Christian Apologists Just Don't Understand Morality, Part 2

In the first piece I explained why it is a fallacy to argue that atheists, because they are mostly materialists, must abide by some form of evolutionary morality. In this piece I'm going to briefly explain how a secular moral system could be set up, and the reasons I feel a secular-based morality is better than a theistic one.

First of all, as I explained before it is a fallacious argument to say that an atheist must abide by some evolutionary morality because all the word atheist means is "without gods." Therefore, any moral system "without gods" would also be logically coherent. Out of the many secular moral systems that have been developed, I believe that the Social Contract is the best one, and for various reasons, which I previously laid out here.

Now, why do I feel secular morality is superior to theistic morality? First of all, the famed Euthyphro Dilemma points out the flaw nicely. It states, "Is what is moral commanded by God because it is moral, or is it moral because it is commanded by God?"

This is essentially asking whether or not something is moral because god says it is moral or is there some source of morality that is above god, and he simply hands these moral codes down to us? From this, it is logical to draw one of two conclusions.

1. Either there is a higher form of morality that is even beyond god and human beings must search it out, or god lets us in on what that ultimate morality is, or,

2. There is no such thing as a fully universal set of laws and all morality is relative. Relative, depending upon location, local customs, time period, experiences of the inhabitants, and of course our biology.

From looking around at the world and seeing the diverse beliefs of various peoples (even of differing or similar religions) it's clear that number two is correct: morality is relative. Now, the next logical step is to figure out what we find repulsive and what we accept as good and decent behavior. This is most easily accomplished through basic principles such as the age old "Do to others as you would have them do to you." (Luke 6:31/NIV), though no one could ever credit christianity with such a principle since it was spoken centuries earlier by the Buddha and even in the time of the Greeks: "Avoid doing what you would blame others for doing." - Thales

Though even before the rise of the Greeks, there is evidence that our evolutionary heritage bestowed upon us an innate morality that was crafted by natural selection for our survival, since we were, and still are, social creatures. Because of this, natural selection would naturally (no pun intended) endow us with a set of social skills, which would include ways of handling moral dilemmas. [1] It has also been shown that a large percentage of our altruistic tendencies are innate and this would explain the universal principle of morality, "Do to others as you would have them do to you", that has been developed over vast distances throughout the world and between diverse cultures.

For example,

"Rushton and colleagues from the University of London gave questionnaires that measured altruistic and aggressive tendencies to 573 twins. [...] The majority of the variance of each scale was due to genetic factors. Specifically the heritability of altruism was 56 percent. Altruism increased with age while aggressiveness decreased. Virtually zero percent of the variance of each trait was due to the common environment such as religious instruction." (emphasis in original) [2]

Studies have also shown that this innate altruism isn't only for those in our close knit groups, unlike what many christian apologists like to claim, such as Scott Hahn and Benjamin Wiker in their book Answering the New Atheism: Dismantling Dawkins' Case Against God, and even christian apologist David Marshall, in his book titled The Truth Behind the New Atheism.

In the January 2008 issue of Discover magazine they relate the following studies:

"For years, lacking evidence to the contrary, most scientists had assumed that altruism is unique to humans. Sure, other primates groom each other and even share food, but this kind of helping could be chalked up to selfish motives - either to benefit close relatives who share their genes or to get an immediate reward. In June, however, scientists from the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology reported the first experimental evidence of spontaneous altruism in chimpanzees, toward both non related chimps and humans.

In one experiment done with semifree-ranging chimps in Uganda, a chimp struggled to open a door locked by a chain. The researchers wanted to see if a second chimp would release the chain to help the first get food. Three-quarters of the time, the chimps in a position to help did just that. 'The crucial thing here is they help without any expectation of being rewarded, because they don't benefit from their helping,' leading researcher Felix Warneken explains.

The pattern showed up in a similar experiment with chimpanzees and humans: When a person with whom they had no prior relationship struggled to reach a stick, the chimps handed it to the person even when it required climbing up to a tall raceway. The chimps helped people just as often as 18-month-old German toddlers did in a similar set up involving a person struggling to reach a pen.

'The main finding is that humans and chimpanzees share altruistic tendencies,' Warneken says. In terms of evolution, he adds, this similarity suggests that the two species' common ancestors has these inclinations before culture developed.

And that tells us something about human nature.'There's a widely held belief that humans are selfish in the beginning and only through socialization do we turn into somewhat altruistic individuals,' Warneken says. This work suggests our nature contains the seeds for both types of behavior.'" [3]

One might then argue that, alright we do have this innate morality, though what would make us follow it? We could simply rebell just as we do many of our other instincts. That is true, though, it seems natural selection has once again stepped in to help out because studies have shown that the "reward pathways" of our brains respond when we cooperate with others and act altruistically. Genetic studies have also shown that dopamine genes are involved as well. It literally makes us "feel good" to cooperate and to help others! [4]

I apologize for getting a little bit off track there. I wanted to dispel some misconceptions about humans' innate morality that are often touted as some kind of argument against them. Because morality is relative no religion and no god could give us some universal standard of morality because of the various religious beliefs about what this god supposedly wants. Even those who supposedly know what this god wants are obviously confused so clearly religion is not the answer to moral dilemmas (different religions, and even different sects of the same religion disagree about morality).

I have shown how theistic morality is relative, just as secular moralities, but now I want to expose a flaw in theistic moralities. This flaw is mainly one of choice and conscience. If a theists' god orders you to go to a town and murder its inhabitants (as the christian god does in Samuel 1:15; or what about child sacrifice as in Exodus 22:29-30 for example) must you obey it? Of course, because it's god's command! And in the bible god often punishes those who fail to follow his commands, no matter what it is, even if it's murder as in the above noted passage in Samuel 1:15. Even Samuel 15:23 says that "Defiance of [god] is sinful as witchcraft" (NEB), so what is a theist to do? It's obvious. Because a theists' god orders the murder of even innocent people, clearly no god gets his morals from another source. Therefore, whatever god says is moral, and theists must follow it as instructed in Samuel 15:23.

However, a secular individual can follow his/her own conscience and their own moral sense and philosophy and do what is truly moral.

Such a morality, I believe, should be along the lines of the Social Contract so as to preserve the freedoms of all people - even the extreme minorities from oppression (does anyone recall the immoral campaign to take away the freedoms of homosexual to marry?).

The propaganda spewed out by apologists about how any place that does not abide by god's laws and is "without gods", or atheistic, will become a bastion of immorality and strife is nothing but complete nonsense. The studies which show that the most secular countries are prospering is a direct and lethal blow against this argument. To quote the sociologist Phil Zuckerman:

"If this often-touted religious theory were correct - that turning away from god is at the root of all societal ills - then we would expect to find the least religious nations on earth to be bastions of crime, poverty and disease and most religious countries to be models of societal health."

Zuckerman continues,

"A comparison of highly irreligious countries with highly religious countries, however, reveals a very different state of affairs. In reality, the most secular countries - those with the highest proportion of atheists and agnostics - are among the most stable, peaceful, free, wealthy, and healthy societies. And the most religious nations - wherein worship of god is in abundance - are among the most unstable, violent, oppressive, poor and destitute." [5]

With the millions of theists throughout history who have clearly defied any sort of rational moral code and have murdered others (please see this refutation for examples) is also clear evidence that even belief in a god does not curb ones' potential immorality.

Because of this, human beings must choose what they feel is right and wrong. These choices are indeed relative, but that in no way makes them less binding, so long as the Social Contract is respected and if not, the people will gather and decide what to do with the defiant individual. Though allow me to stress the point that just because there is not some ultimate source of morality, that does not mean men will all of a sudden disobey all codes of conduct. Again, the most secular societies is proof of this. There are even examples of completely free societies with no laws whatsoever being completely free of crime.

Natural selection crafted humans' innate social instincts which do well to help us relate to one another, though it is obviously not perfect. Our intellect has also given rise to our uses of logic, which is, in my opinion, our best source for morality that we have. As I said before, no moral system is perfect, but what we can do is allow our empathy to shine through and use our reason to figure out the best way to ensure each individuals' freedom from any form of oppression, no matter how small. To me, the Social Contract is the best choice, but again, it's up to you, so long as you avoid infringing upon anothers' natural rights.

I have shown how it is a specious argument to claim that an atheist must follow some evolutionary concept of morality. I have also shown how an atheist is in a better position morally because they need not obey the orders of an oftentimes cruel being (as seen in the bible) and can build a society based upon mutual respect and empathy towards their fellow man (and animals) through their use of reason and humans' innate altruistic tendencies.



1. Did Man Create God? Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain?, by David E. Comings, M.D., Hope Press, 2008; 480-481

2. Ibid.; 482

3. The Discover Magazine (Jan. 2008) piece was titled "Chimps Show Altruistic Streak", written by Marina Krakovsky, pg. 63

4. Did Man Create God? Is Your Spiritual Brain at Peace with Your Thinking Brain?, by David E. Comings, M.D., Hope Press, 2008; 483-484

5. 50 Reasons People Give for Believing in a god, by Guy P. Harrison, Prometheus Books, 2008; 296

Update - 2-13-10

It has come to my attention that Christian apologist William Lane Craig has attempted to go around the Euthyphro Dilemma by arguing that god's nature is absolutely good, therefore, everything god orders is necessarily good morally. Huh??? And what basis does Craig have in concluding his god is all good? He presents no evidence whatsoever. However, the evidence we do have about his god comes easily from the bible and the many cruel acts his god commits, as in the examples above. Would Craig dare to somehow argue that the many innocent people put to death by his god is good? Therefore, it is safe to say that god's nature is not 'all good' and cannot be counted upon for moral guidance.