One of the classic arguments made by theists is that atheists do not have an absolute, objective moral standard. Some atheists say that they do of course - but I would have to agree that, at the very least, they don’t have a very good one.
As an agnostic, I have to admit as well that I do not have a nice, neat and easy to explain absolute and objective standard of morality either. I could explain why our moral sense has developed, how our brain is wired for empathy and how as social animals, morality is an evolutionary benefit. I could explain how many animals have demonstrated a moral sense of their own. I could show how this explains the difference in moralities between cultures and the development of morality over time in the same culture better than a god hypothesis. But no, I can’t say that I have an absolute, objective standard of morality. I would argue though that we don’t need a perfect standard. We get by in plenty of fields with a less than perfect understanding.
My question though is this: What’s so great about theists’ standard of morality? True, the existence of a god could provide an objective standard, assuming of course that we can figure out what this deity wished us to do. We have no reason to decide that the will of this god should be followed however. One cannot call the god’s standard good without presupposing a morality that exists outside of it.
In the U.S., the most popular god is the Christian one. Keeping in mind the parts of morality that most Americans - Christians, other believers, and non-believers - agree on, let’s take a look at the standard this god is said to have laid out it the Bible.
What?!
Deut 25:11+12 - If two men, a man and his countryman, are struggling together, and the wife of one comes near to deliver her husband from the hand of the one who is striking him, and puts out her hand and seizes his genitals, then you shall cut off her hand; you shall not show pity.
This is just downright weird. The only thing that makes sense here is to say that God is obviously a dude.
Ex. 35:2 - For six days, work is to be done, but the seventh day shall be your holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the LORD. Whoever does any work on it must be put to death.
That seems a bit much, but God’s obviously setting down some rules to follow.
Ex 4:11 - The LORD said to him, “Who gave man his mouth? Who makes him deaf or mute? Who gives him sight or makes him blind? Is it not I, the LORD ?
God deliberately decides to make people blind. Seems a bit rude to me.
Ex 21:17 - Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death.
Now I know God is into justice. That’s why he has to keep people in Hell forever after all. This seems a bit harsh though. Maybe I’ll understand it better when I have kids.
Injustice
Gen 12:17 - But the LORD inflicted serious diseases on Pharaoh and his household because of Abram’s wife Sarai.
and
Gen 20:18 - for the LORD had closed up every womb in Abimelech’s household because of Abraham’s wife Sarah.
Here’s a couple of cases where God punished people, Pharaoh’s and Abimelech’s household, because they had basically added Sarah to their harem, although they hadn’t gotten around to sleeping with her. Adding women to a harem in general wasn’t a problem, the problem was that she was married. They didn’t know that however, because Abraham had told them the half-truth that she was his sister and neglected to mention that she was his wife. So God decided to punish the household of Pharaoh and Abimelech, but Abraham and Sarah get off free - even got great gifts from Abimelech. That’s not what we would call justice.
Ex 21:20+21 - If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.
If you beat a slave to death, you will be punished. That seems reasonable, although it doesn’t sound like it’ll be the same punishment for murder since it’s just a slave. But if you beat a slave and he doesn’t die until the next day, then you get no punishment. That’s just insanity and certainly not justice.
Ex 34:7 - maintaining love to thousands, and forgiving wickedness, rebellion and sin. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.
People’s sin is so bad that God has to punish their great great grandchildren for it. That’s not justice and it’s not a moral thing to do.
Purity Nonsense
Lev 20:18 - If a man lies with a woman during her monthly period and has sexual relations with her, he has exposed the source of her flow, and she has also uncovered it. Both of them must be cut off from their people.
At least they don’t have to be killed, but being cut off from their people isn’t nice either. God has some sort of problem with menstrual bleeding as we will see.
Lev 15:19-23 - When a woman has her regular flow of blood, the impurity of her monthly period will last seven days, and anyone who touches her will be unclean till evening. Anything she lies on during her period will be unclean, and anything she sits on will be unclean. Whoever touches her bed must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whoever touches anything she sits on must wash his clothes and bathe with water, and he will be unclean till evening. Whether it is the bed or anything she was sitting on, when anyone touches it, he will be unclean till evening.
This shows how much of the old law code had nothing to do with morality, but is concern ritualistic purity. “Unclean” is a more serious business than being dirty, it means you can’t do a bunch of religious activities. And since people don’t want to become unclean by accidentally touching something that has been touched by a woman having her period, they’ll avoid being around them as much as possible, basically women get shunned.
Lev 12:1-7 - The LORD said to Moses, Say to the Israelites: A woman who becomes pregnant and gives birth to a son will be ceremonially unclean for seven days, just as she is unclean during her monthly period. On the eighth day the boy is to be circumcised. Then the woman must wait thirty-three days to be purified from her bleeding. She must not touch anything sacred or go to the sanctuary until the days of her purification are over. If she gives birth to a daughter, for two weeks the woman will be unclean, as during her period. Then she must wait sixty-six days to be purified from her bleeding.
When the days of her purification for a son or daughter are over, she is to bring to the priest at the entrance to the Tent of Meeting a year-old lamb for a burnt offering and a young pigeon or a dove for a sin offering. He shall offer them before the LORD to make atonement for her, and then she will be ceremonially clean from her flow of blood.
God doesn’t like child-birth for some reason, and requires women to make a sin offering after having done so. That’s right, giving birth is a sin. That’s not a very moral rule in my book. There’s also some weirdly placed sexism here, and that it takes twice as long to become purified for having a daughter than having a son.
Deut 23:2 - No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation, shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
“Bastards” as the King James puts it, aren’t good enough to worship God. Neither are their great great great great great great great great grandchildren.
Duet 23:1 - No one who is emasculated or has his male organ cut off shall enter the assembly of the LORD.
Of course, these poor guys aren’t either.
Genocide
Deut: 15:3 - Now go and smite Amalek, and utterly destroy all that they have, and spare them not; but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass.
One of God’s genocidal statements, women and children not excepted. You know he’s really pissed when you have to even kill the animals. There’s many similar verses but I won’t bother to list them. God wants lots of people wiped out apparently, since he’s ordered lots of massacres.
Deut 25:19 - When the LORD your God gives you rest from all the enemies around you in the land he is giving you to possess as an inheritance, you shall blot out the memory of Amalek from under heaven. Do not forget!
God’s pretty insistent. He wants his genocide. You think God could do his own dirty work. God especially dislikes the Amalekites because they attacked Israel when they wandered through Amalekite territory. Just want did God expect them to do, and is that enough to justify genocide anyways?
Conclusion
One might object that I cannot call things immoral since I profess to not to have an objective, absolute standard of morality. I disagree, but lets move on. Christians, since many of you do profess to have an objective, absolute standard of morality, I’ll let you judge. By your standard, are these rules and actions by God in the Bible moral ones? If they aren’t moral, how can you say that and thereby disagree with the source of your standard? If you do consider these things to be good according to your moral standard, then I want nothing to do with your standard or your god.
One might also object that I have quoted all Old Testament verses. In fact, I have quoted only verses from the Books of the Law. One might object that these Old Testament verses don’t count anymore. The God of the Old Testament though is the same as the God of the New according to Christianity. He doesn’t change and neither does his moral standards.
Christians often cherry pick parts of the Old Testament they like, such as the Ten Commandments and the nice sounding Psalms, and feel free to not use other parts. That’s rather intellectually dishonest, and in any case leaves a person to form whatever beliefs they want, negating the ability of scripture to form a standard. What does it say about the Bible if the best that can be said about large portions of it is that they can now be ignored?
I understand such things as progressive theology and narrative interpretation. One might say that God had to reach people where they were at; he couldn’t give them perfectly just laws because they couldn’t handle them. God had to tell them to commit genocide and give them only slightly improved laws. In truth though, the Mosaic Law does not show any moral improvement over the Code of Hammurabi, which was written centuries before. If it’s the best God could do then he is incompetent.
I don’t have an absolute, objective moral standard. But that’s better than having the God of the Bible’s standard.
Before I offer any response to what you said, can you expand on what you mean here? It has me a bit confused. I think your saying that no one can offer an evaluation of the morality of any god without first having a morality to compare it to?
Bryan
SDG
I’m not sure we can understand or evaluate God’s actions until we understand the seriousness of sin and our own depravity. Unless we understand that, God will seem vindictive, petty, and grossly unfair. That’s why some people come right out and say they’d rather go to hell than be in heaven with God: they think God is evil.
Bryan - that’s what I’m saying. A god can provide a standard, but calling it a good standard is nothing but presupposition if there is not a morality outside of the god to compare it to.
Casey said, “The God of the Old Testament though is the same as the God of the New according to Christianity. He doesn’t change and neither does his moral standards.”
Well, something changed!
I admit I don’t like those verse from the Law either. They make little sense to me–and I’m a devout believer. Maybe there were some cultural or dietary conditions that caused them to make more sense at the time, I don’t know. But I suppose one thing they do is to set an impossibly high standard that no person at any time in history can keep, so when the sacrifice of Christ came, everyone qualified for it. There are none righteous, no not one.
And to be just a bit more philosophical for a moment, yes, I do believe in moral standards, but I have a tiny problem with the “absolute” part. That is simply because the morality of at least some things is culturally defined.
A silly example of what I mean: I used to live in a primitive culture in Solomon Islands. Women my age wore no tops. In church. Or anywhere. However, it was scandalous for them to think of wearing pants or any garment that showed her thighs. So in that culture it was fine to go topless, but it isn’t in the USA. Likewise, in the USA it is fine to wear pants or shorts, but one would get arrested for going topless. What is moral in one culture is immoral in another. Many of those topless women were believers just like I am. Becoming a Christian did not make them change their wardrobes.
(Please don’t take that example to mean that I think all morality is defined culturally–but at least some things are.)
Casey, what if it is assumed that the god in question is the standard of what is good? No judgement can then be made on what the god says, but only acceptance since God is good by definition? What is good is good because it comes from the nature of God and therefore cannot be judged by any outside criteria.
Bryan, like you said it has to be assumed. But why assume that? Are you willing to take the things I covered as being moral?
Thainamu, I didn’t word that very well. My point is that, according to Christianity, God’s character doesn’t change. The same being that found it within his character to punish grandchildren for their grandparents’ sins and to exclude the offspring of bastards down to the tenth generation, is the same being that exists now and his character is unchanged.
Suppose you met someone who used to abuse children. He says he doesn’t abuse children anymore because the cultural context is different now, but that he was right to abuse the children he did in the past. What would you think of that person’s character?
Casey, I’m a strong proponent of Divine Command Theory (modified slightly the way I phrased it in my comment above; that it comes from the nature of God which sidesteps Euthyphro’s dilemma)so at the time God commanded those things I would say yes, they were moral commands. Now I believe we are no longer commanded to do those things as God is a god of grace, but like I said in direct response to your question; yes if God commands a genocide it’s a moral command.
Bryan
SDG
Casey,
Let me start by saying that the world would be a better place with more people like you. You seem to be sincere and truth-seeking. Ever think about running for Congress? We could use you!
A few comments on your post.
First, you write, “One cannot call the god’s standard good without presupposing a morality that exists outside of it.” I think I understand your thinking here: you seem to be saying that the only way in which we could judge the morality of God’s actions would be if there existed an independent standard by which to judge those actions. Makes sense. But your argument isn’t necessarily sound. It’s possible that morality stems from God himself. In other words, it’s possible that God IS morality–that God IS love, that God IS justice, etc. If such is the case, then it wouldn’t follow that there must be an independent standard by which to judge God’s actions–because God himself would be that standard.
Your Old Testament examples are good ones. But let me briefly play the devil’s advocate. (And yes, I realize the irony in that statement.)
1) You reference a number of “weird” injunctions from the Lord–e.g., those dealing with menstruation, as well as the genital grabbing example from Deuteronomy. But I’m sure you’d agree that being weird isn’t necessarily the same as being immoral.
2) You say the following about Exodus 21.20-21: “If you beat a slave to death, you will be punished. That seems reasonable…But if you beat a slave and he doesn’t die until the next day, then you get no punishment. That’s just insanity and certainly not justice.” In this case, I think you’re misinterpreting the Bible. I don’t know Hebrew, but the New International Version makes it clear that the slave in the second instant was only injured, not killed.
3) You cite a number of passages in which God’s punishments seem excessively harsh–e.g., “Anyone who curses his father or mother must be put to death” and “No one of illegitimate birth shall enter the assembly of the LORD; none of his descendants, even to the tenth generation.” Well perhaps these commands made sense and were good ones AT THE TIME. Perhaps God looked down at the Israelites and saw that they were an especially reprobate bunch, a people who didn’t see the importance of obeying their god. Perhaps he knew that the only way to drive home his point–that sin is a big deal, a REALLY big deal–was to issue such harsh commands. Take a modern-day analogy. Let’s say that my son enjoys playing with matches. Let’s also say that he has an especially reckless personality. Given all this and given the fact that matches are so potentially dangerous, it might be very reasonable for me to really lay down the law with him–for instance, to threaten to ground him for two entire months if he’s ever again caught playing with matches. Now an outsider might think I’m being too harsh; but perhaps that’s the only way to effectively protect my son.
4) Regarding the passage in Genesis in which God punishes the households of Pharaoh and Abimelech because they added Sarah to their harem–I would just say that we might not have all the facts here. Perhaps these people suspected that Sarah was married but took her anyway. Perhaps God knew they would have killed Abraham had he told the truth. Perhaps God was teaching these people a lesson they needed to learn. Perhaps, in the long run, God’s actions were in these people’s best moral interest. We’re simply not in a position to say.
All this said, I’ll be the first to admit that many of the things found in the Old Testament don’t make sense to me. (As you point out, many passages do seem misogynistic.) But, as the Bible says over and over again, God’s ways are not our ways. From our perspective, he may seem like a total asshole. But perhaps we’re no better equipped to judge his motives than a dog is to judge our motives.
I’m just as perplexed as you are regarding the injunction in Deuteronomy to commit genocide, to wipe out everyone, including the women and the children. That makes absolutely no sense to me. But again, perhaps God had morally sufficient reasons for doing this. Perhaps God–able to see men’s hearts, able to view the future with perfect clarity–saw that this was the only way to teach Israel the gravity of sin. And perhaps, in the long run, this was the only way that humans in general, whom God has given free will, would be able to morally develop.
In sum, I agree that, by today’s standards, many these commandments seem atrocious. But how are we to know that they weren’t what the ancient Jews needed? Perhaps such harshness was the only thing that could break them from their corrupt ways. A kind of shock therapy, if you will.
If I were god, I would’ve been a lot more lenient. “You disobeyed your parents? Kill you? No, I’m not going to kill you. How about you go and write some lines on the chalkboard, that’ll teach you.” But maybe my leniency would have really screwed things up for humanity. Who’s to say?
Anyway, I’m sympathetic with your agnostic beliefs. Sometimes I wonder how any rational person can be religious. But then I remember that, though there are some good arguments for atheism, there are also some good ones for theism. And then I think about death, and the thought of dying, the thought of oblivion, is utterly terrifying to me. So, using the logic of Pascal’s wager, I sort of will myself to believe: if God exists, I reason, then believers win and skeptics (might) lose; if God doesn’t exist, believers and skeptics both lose; therefore, since being a believer might be the only chance we have of winning, why not be a believer? Sometimes I feel like my faith is just a shot in the dark; but given the desperate situation in which we find ourselves, I think it makes more sense than anything else.
I think it’s hard to determine which of those laws and commands actually came from God and which ones were really just Israelite rules with “Thus sayeth the Lord” added to the end. I know I’m taking a pretty liberal view of Scripture here, but when God spoke to Moses, it was pretty clear that something supernatural was happening - a bush burned without being consumed, writing appeared on stone, the plagues happened, a river was parted, water flowed from a rock, manna was provided - but that sort of thing isn’t recorded in reference to the giving of these additional rules with questionable morality. So I’m not convinced, even though they are recorded in the Bible as historical, that they were actually commands from God.
Don, I’m simply saying that if “God IS morality” is true, then nothing can be called “good,” you can just say it meets God’s standard. You can’t even say meeting God’s standard is a good thing, you can only say meeting God’s standard meets God’s standard.
1) Yes, but I’d expect a omni type god to do better. As I’ve said the Mosaic Law is no improvement on the Code of Hammurabi.
2) Even if that translation is accepted, it’s still saying it’s ok to beat slaves very badly.
3) I think you will agree that grounding your kid is on a totally different level than killing him. And I won’t accept a “it was good at the time” excuse for punishing people for something someone 11 generations ago did. If that was the best God could do that I still say he’s incompetent (or not all-good).
4) We never have all the facts. Though drawing from a narrative account is much tricker than from declared laws. It’s not necessary for the argument in any case.
In regard to your “perhaps … perhaps” argument - perhaps the God of the Bible is made up, just like the other ones you believe are made up. Or perhaps he is less than perfectly good.
I’ve never thought much of Pascal’s wager, maybe I’ll write about that sometime.
Tank, that’s an interesting view. Be careful though, I found out that rejecting inerrancy truly can be a slippery slope.
I am sure you are fully aware of this but it’s worth repeating for the discussion. We need to make a distinction between the three types of laws in the Old Testament. The first type is ceremonial. These are the laws governing the temple worship and the way we are to approach God. They have to do with the layout of the temple, the ways a person must be purified, the sacrificial system. We don’t sacrifice animals today because Jesus has come, the perfect sacrifice. He, in his death on the cross, fulfilled the ceremonial law.
The second type is civil law. These laws covered the specific laws for the nation of Israel. They are about taxes, charging interest, punishing sin. The civil law has been fulfilled by Christ in that God’s Kingdom has been extended to all nations, transcending national identity. We are no longer bound by the laws of Israel.
The third type is moral law. The Ten Commandments fall into this category. These are laws that transcend the civil and ceremonial laws. Yes, Jesus fulfilled the moral law, just as he did the other two, but we are now free to follow this Law. They are still in effect, because they are a reflection of God’s moral character, and that does not change.
Casey said, “Be careful though, I found out that rejecting inerrancy truly can be a slippery slope.”
Now this is what someone should write an article about.
Dan, we make that distinction today, but did the Jews of the time make that distinction? I remember NT Wright arguing that they didn’t and it’s therefore one that we impose on the text, not that we take from it.
Casey,
“I’m simply saying that if ‘God IS morality’ is true, then nothing can be called ‘good.’” That’s false. Saying that “God is morality” is essentially saying that “God is the good” or “God is goodness itself.” Therefore, if God is morality and thus goodness itself, it would NOT follow that “nothing can be called ‘good’”–for anything conforming to God–i.e., anything conforming to goodness itself–would be good.
Regarding the rest of your article:
I imagine that it would be difficult for a modern Orthodox Jew to justify many parts of the Mosaic Law. But a Christian does not have the same difficulty. For the New Testament makes it clear that some parts of the Law served a temporary purpose–but were not intrinsically good.
For instance, in Matthew 19 Jesus amends a portion of the Mosaic Law, telling the Pharisees that, contrary to Deuteronomy 24, adultery is the only permissible grounds for divorce. “Moses,” he says, “permitted you to divorce your wives [for reasons beyond adultery] because your hearts were hard.” Implied in Jesus’ words: this portion of the Law is not intrinsically good; it was valid for only a time.
In Galatians, Paul writes that the Law was given “because of transgression,” that it was “put in charge to lead us to Christ.” In other words: the Law was good on utilitarian, not necessarily deontological, grounds.
So, according to the New Testament, parts of the Law were good because of the results they were to bring about, but they were not to be normative for all people during all times. In the same way, a sign stating “Keep off the grass” may be good for a time, but only for a time: perhaps the earth just needs a few weeks to revegetate.
Today, we might look at certain Old Testament injunctions and say, That seems irrational, or harsh, or unjust. And, if applied to twenty-first century standards, they certainly might be. But these laws were not intended for modern people. And perhaps they were only instituted back then because doing so was the only way that, given human free will, God was able to ultimately bring about certain ends. Perhaps the good of humanity rested on the Jews learning certain moral lessons, and perhaps issuing such harsh commandments was the only way these lessons could be learned.
Now you might be thinking, “Well, if that’s the case, if God could only secure the best interests of humanity by temporarily instituting such crazy rules, then he certainly isn’t much to write home about.” But, as finite humans, we’re in no position to make such statements. In the same way, if I, a mediocre chess player at best, saw a chess master deliberately sacrifice his rook, I would be in no position to criticize him–even though I might personally think the move foolish.
In conclusion, let me address your statement, “In regard to your ‘perhaps … perhaps’ argument - perhaps the God of the Bible is made up, just like the other ones you believe are made up.” In response, I would say–yes, perhaps. In our brief conversation, I’ve made no attempt to prove God’s existence. I’ve simply tried to caution you from falling into dogmatism.
You bring up some good points; I genuinely mean that. But these “problem passages” no more disprove God’s existence than, as Alvin Plantinga illustrates, does the existence of suffering. They pose difficulties for the believer, but they don’t win the argument. And remember, the believer has a number of very powerful arguments up his own sleeve: namely, the cosmological, teleological, and moral arguments. (People stopped understanding the ontological argument a few hundreds years ago.) And let’s not forget the evidence for the resurrection. N.T. Wright’s work “The Resurrection of the Son of God” shows just how overwhelming some of this latter evidence is. Wright doesn’t prove his point with absolute certainty, but he does make you think.
Dan, as Bryan pointed out that is an imposition forced on the text. Besides it doesn’t matter for my argument as the laws you call civil or ceremonial also reflect God’s character.
Thainamu, I believe fundamentalists have covered that one well enough. I don’t say they’re always right of course, but it can work that way sometimes.
Don, in this article I have not been trying to disprove the existence of a god. For the Christian I am doing something arguably worse, arguing that their god may not be worth following (even if he exists).
Casey said, “Thainamu, I believe fundamentalists have covered that one well enough. I don’t say they’re always right of course, but it can work that way sometimes.”
Sure. But what I really meant is that I’d be personally interested to hear your own story of how you left the faith. (Hmm, am I remembering that correctly–that you used to be a Christian but left? Sorry, I can’t find the place where I thought you said that.)
You haven’t been around here that long, so you might not feel comfortable enough to tell us that story, but if you are, I for one would like to hear it. (Generally speaking, we here are nice to people, even if we don’t agree with them or like things they do.
)
Casey Huxley wrote:
I can’t follow that logic. If God exists, pretty much anything is better than facing his wrath on Judgement Day. Even if he is evil, heaven is still better than hell. Only a fool would deliberately choose hell.
Seriously, anything–anything–is better than eternal suffering in hell. God is worth following for that reason alone.