The Non-Theist's Quandary Part 3: The Origins of Morality

Thanks again everyone for the great comments. Ideas are percolating, dialogue is brewing…Is it time for a coffee?

A quick response to the last couple of comments before moving on to today’s topic: Mr. Antagonist, there is no doubt in my mind that someone could very convincingly challenge everything I’m saying. I’m not an expert on these issues by any means (I barely pass as competent – sorry to burst anyone’s bubble).

I agree with you that science and religion are not inherent enemies. The problem, in my eyes, is that everyone is too damn reactionary to be reasonable. I agree with P Corcs that there are scientists pushing evolution because of an atheistic agenda, just as there are Christians pushing creationism because of a religious agenda. Often, when these two sides butt heads, logic and reason are lost.

Scientists desperate to disprove religion manifest new ideas, many of which are themselves illegitimized years later (we’re too young for this, but how about the “Big Chill” of the ‘70s? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling)

As P Corcs pointed out, blindly believing in unproven scientific precepts requires an enormous amount of faith and is still religion; just religion by a different name. This becomes a problem when the weight of “science” is thrown behind a theory and given the authority of “fact.”

Christian fundamentalists then react by declaring all science to be hogwash, and not conceding any science as fact (looking like buffoons in the process) In reality, whether you believe in evolution, a Grand Creator, or any combination of both, it’s impossible to deny science (and it would be preposterously ignorant to try).

Alright, moving on to today’s topic…

The third question the non-theist can’t answer deals with ethics. Seemingly, every person is born with a conscience, a sense of right and wrong.

The non-theist would account for the conscience as being one of two things. The first option is individual relativism, which is the theory that each individual sets moral standards for him/herself. This idea, however, doesn’t account for the similarities in the moral standards from person to person. We may claim that our individual standards differ (convenient when justifying poor behavior), but we still have what is known as a “judicious sentiment.” This means that even if we claim to have lower individual moral standards, we still hold others up to a higher set. According to C.S. Lewis, this is unavoidable and undeniable. He says in his book Mere Christianity:

“Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining “It’s not fair” before you can say Jack Robinson…Have [cultural relativists] not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like everyone else?”

The other option for the non-theist is to claim that cultural relativism is the foundation of morality. This too is an inadequate explanation because every culture has a similar base set of moral standards. Again I’ll refer to C.S. Lewis’s Mere Christianity:

“Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of doublecrossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five.”

Relativism is not a sufficient explanation for morality because it is simply not applicable to real life. Imagine the Nazi’s had won World War II. They went on to kill any opposition, so by the time they were finished everyone in the culture believed that killing Jews was a virtuous action. Could the non-theist then claim that murder is virtuous? Wouldn’t the killing of Jews still be abhorrent, in spite of the cultural assertion that it’s the greatest good?

Also, in a relativistic mindset moral progress is impossible because changing current moral standards is always wrong at the time of the overthrow. This means that a non-theist, in maintaining relativity, would oppose abolitionism, the Civil Rights Movement, child labor laws, the overthrow of oppressive or genocidal governments, even the American Revolution.

This leaves us with the question of where our moral standards come from. What prevents humanity, as a whole, from being completely self-absorbed; from becoming an anarchy of greedy, murderous wretches consumed by the individualistic pursuit of power?

For me, the only conceivable answer is that they were instilled in us by a Grand Organizer, a Creator. I believe that, more than any other of the arguments I have made, this inherent morality points to the existence of an involved, intervening higher-power: A force that has a personal interest in our actions, our well-being, our survival, and perhaps…dare I say…our souls.

Thanks for reading.