first presented at Oxford in 1950) became the most widely reprinted philosophical publication of the 20th century.
Gavin, I love the opportunity for the sorts of exchanges of ideas that we can all have here, but I hope we can also kindly call one another out we use poor reasoning, misrepresent the facts, and the like. So, please understand that my comments to you here, while counteractive, are not in anger. As I hope you know, I welcome these discussion topics. But I do think it’s reasonable that we treat people and their ideas fairly. I hope we can agree at this point anyway?