Questions of Morality

     Psst...I have a secret to tell you.  You might find it quite shocking.  Religion does not have a corner on the morality market.  No really, it's true...left to our own devices, ordinary people all adhere (or at least try to adhere) to the same basic set of moral standards.  Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Humanists, Atheists all tend to agree on the same moral precepts...love and compassion, caring for the sick and weak, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, don't kill, lie or steal etc..

     Questions of morality have to do with how what we do effects the happiness and/or suffering of others.  Morals are our code of conduct, our rules for living, our ideas and beliefs about what is good or bad, right or wrong.  It turns out that most of us share a common set of moral standards.  Of course, whether or not we manage to live by them is quite another story.  But what we hold up as our ideals is remarkably consistent.

     Of course, religious leaders would have us believe otherwise.  Here in the U.S. the most vocal of those religious leaders are what we have come to call "Conservative Christians."  Christianity does claim the most adherents of any religion in America, but the most conservative of those Christians wield an inordinate amount of power.  They are very vocal and very forceful when it comes to pushing their religious agenda and, for a while now, they have had significant influence on public policy. 

     Christian Conservatives, of course, try to convince us that their strenuous efforts are on our behalf, not their own.  They aren't interested in power or control.  No, they are interested in our salvation and ensuring that our behavior remains pure enough to lead us to it.  Never mind that many Americans don't believe in the salvation of which they speak, or agree on the rightness of the Christian path to it.  The Conservative Christians feel that they have a duty and an obligation to see to it that our behavior meets their moral standards and they fear that, without their constant oversight, we will slide down that slippery slope straight into hell.

     While I do try to be tolerant of the religious beliefs of others and I really do believe that all religious systems have some good at their core, I also believe that most religions are repeatedly twisted and corrupted in the hands of those who will stop short of nothing to further their own personal agendas.  Throughout history, power hungry individuals and groups have taken the positive, life-affirming spiritual beliefs at the core of a variety of religions and transformed them into something that they were never meant to be - a means to a self-gratifying end.  Meanwhile, we are sold the bill of goods that says this is for our benefit.  We are told that we need the guidance of the(whichever) one true religion if we are to enjoy this life and the one beyond. 

     I know many religious people who are truly good and loving people.  They have done many compassionate and selfless things in the name of their religion and they use their religious beliefs to fuel the desire to be a positive force in this world.  I have no bone to pick with these folks.  The problem I have is with those who use their religious beliefs as a guide, not just for their own behavior, but for mine and yours as well.  It's insulting really to be told that if you or I hold spiritual beliefs that differ from those of Conservative Christians, or if we hold no religious beliefs at all, we are prone to a life of immorality and depravity and cursed to an eternity in hell.

     I've thought and read about such things a lot lately and, while I have not come up with a foolproof way of deposing those religious fanatics who seem to have way too much input when it comes to important legislative decisions, I have found one, small hole to poke in their argument that the mingling of their religious beliefs with our political and legal system is necessary to protect us all from ourselves and each other.

     Conservative Christians, along with many other religious folks, tend to believe that without the moral code instilled in us by our churches, temples or synagogues, we would all follow our natural animal instincts and henceforth spend our days acting upon these impulses in all manner of debaucherous and destructive ways.  We would perhaps spend our days plotting against one another, raping and pillaging and murdering with abandon.  Or would we?

     Marc D. Hauser, a Harvard biologist and author of the book "Moral Minds" has found that both atheists and people belonging to a wide range of faiths make the same moral judgments, implying “that the system that unconsciously generates moral judgments is immune to religious doctrine.” In Dr. Hauser's view, we are all equipped with an innate system for generating moral behavior.  The specific ways in which our morality is expressed are influenced somewhat by our families and cultures, but the moral impulses are already there.

     The field of evolutionary biology lends support to this idea.  Restraints on behavior are a necessary ingredient for successful social interactions and the ability to belong to, and function within, social groups improves an individual's chances for survival.  It follows that humans who behaved morally would thus have been the winners in the natural selection process that has made us who we are over the long history of evolution.

     It seems that apes, monkeys and chimpanzees have similar natural feelings of empathy and expectations of reciprocity, as do other mammals including humans.  In fact, psychological studies have shown that an innate sense of fairness tends to show in children by age 4.

     This all suggests that parents, teachers and yes, even religions, are not the source of moral codes but, rather, only shapers and social enforcers of instinctive moral behavior.  In fact, if you choose to look deeply into religious scriptures and dogmas, you may realize that religion finds a way to justify immoral behavior as often as it prescribes against it.  Sam Harris, in his "Letter to a Christian Nation" written in response to the Christian hate mail he received after the publication of his book "The End Of Faith" presents many examples of the promotion of immoral behavior in the bible including rules for slave ownership and handling, appropriate punishments for various offenses including killing children who talk back, stoning to death those who commit adultery and a variety of other offenses, permission to sell daughters into sexual slavery and the list goes on.

     Religion has, over the history of mankind, been repeatedly used as justification for war, torture and mass murder.  As I said earlier, I know many who use religion to motivate them to great, humanitarian acts.  But we need to be honest here and also admit that it has often helped people to justify the most immoral and inhumane acts as well.

     So is any religion, let alone the Christian Conservative version, the be-all and end-all of morality?  Do we need to have someone's version of religious beliefs forced upon us for our own good?  Will we simply run amok, wreaking havoc and laying waste to our world and it's inhabitants without God's guidance?  I think that the answer is quite clearly a loud and emphatic no. 

     In America, we are fortunate to have freedom of religion.  As much as I might disagree with many of the beliefs and behaviors of Christian Conservatives and other religious adherents, I cannot determine for them what they should believe.  They have the right to follow the religion of their choice, but as with all rights, they are only assured that right if they do not infringe upon the rights of others.  This last facet is often forgotten in America but it is time we send a reminder to those who seek to spread their theology and legislate their version of morality. 

     I am not a Christian.  I am not even particularly religious although I choose to think of myself as a spiritual person; someone who feels that I am but one part of a greater whole.  I don't read the Bible, nor do I ask myself on a regular basis what Jesus would do.  I ask myself what I should do based on what I know to be right.  How do I know what's right?  It just may be that I've known it all along, that I was born knowing it and that my parents and my community helped to reinforce and further develop this innate knowledge.

     So, I say to the Conservative Christians and others who fear for my welfare, my impact on society and my salvation, fear not.  I know what is true and good, I have always known and I can be trusted to act accordingly, without your help.

     For more information on Dr. Hauser's research into the origins of morality, please see the New York Times article from Oct. 2006 or his book, Moral Minds.  For a thorough discussion of the crisis of faith in America and the dangers of religion, see Sam Harris' book, The End of Faith or his Letter to a Christian Nation.  Another interesting read that illustrates the necessity of the separation of church and state to not only protect the rights of the non-religious, but to ensure the freedom to religion is Piety and Politics by the Rev. Barry Lynn.  He is the Executive Director for The Americans United for the Separation of Church and State.

Comments

[Karla]

You should check out "End of Reason" By Ravi Zacharias. It's a response to Sam Harris' "End of Faith". All people have the desire for moral constructs. The difference is that atheism doesn't logically support the moral construct. Atheist can live moral lives because they are human, but their belief system does not support their morality. Everyone has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to validate their claims of good or evil.
Check out my blogspot at www.answerbearer.blogspot.com

[Lori]

Karla,

Thanks for your book recommendation and your website link...I am sure that many people will check them out and that you, and Zacharias, have many interesting things to say.

I am not quite sure that I understand what you were trying to say in your comment otherwise. It sounds as if you are saying that atheistic beliefs cannot support moral behavior. It also seems as though you are implying that the only place definitions of good and evil are to be found is within Christian doctrine. These statements, if I am understanding you, would suggest that the scores of people that inhabited this earth before the dawn of Christianity and those who inhabit the earth now but are ignorant of, or choose to hold beliefs other than those espoused by, Chriatianity must be amoral. This is obviously incorrect.

The argument that people have to look to Christianity for moral validation also doesn't explain why studies of primates have shown them to hold and live by similar moral standards to our human ones, unless of course they are reading the bible when the researchers aren't looking!

None of this makes any sense, so I'm probably just not understanding what you were trying to say. Meanwhile, let me clarify a few things that perhaps I didn't make clear. Atheism is simply a lack of belief in a personal, supreme being. It defines what someone does not believe, rather than what they do believe. Morality, is simply a set of beliefs as to what is right and wrong when it comes to behavior. Most people of many faiths and of no faith at all have belief systems that include the idea of right and wrong. In fact, science is beginning to show that these tendencies that humans (and many other animals) have towards and away from certain behaviors deemed good or evil are innate. In other words, they are part of our genetic coding. They aren't always expressed in the same way, due to socialization within the family or culture or due to dysfunction caused by negative or traumatic life experiences, but the tendencies are there from the beginning. Religion didn't invent the idea of good and evil, right and wrong.

Christianity and many other religions offer us guidance in following the moral codes of conduct that most of us share. They may due it in different ways and with varying degrees of success, but there is no argument that religions do seek to motivate people to live moral lives. There is also no way to argue that, twisted over the centuries by humans who have sought to use religion to oppress others and empower themselves and further their own agendas, most religions have inspired horrible and destructive behavior as well.

Although it may seem so, I am not trying to convince anyone to become an atheist. I am simply presenting the argument that morality is inherent, it does not need to be forced upon people and no one religion's version of morality should be legislated and forced upon others.

[Karla]

I appreciate your response. I like to read things by atheists and by people of other belief systems because I think it is only fair to learn from the horses mouth so to speak what people believe versus from secondary sources. In contrast, I notice many like Dawkins and Harris fail to truly study what Christianity is all about before they write books railing against it.

As for morality. I agree that atheists can live moral lives. I don't agree that atheism provides a philosophical support for mankind's interest in being moral.

The Christian worldview is connected to the Judaic worldview. It does not begin with Jesus, but the story begins at the beginning of time and continues eternally. I hear many people claim that Christianity is a new "religion" only coming on the scene 2000 years ago, but this is not true at all.

I agree that no one's morality should be forced upon another either by legal means or by social or religious compulsion. Jesus was all about people's hearts and not about prescribing external moral laws. Forcing anyone to do anything does not create a heart change and heart changes can never be forced.

Christians sometimes give the wrong idea to non-Christians either because of the Christian's ignorance or immaturity that Christianity is about morality and rules and such. When really it is about a relationship with God through Jesus who transforms our hearts and morality happens as a by product of that transformation.

[Lori]

Karla,

Well said. While it seems that we may differ on the question of the beginning of Judaism coinciding with the beginning of time, I do agree with you on your perception of Jesus and the majority of his message being one of personal transformation that comes from within, not without. I also believe that we need to understand each other's positions before we trash them (if trashing is even needed is up for debate). I have read and continue to read up on many of the world's reilgions as well as agnostic and atheistic writings. I find it all very fascinating.

I think that the ideal approach would be to live and let live; to have respect and tolerance for each others beliefs. It just becomes worrisome when some people take their beliefs too far and use them to gain power over others. Right now we have this problem with Islam...the belief that one's own religion is "the one true religion" and that everyone else must believe or die by the sword is a dangerous idea to say the least. Religious tolerance can only work if we are all in agreement that we each have the right to choose for ourselves and no one faith is the keeper of the "truth." What do we do when religious zealots use their faith and scripture to justify murder, oppression, terrorism? It's a problem to which I have no answer.

Many Atheists and Humanists would say that doing away with religion all together is the only answer. For the billions of faithful in the world, I hope that isn't the only answer. Humans need to find a way to understand the world and their places in it...to find some sense of meaning to it all. Religion provides this for many. While there are other places and ways to seek meaning and purpose, religion is one of these ways. Is the end of religion the only way? Is one universal religion the answer, but if so, which one...or some conglomeration of them all? How do we continue to have the benefits of religion without the dangers? Oh if we could only find the answer to that, then we'd be somewhere wouldn't we?

[Karla]

You raise great questions. First, I must say I have no intentions of trashing anyone's belief. I value your opinions and belief system. I can do that and disagree with it at the same time.

I understand your concerns about Islam. As I think we agree though -- Christianity is not about doing things by force. Albeit, there are historical and sometimes modern examples of professing Christians doing things by force, but I think we agree you can't find support for that in Jesus teachings.

If all religions are merely man made ideologies, then it would seem to be no big deal to eradicate all such systems and get beyond them to peace for it seems like much of the world's conflict stems from religious differences. Israel v. Palestine, and the problems in the Middle East.

But, what if true peace is found only in God? What if Jesus was who He said He was and peace is only found in Him? In that case, getting rid of belief in Him (if that were possible) would not bring peace, but cause more harm in the world.

No one can make the whole world believe one thing except by force and that would be wrong and wouldn't be true belief because if your forced to love God then that wouldn't be love. Or if you are forced to not love God that wouldn't be true either.

What if God does exist? And if He does, what if He is the answer to life's problems and we go on living life without seeking Him? What if all our conflicts are because we do things mans way instead of God's way? What if true life, peace, and goodness is rooted in Him who created us? What if the answer is found in His love and not in man made religions? What if Christianity isn't a construct of religion, but a revelation of God's truth for the world? For the only way we as finite human beings could know He exist is through Him revealing Himself to us in a way we can understand. What if He has done that and is doing that still and yet we ignore the revelation because it didn't come in the format we thought it should?

What if knowing God can change hearts which will make the world a better place versus man making more laws for man knowing that man doesn't keep our own laws. What if it isn't about laws at all, but about God's transforming power to create in us redeemed hearts that enable us to love our neighbor as our self?

[Lori]

Karla,

I in no way meant to imply that you were trashing my beliefs or anyone elses. You are clearly not. I was making a general statement. Sorry if you took that personally, it wasn't directed at you.

Moving on...you ask many, many good questions to which I think there are no definite answers. What if indeed? I certainly don't know the answers to these questions nor, do I believe, does anyone else. I try to have an open mind and, while I believe there is little evidence to support the existence of any God let alone of one true God (Christian or otherwise), I remain open to the possibility. I can't prove that God doesn't exist any more than you can prove that he does.

Suffice it to say that none of us know for sure and, in my opinion, anyone who claims with certainty to know the unknowable is to be feared. Religious zealots and militant atheists are birds of a feather and their divisiveness is counter-productive.

You and I may disagree on several points, but we seem to agree on the most important ones - the need for peace in our world and the unanswerability (is that a word?) of many of life's big questions. May we all find what we are looking for in our search for the truth.

[Karla]

Hello again. I hope you don't mind my continued comments. The conversation is a valuable one. However, if you wish that I stop at this point I will kindly do so. I am glad you are a seeker of truth and have not ruled out the possibility of God's existence. You've said you like to study religions may I suggest "Jesus Among Other Gods" by Ravi Zacharias as a good read on comparing belief systems.

I do think we can know the answers to a great extent, however, not all answers this side of heaven. Humans aren't omniscient. I think there will always be mysteries in life, but I think the answer to God's existence or non-existence makes a big difference in all of life. And the answer to that answers a lot of other questions. I think we have to keep pressing on for the answers.

Your right, that neither position can be proven. But I think truth is experiential as well as philosophical or theological in nature. I think when the truth (that which lines up with reality) is found it will make sense philosophically and be good practically as well.

I have experienced God in a variety of ways that I do know He exist even though I cannot prove it to another.

You mention claiming to know the unknowable. But what if I know the knowable? What if God is knowable and I've encountered Him? What if knowing Him produces love and not hate and thus is not dangerous? Knowing the answers to life's great questions does not mean one must impose that knowledge on another by force.

The only reason our hearts and minds cry out for justice in an unjust world is because somewhere within us was implanted the idea that this is not the way things are supposed to be. If we are merely "dancing to our DNA" as Dawkins suggest we would have no reason to cry out for justice in the face of evil. Somehow we know better and we know it isn't to be like this and that there is something greater to strive for and we can't find it in ourselves because we know our duplicitous nature. Yet we value the good and we do so because God has given us this desire. Where do we get this idea of good? Is it subjective? Or is there something by which we measure it that is greater than humanity?

[AV]

The difference is that atheism doesn't logically support the moral construct.

Atheism is a single position on a single question--"Do you believe in the existence of a deity/deities?." Nothing more. Nothing less. Like theism, it does not prescribe any kind of morality, nor does it purport to prescribe it. (Sorry if I'm repeating what Lori has already said, but it bears repeating.)

Everyone has to borrow from the Christian worldview in order to validate their claims of good or evil.

What is the empirical evidence that supports this claim?

You mention claiming to know the unknowable. But what if I know the knowable? What if God is knowable and I've encountered Him?

I don't think there is any reason to doubt that you believe you've encountered God. But your belief does not constitute sufficient evidence of God's existence for third parties like Lori or myself. If it did, we would have to accept as true all kinds of beliefs people may have: that leprechauns exist, that the Loch Ness Monster exists, that fairies exists, that ghosts exist, and so on.

The only reason our hearts and minds cry out for justice in an unjust world is because somewhere within us was implanted the idea that this is not the way things are supposed to be.

How do you know this is the only reason? How can you demonstrate that the demand for "justice in an unjust world" is universal and/or innate? It obviously can't be, otherwise there would be no injustice in the world to begin with. (Also, who gets to be the arbiter of what constitutes "justice," anyway?)

If we are merely "dancing to our DNA" as Dawkins suggest we would have no reason to cry out for justice in the face of evil.

Why?

Somehow we know better and we know it isn't to be like this and that there is something greater to strive for and we can't find it in ourselves because we know our duplicitous nature.

I'm sorry if I seem rude, but I find this kind of sweeping assertion irritating, and I really must ask you to substantiate it with evidence.

Yet we value the good and we do so because God has given us this desire.

How do you know this? And more importantly, on what grounds should we believe it?

Where do we get this idea of good? Is it subjective? Or is there something by which we measure it that is greater than humanity?

I suggest you read Lori's post again. If Hauser's research is anything to go by, our intuitions about morality ("the idea of good," if you will) have an evolutionary basis--they are biological traits that have been selected for, possibly because they give a survival and reproductive advantage. There is no need at all to posit a supernatural explanation.

As a postscript, I don't think that all of our moral intuitions are necessarily "hardwired." The idea that murder is wrong is probably biological, but I would argue that the notion that slavery is wrong is cultural-historical. The former notion, you might say, is genetic; the latter, memetic--given that slavery was for milennia not considered immoral. No, not even by Christians.

[Karla]

Hi AV,

I'm sorry my responses were incomplete in providing explanations of my statements. I hope that I can clarify more for you. You can find some of my thoughts on all of this on my blogspot if you are in need of more detail than I provide in the following response.

The ontological answer dictates the epistemological answers. We have to answer the question of being before we can answer the questions of knowing. If you answer the question of being in that there is no Being (God) all the knowledge questions are then answered on that presuppositional basis. If you answer the question of being, that God does exist all the other answers to life's questions will follow that presuppositional claim.

Science cannot prove the metaphysical as it is a study of the physical. We cannot extrapolate a metaphysical answer on the basis of physical knowledge. We can look at the information and make a conclusion but we will never have scientific proof. Both the atheist and the theist make the assertion of God's existence or non-existence based on faith and reason. I think the atheist has to use more faith than the theist, for I see a preponderance of evidence that points to God's existence even though non of it can prove it any more than the atheist "evidence" can disprove His existence.

When you posit the non-existence of God all foundation of knowledge is lost. How can we know anything is real? How can we use logic? How can we cry out for justice? How can anything be really real? Or true?

Logically if we want to prove that A is true, then we have to prove B is true and to prove B we have to prove C. Somewhere truth has to just be or else we can never prove anything. Descarte started with his own thinking as the place which he could build on for epistemology. He said I think therefore I am. He starts with his thinking and posits his existence and from that starting place begins to know other thing. How is that possible? How can we be an anchor for what is true? We know we are duplicitous and we know we are fallible so how can truth rest in us?

So you think that we can desire Justice when Justice isn't attainable? Who brings justice? Humans? Are you saying that slavery was justified until it was outlawed and seen as wrong by the culture? Don't you think the slaves saw it as wrong even then? What makes it wrong? Consensus of a community? Laws of government? So did it become wrong, or was it always wrong?

[Karla]

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying that it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too--for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist--in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless--I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality--namely my idea of justice--was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

~C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity

[Lori]

AV,

Thanks for taking up the torch. Your questions and detailed commentary have added a great deal to the conversation. Also, you are right..all of our moral intentions are probably not innate, some are perhaps cultural. Thanks for making that distinction and for your intelligent and interesting input.

Karla,

Thank you for adding so much conversation to my blog. Although we may have to agree to disagree on many points, the conversation has been interesting.

I think that your point that "somewhere the truth has to just be" is a valid one but that this starting point (or ending point) for truth will be perceived to be in a different place for each of us. For you, it is in God. For others, it may be instinctual or a product of evolution. For many, the origin of truth may be unknowable or yet to be discovered. Also, I have to disagree that atheism takes more faith than religion. Faith is belief "in" something for which there is no proof. Atheists are saying, I'll believe it if you can offer evidence. They are speaking only of that in which they do not believe which requires no faith.

Anyway, I see no point in arguing about it too much. I'm certainly not going to change your mind, nor are you likely to change mine! Suffice it to say that, while we have all brought up many interesting ideas and offered up many questions, most of these questions are not likely to be definitively answered any day soon. You choose to answer those questions through faith and a belief in God, I choose to be very comfortable not knowing, others will choose to wait for science to provide answers. In the meantime, I hope that we can all continue to get along!

Thanks to both of you for keeping the conversation civil and respectful. Feel free to keep the conversation going - I'll check back in.

[AV]

"If you answer the question of being in that there is no Being (God) all the knowledge questions are then answered on that presuppositional basis."

What is the "question of being?" How do you know that God is the answer to that question?

"Science cannot prove the metaphysical as it is a study of the physical. We cannot extrapolate a metaphysical answer on the basis of physical knowledge."

Fine. But what reason is there for me (or anyone else) to accept that the metaphysical exists, or at least is worth taking into consideration?

"Both the atheist and the theist make the assertion of God's existence or non-existence based on faith and reason."

Nope. Atheism per se does not assert God's non-existence. Strong atheism asserts that God doesn't exist. Weak atheism is simply a lack of belief in the existence of a deity--generally given the lack of evidence for the existence of a deity--and is therefore compatible with agnosticism (an epistemological position, not a belief position) regarding the existence of deities. To wit: I (as a weak atheist) don't claim to know whether God exists, but I lack belief in God's existence because I see no reason to believe that God exists. All atheists are weak atheists in sofar as all atheists lack belief in God's existence, but only some atheists are strong atheists (insofar as they make a positive knowledge claim that God does not exist).

"I think the atheist has to use more faith than the theist,"

Wrong. See above.

"When you posit the non-existence of God all foundation of knowledge is lost. How can we know anything is real?"

Why do you need to posit the existence of God to know that anything is real?

"Logically if we want to prove that A is true, then we have to prove B is true and to prove B we have to prove C. Somewhere truth has to just be or else we can never prove anything."

Assuming this is the case, why does this "truth that has to just be" have to be a deity (or more specifically, why does it have to be the particular deity worshipped by semi-nomadic tribes in the Middle East thousands of years ago)?

Why is it the case that "somewhere truth has to just be or else we can never prove anything?" Indeed, how do you know that "truth" has an ontological existence in the first place?

"He said I think therefore I am. He starts with his thinking and posits his existence and from that starting place begins to know other thing."

He jumped the gun. As at least one of his critics observed, he should have said "I think, therefore there is thinking," or "I think, therefore there are thoughts." You can argue that thinking or thoughts implies some kind of thing that thinks, but you can't get to that argument via Cartesian skepticism. Nor can you prove that this thing that thinks = the famous "I" of modern Western philosophy.

How does Descartes know he isn't a brain in a vat?

"So you think that we can desire Justice when Justice isn't attainable?"

Where did I say that? And why are you capitalising the word "justice?"

"Who brings justice? Humans?"

Who else? I know what you're going to say, but if you're going to say it, please provide evidence of this "divine justice."

"Are you saying that slavery was justified until it was outlawed and seen as wrong by the culture?"

No. I don't think slavery is, or ever was justified. That's completely beside the point. The point is that in the societies which practiced slavery, slavery was not seen as immoral. Not even Christians saw slavery as immoral; in the antebellum South, Christian slaveowners and clergymen alike cited the Bible in order to justify the practice.

Don't you think the slaves saw it as wrong even then?

I don't know. I don't have enough evidence to say whether they did or didn't. I'm sure some did, just as I'm sure that in those North African societies where it is practiced, some of the victims of female genital mutilation see it as wrong. That's beside the point. The prevailing moral zeitgeist in ancient societies, and in many societies until quite recently in human history, did not view slavery as immoral.

What makes it wrong? Consensus of a community? Laws of government?

The harm principle. The ethic of reciprocity. "Justice as Fairness." Take your pick. But that's my take on what makes it wrong, based on the notion that the best (or least worst) kind of society is a liberal democracy, and slavery is inconsistent with liberal democracy.

But as a social animal, as a member of a community, I have to argue for this in the context of rational dialogue. I have to convince others that a liberal democratic society will produce the best outcomes for them, for everyone. And I have to convince them that slavery is incompatible with liberal democracy.

To answer your question, though, who else is there to determine that slavery is wrong, if not communities of human beings. I don't have the authority to determine that slavery is wrong--I have to argue for my position on this issue. God doesn't have the authority to determine that slavery is wrong, because there is no evidence that such a being exists. The churches and holy men who purport to speak on God's behalf certainly don't have the authority to determine that slavery is wrong (many of their antecedents argued the opposite case).

"My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust."

Doesn't apply to me. And it's a strawman, I daresay, when applied to atheists as a group. We weren't all angry with God.

My argument against belief in God is that there is no evidence that God exists.

Other things Lewis assumes without justification or evidence:

If there is no God, there is no justice. Why? Because C.S. Lewis says so.

If there is no God, there is no meaning. Why? Because C.S. Lewis says so.

[NightOwl]

(JBH) Some animals are social animals, who survive by cooperating in groups. Humans are the most social of any, cooperating in groups that include millions.

Morality is the means by which peaceful cooperation is maintained among group members. If you want to maintain peaceful relations, don't kill, steal, lie, or break agreements. If you want peace, work for justice; people will fight if their share is too small. As Shakespeare wrote, "It needs no ghost, Milord, come from the grave, to tell us this."

Health is the ability to survive; the goal favored by natural selection is "promote the health of your family." We are all the offspring of uncounted generations of ancestors, every one of whom acted successfully to promote the health of their family.

Becuse we are social animals evolved by natural selection, we have bred into us a "natural" standard by which to judge our neighbors. A "good" person is a desirable neighbor, from the point of view of people who seek to live in peace and raise families.

Morality is not obedience. The Good is that which leads to health, the Right is that which leads to peace.

(Atheist basis for morality, in 200 words.)

[Lori]

JBH,

I don't know where you found that or if it is your own creation, but I love it!

It's true that morality is not obedience but doing what we know is right and good. Ensuring health and justice and equality for all ensures the same for ourselves. We are all of one family, the human family. In fact, we could broaden that and include all of nature couldn't we? We are all part of an interdependent web of being and concern for the health and well-being of the whole planet and all of it's inhabitants is simply in our own best interests.

[NightOwl]

(JBH) Thanks for your kind applause. It is my own, distilled down from some years of study and thought, but assembled from pieces already out there; a combination of the Social-Contract approach and the Aristotelean. I have longer-winded versions elsewhere on the net; try googling "Atheist Foundations of Ethics" by John B Hodges. But I think the short version, 200 words in plain English, may be more effective.

[Lori]

JBH,

I'll check out your longer-winded versions as well. Thanks!