Do you see red the same way that I do? I suppose there’s not really a way to know. Even if we could agree on seeing the subtle differences between fire engine red and candy apple red, how do we know that we’re seeing those differences in the same way?
You could get an objective definition of red from its unique wavelength. But in practical matters, that’s of little use to the average person. None of us may see that wavelength in exactly the same way. Nevertheless, our society seems to move along quite well by using red in traffic lights to tell us when to stop. If you were to ask several different people to identify the exact shade of red in a traffic light, you might get different answers. In fact, if you were to compare the reds of different traffic lights, you might come up with slightly different shades. But traffic lights work because instead of making each light a different shade of red (which would be horribly confusing), we make each light an entirely different color: red, yellow, green. Two people might disagree over which red more closely matches fire engine red, but they won’t usually disagree when it comes to identifying red over green.
This is something we all understand without the need to endlessly equivocate over whether colors are subjective or objective. They’re both, and we’ve learned how to work with them accordingly. But when we begin talking about theism vs atheism, we seem to lose this ability. Not in regard to color, of course, but in regard to morality.
It seems to me that morality works in exactly the same way as color. Take modesty for example. What passes for modesty in one place and time may not pass for modesty in another. Every time I’ve seen Michelle Obama, I would describe her as being dressed modestly. However, were she to dress that way in a conservative Muslim country, they might feel very differently. Or if she were to travel back in time to Victorian England, her attire would be scandalous. So while the average person in Western culture would say that Michelle Obama is modest, when compared to stricter definitions of modesty, the label may not apply so easily. In the same way, while it’s easy to pick out red from red, green, and yellow, it’s harder to pick the “reddest” from three shades of red.
To use another example, consider the hippocratic oath. It says that the physician will never do harm to anyone. Yet don’t physicians often give shots? Or administer treatments like chemotherapy? But we know that sometimes momentary discomfort is necessary to bring about a greater good. Administering a shot and pricking someone with a pin are almost identical in regard to how it makes someone feel, but one is moral while the other is not. It’s not hard to see the difference between the two, and no superior being needs to tell us which is better, just like no superior being needs to tell us the difference between red and green.
In discussions about whether or not there is a god, theists will sometimes say that an atheist has no basis on which to decide that one version of morality is better than another. But I profoundly disagree with this. God never told anyone what names to give for the colors. Even so, most people can easily distinguish between red and green. By the same token, it’s very easy to determine that generosity is far more moral than rape — we don’t need a god to tell us that.
However, just as its difficult to choose between shades of the same color, there are times when deciding what’s moral can be quite difficult. If your Aunt Sally asks what you thought of her lasagna, is it preferable to lie and tell her that it was good, or to be honest and tell her that you didn’t like it? A compelling case can be made either way. If a child molester is going to be released from custody on a technicality, is it more moral for the father of the victim to abide by the ruling, or take justice into his own hands? Again, the “right” thing to do in such a situation is not all that clear. But these more difficult situations are not improved by believing in a god. Even theists are puzzled by the right thing to do under such circumstances.
The Bible gives a great example of this in David. In 1 Sam 13 and Acts 13, David is referred to as a man after God’s own heart. Yet we see David make some interesting choices, considering that description. In 1 Samuel 21, David is running from King Saul, and he and his men are hungry. So he goes to see Ahimelech the high priest and asks for some food. Ahimelech tells David that the only food they have is the consecrated bread, which only priests can eat. David and his men eat the bread. In Mark 2:23-28, Jesus justifies David’s act here by saying that some of these laws are meant to benefit people, not restrict them. In other words, it’s situational.
In 1 Samuel 27, things have gotten so bad for David (as in Saul is out to kill him), that he takes refuge in Philistia and serves King Achish. For over a year, he serves this king, and how does he repay Achish’s kindness? By raiding Philistine villages — something Achish would not have appreciated. Whenever Achish asks David what he’s been up to, David says that he and his men have been out raiding Israelite villages, which Achish thinks is great. And David never leaves any survivors who could rat him out to Achish. We’re never given any indication that God was displeased by this. In fact, it’s presented as being quite cunning — isn’t David cool?! So lying is okay if it keeps you out of trouble?
If the Bible gives us mixed messages when it comes to the moral conundrums that we all find difficult to navigate, and if we don’t actually need any help in figuring out what’s moral when presented with extremes (caring for the needy vs murder), then why are we supposed to think that belief in a god is somehow necessary to establish moral principles at all? When you get right down to it, identifying morality is usually like identifying colors: you know it when you see it. Why make it more complicated by that?
Finding Truth 
Mike,
Are you saying that God didn’t prohibit slavery because he was worried about the freed slave not finding employment? Then why didn’t God command the Israelites to hire freed slaves? Or to give them charity? Wouldn’t the OT laws concerning the poor have applied to these freed slaves?
LikeLike
Hey William,
Your response is interesting because ARk earlier made the accusation that Christians “move the goal post” in defense of the Bible but you just moved the goal post in defense of your accusation against the Bible. Faced with no evidence in the text of approval of David’s actions your response is there is no disapproval as if thats evidence for you and Nate’s claim that it implies “Isn’t David Cool?”
“Nothing in the text specifically says one way or the other, but i dont think it takes too much imagination to see where I’m coming from here”
Not to be confrontational but its something I see on this blog A LOT. Shouldn’t it take more than imagination/opinion when you are using something (that text for example) as proof as Nate does? As a matter of fact logically I don’t see where you are coming from . how can no comment on an action equal “isn’t David cool?” In order for that to have any semblance of reasonability it would have to be a condition that every single historical story in the Bible has to have a commentary pro or con from God which frankly is ridiculous and special pleading.
” And again, nate didnt make the color analogy himself, I’ve heard plenty of preachers use the “black and white” analogy many, many times. ”
No they don’t…Its not an analogy its an idiom. theres a HUGE difference Black is associated with Evil most likely because crimes are committed more often at night and criminals dress in dark clothes at night as well. I have never heard the ability to see color being analogous to determining morality. In addition its a reference to something written (text – black and white) again just referring to the color of ink on paper expressing laws. Nate’s analogy just does not fly because there IS NO RATIONALIZATION process in seeing. You open your eyes and there it is.
Further no rational person argue against the color they see. They may argue what it is called but what they see is what they see. Comparing that to morality that people violate as the see fit even for selfish reasons makes the comparison not apples and oranges but apples and handbags. two entirely different things.
LikeLike
“you pointed out that a lot of sick people may think that rape is the right thing to do, that it’s justified or even generous. But there are just as many so called religious people who claim to be following god by committing atrocities as well and no doubt have their scripture to justify their actions.”
Not sure the point you were trying to make but its contradictory. To defend the position that morality is rationally deducible you label the people who prove it isn’t – as sick – but then indict religious people using scripture to justify actions. Why is it contradictory? because if you admit sick people can act immorally then sick people can also read the Bible and get it wrong therefore exonerating the Bible of any culpability.
“It could be said that they’re misusing the scriptures no easier than it could be said that the rapists are misusing their reason.”
equally contradictory since reading requires reason. Therefore the only thing that would say is that rapists (or people given to that thought process) misuse reasoning, not as a contrast to people misusing scripture, but in the same way. So again what point you are trying to make there I am not sure of
” Even the religious read the bible and use their reason to say whether this passage is literal and this one figurative. This was good in one case, not here for these reasons, etc.”
As the text indicates itself almost every time but what does this have to do with making the case that Morality can be derived without God? Are you denying that the ideas of right and wrong themselves came either directly or indirectly without reference to a God when its a fact that almost everyone who you have associated with derived it from that context?
In short where is your proof? That the text implies what you claim it implies or that morality is derived without reference to theism? We can agree to disagree of course but at the end of the day shouldn’t you have some proof for your claims?
LikeLike
“Then why didn’t God command the Israelites to hire freed slaves? Or to give them charity? Wouldn’t the OT laws concerning the poor have applied to these freed slaves?”
Think it through Nate. today we have a predominantly representative monetary vehicle we call money. We take that and can find places to rent and houses to buy. Totally different economy. although currencies existed in ancient times the average person could go weeks, months even years without seeing it. The Predominant means of survival were barter or living off the land. Your families land. So you hire all people from the surrounding countries and your own. You build houses for them too? You apply the laws of charity within your country to all nations around you? How long do you exist as a nation?
Now as per the Bible passages I showed before if you had some means and wanted to be free you could leave with a specific command and law that no one should return you. From what I have read “slaves” were not even guarded or chained. Most stayed for those same economic reasons.
LikeLike
Hi Mike, havent made it past this yet – “Your response is interesting because ARk earlier made the accusation that Christians “move the goal post” in defense of the Bible but you just moved the goal post in defense of your accusation against the Bible. Faced with no evidence in the text of approval of David’s actions your response is there is no disapproval as if thats evidence for you and Nate’s claim that it implies “Isn’t David Cool?””
I dont typically like these types of replies (the text doesnt specifically state…), but did so because that’s basically what you were doing when you said no where in the text did it say david was cool, etc. I was just trying to that this argument can easily be made both ways.
I think think in the entire context of david’s life, he was the cool guy. I even thought so when i was a christian. I reacall many teachers, preachers and disciples laughing about the cleverness and the stick-it-to-them-ness regarding david’s philistine relationships.
it may be good to avoid climbing up on pedestals here. let;s simply discuss the facts. on this point, we just disagree.
LikeLike
“Not to be confrontational but its something I see on this blog A LOT”
I agree, except from my point of view, it’s from those opposed to the position on this blog. But it’s okay if we disagree here too.
LikeLike
“it may be good to avoid climbing up on pedestals here. let;s simply discuss the facts. on this point, we just disagree.”
Well now William who is climbing up on a pedestal when they claim that the Bible implies someone is cool for lying? Seems to me that is in fact a derogatory observation of the Bible and made from a pedestal of superiority over the Bible and bible believers.
” let;s simply discuss the facts.”
I’ve been trying to…Can I have your verse that states or even implies what you claim about the text condoning lying? Its either in the chapter or not and not a matter of whether we agree. Teachers, preachers and disciples laughing several thousand years later that you may have heard (I heard none of that in Sunday school. thousands of messages, Bible school or seminary) are not relevant to the text. Keep it to the facts in the text.
Do you have such a passage or not? Stating a bank was robbed and not stating whether it was wrong or right is not in any logical construct a claim that it was right.
LikeLike
“Not sure the point you were trying to make but its contradictory.”
if you don’t get the point, then how can you say it’s contradictory? I think maybe, like last time, we’re talking past one another – constantly misunderstanding one another.
maybe we should start over?
“As the text indicates itself almost every time but what does this have to do with making the case that Morality can be derived without God? Are you denying that the ideas of right and wrong themselves came either directly or indirectly without reference to a God when its a fact that almost everyone who you have associated with derived it from that context?”
I think you’re saying that god and the bible are the source of morality, but history shows us that “eye for an eye” was well in circulation prior to moses, and that socrates said not to render evil for evil prior to paul writing it.
History also shows that all the literate civilizations prior to the bible and the written OT had moral laws that were similar to or the same as those read in the bible.
so if we want to say that they all came from god – i wont argue with that. I just do not agree that they originated from the bible – even if it was the source sited in my rearing.
additionally, invading a country that has not attacked my country and then completely killing the entire population, to include women and children, is wrong, but not according the bible. god cannot commit evil according to the bible, yet we’re supposed to believe god commanded the israelites to this?
it would mean that this genocide is not evil in and of itself, but only if god approved of it or not. If that’s true, then i guess morality cant really be known by man, that we’d have to have him tell us what it is and when it changes.
is this your postion?
LikeLike
“Well now William who is climbing up on a pedestal when they claim that the Bible implies someone is cool for lying? Seems to me that is in fact a derogatory observation of the Bible and made from a pedestal of superiority over the Bible and bible believers.”
I dont claim to know outright, I’m just saying how it reads to me. I’m allowing that I could be wrong and that you could be right – it’s you who’s saying a particular position (yours) is more right.
It’s not me on the ladder.
LikeLike
“I agree, except from my point of view,
You keep coming back to that and what you agree or disagree with but of what importance is a point of view if you have no proof to back it up? Doesn’t everybody already know that everyone has a point of view?
SO again what is your proof? You said lets talk facts but all you are doing is relating your opinions. If all you are bringing to the table is your point of view sans evidence then further discussion is meaningless. Basically its just an admission you hold your positions without reference to any evidence ad regardless of what the text says.
LikeLike
“Do you have such a passage or not? Stating a bank was robbed and not stating whether it was wrong or right is not in any logical construct a claim that it was right.”
very good points. how many more times would you like me to say that I could be wrong and that I simply read it that, despite the absence of any specific passages?
LikeLike
“You keep coming back to that and what you agree or disagree with but of what importance is a point of view if you have no proof to back it up?”
and what is your proof mike? so far we’re two assholes who keep saying what we think it says – because neither of us (and this is important) have any specific passages that state otherwise.
show me your passage where david was condemned for it? we can see where he was condemned for killing uriah and taking his wife. God made sure to point that out – so he was at least not as displeased in david for lying to the philistine enemies.
LikeLike
“Basically its just an admission you hold your positions without reference to any evidence ad regardless of what the text says.”
and the only real difference between the two of us is that i recognize that I am giving my opinion, while act as if you’re speaking for god almighty – without the proof you beg for so much.
LikeLike
“Do you have such a passage or not? Stating a bank was robbed and not stating whether it was wrong or right is not in any logical construct a claim that it was right.”
true, but if you surround that claim with a context, like billy the kid in young guns, one can be understood to infer billy the kid was a cool bank robber. Or were you not a fan of that movie?
LikeLike
“I think you’re saying that god and the bible are the source of morality, but history shows us that “eye for an eye” was well in circulation prior to moses, and that socrates said not to render evil for evil prior to paul writing it.”
Moral law existed before Moses even Moses would tell you – In fact he did in genesis which has much of the account of what took place before he was alive. its not even a biblical position to claim that morality started with Moses so no Christian does
I’m not claiming that God and the Bible are the source of morality in our culture. its a fact of the history that it is in Europe, North and South America, Australia, Russian, Most of Africa. In Asia less so (but again Christianity claims morality stretches further back than Moses)it still tracks itself back to theism. These things are logically undeniable.
LikeLike
“its a fact of the history that it is in Europe, North and South America, Australia, Russian, Most of Africa.”
fair enough, but people got it from somewhere before the bible was ever written – its fact of the history.
so logically, people didnt need the bible for morality. and unless you’re all for invading godless countries and killing all of their babies, you’re using your reason to determine when not to do that instead of following god’s given examples.
LikeLike
“and what is your proof mike? so far we’re two assholes who keep saying what we think it says – because neither of us (and this is important) have any specific passages that state otherwise.”
You are free to call yourself an asshole and be having an intelligent conversation but I will reject you calling me one. I’ve already present ed my Proof. You want it again? here
http://biblehub.com/niv/1_samuel/27.htm
Exhibit A that there is no statement in 27 that states anything but a reporting of what David did without any passage stating approval or disapproval
Since we have got to the asshole name calling lets call a spade a spade. its not in there you and nate made it up because it suits your own point of view.
LikeLike
“additionally, invading a country that has not attacked my country and then completely killing the entire population, to include women and children, is wrong, but not according the bible. god cannot commit evil according to the bible, yet we’re supposed to believe god commanded the israelites to this?”
Its not wrong for God to take back what is his (life) as he sees fit (and based on the knowledge he has that I don’t). No? then you might as well claim that God is guilty of genocide because today millions of people will die. So ules People live forever in disobedience to him you could accuse God of something. Now is it wrong for me to commit genocide? yes. but I am not God . YOU can sleep with your wife and it be fine but If I do then thats immoral. the argument that God cannot take back life he gave is a common but empty atheist claim.
LikeLike
“David did without any passage stating approval or disapproval”
that’s been my point. You are the asshole because I’ve said that a number of times. so again, neither you nor I have specific scriptural proof.
we’re going from context now and we each just see that differently. I’ve stated this several times. where we part ways is when you say my opinion on the matter doesnt count because I cnat find a specific verse that says david was cool or david was justified. etc.
I said you were right. but i think the entire context made him out to be the cool good guy – you disagree – I can see where you’re cioming from, although i disagree. You cant imagine my point of view even thouigh you have no specific verses either, and so there’s nothing else to discuss on david.
LikeLike
“Its not wrong for God to take back what is his (life) as he sees fit (and based on the knowledge he has that I don’t). No? then you might as well claim that God is guilty of genocide because today millions of people will die. So ules People live forever in disobedience to him you could accuse God of something. Now is it wrong for me to commit genocide? yes. but I am not God . YOU can sleep with your wife and it be fine but If I do then thats immoral. the argument that God cannot take back life he gave is a common but empty atheist claim.”
so your position is what I thought it was. thanks for clarifying.
LikeLike
“fair enough, but people got it from somewhere before the bible was ever written – its fact of the history.
so logically, people didnt need the bible for morality.”
nope logically the stories in the Bible were written before the Bible was written not during or after. To hear you tell it it was Like Moses claimed that sin was defined after he wrote his books. Its a strawman. No one claims that. Look you can claim whatever you wish but morality in your culture WAS determined upon the bible. Almost no one cited anything else. IF you cant deal with that fact and can only fall back to what your claims are or what you personally disagree on thensans any evidence theres no point in this discussion and you’ve pretty much proved from Samuel 27 that the facts be damned you will hold to whatever it is you hold to.
LikeLike
“nope logically the stories in the Bible were written before the Bible was written not during or after.”
so it was written before it was written, not during or after? I’m not sure if that’s logic – but out of curiosity, do you have any sources?
LikeLike
there are still places on earth where jedeau-chrsitian principles have never taken a foothold, yet the people still achieved and understanding of morality. Perhaps the bible god bestowed it upon without the bible – or by writing it for them without writing it for them (still trying that one out), but that’s pure conjecture. history doesnt bear it out.
LikeLike
“that’s been my point. You are the asshole because I’ve said that a number of times.”
LOL… the atheist in full blown name calling cursing mode because he has absolutely ZERO evidence for the claim he continues to hold on to. Heres a thought. If you are an honest person (IF) . Don’t make claims against a passage unless you have positive proof that it says what you want it to say. Merely saying well it doesn’t but I think it might is just desperately intellectually dishonest. no matter what you claim for it. Anyway now that you are in full name calling mode you can discuss with your comrades how you were right and i was an ahem asshole. After all its about the rubber stamping not anything about finding truth 😉
LikeLike
“so it was written before it was written, not during or after? I’m not sure if that’s logic – ”
Touche…Finally made one good point. I meant to write
“nope logically the stories in the Bible took place before the Bible was written not during or after.”
Just as I had said before
“there are still places on earth where jedeau-chrsitian principles have never taken a foothold, yet the people still achieved and understanding of morality. ”
Name one civilized country that didn’t have missionaries and one ANYWHERE in ANY TRIBE that did not rely on theism
LikeLike