Zeal For Truth

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.