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 
” However, multiple passages say that David was a “man after God’s own heart” — as far as I know, that’s a description given to no one else in the Bible. And it’s a fact that the Bible does not condemn his lying to Achish.”
Thats pretty weak Nate. This man after God’s own heart was guilty of both killing a man and committing adultery so the term is definitely not a reference to being sinless or being above being wrong .Its a fact that your impression was what you read into the text and there is nothing in the text either condoning or condemning. You made it up. It just states the reality of what happened. Nothing else. and sorry its not minor. its the proof text YOU chose which is telling
“Some Christians (maybe not you) claim that the 10 Commandments is our source of morality.”
I know of no Christian that claims that morality began at the ten commandments. Most of the ten commandments are just formalized already known laws and almost every Christian I know knows this. Cain’s murder of Abel takes place well over a thousand years before Moses and the source for that? Moses! SO thou shalt not kill is as old as civilization if Moses is to be believed. Issues of sexual morality, theft, idolatry, the Sabbath. stealing, false witness are all in genesis predating the exodus and mount Sinai by hundreds of years. You ought to know this nate since you said you were a bible teacher
“Moses would have lived long after Hammurabi, and the 10 Commandments definitely appear to be derivative of Hammurabi’s code, which itself is derivative of the earlier Code of Ur-Nammu. ”
Thats actually your opinion and nothing else. The use of definitely and appear together is almost an oxymoron. I know of no Historian who believes The Ur-Nammu was the beginning or even original source for morality. You are confusing recorded surviving tablets with original source. the bibles position would be that the original source of morality are the events in genesis. Since no one knows the original source it is impossible to claim similarities are definitely derived from one another rather than an even earlier source in common.
Again like William you are just assuming the Law given at Mount Sinai is the beginning of moral law according to Judaism and Christianity and that is patently false.
Now of course you as an atheist are free to argue that the morality of the BIble is derived from anything you wish but the word definitely has a more precise meaning than arguing and the predating of tablets before Moses makes no case for evidence against Genesis being correct that Morality was derived from man’s previous contact with God long before Moses.
Let me reiterated Nate Lest you miss the point . if morality and moral laws did not predate Moses then Moses would have been a liar because he says they do – even the sacrificial system existed previous to Moses according to Moses. So showing that there were laws previous to Moses says nothing you or William claim it does.
“An even stronger point to consider is that other mammals have shown basics of morality as well, which indicates our species has been working on morality long before we developed a god concept.”
Ridiculously weak which to use a Bible verse indicates you will strain at a gnat and swallow a camel(and yes I have seen some of the studies that try to take leaps and bounds from little evidence). If thats the case my dog shows signs of morality. If thats your stronger point it shows how weak your argument is.
and yes at the end of the day our culture did derive its morality from the Bible. You can point to any tablet you wish. It does not change the fact that the Bible brought those rules of morality to our culture and not a Babylonian tablet or steele. Furthermore none of them help you in the least with arguing that morality is established outside of a religious theistic framework as they are all steeped in that reference.Like it or not accept it or not you have no evidence that morality can or would be established outside of a theistic framework because you yourself have morality derived from a culture that got that sense from the Bible unless you are in denial and think you can divorce yourself from the culture you grew up in.
However logically that just does not work
LikeLike
I agree that morality was not created by any law tablet — they were simply writing out rules for their society, and those rules were based on moral principles that are more foundational to human nature. But this is also why I don’t think the 10 Commandments are all that important. It’s not like people needed God to tell them that murder was wrong — that was already known. If you’re not the kind of Christian who points to them as the ultimate expression of morality, then we can simply move on.
I never said my morality could be divorced from my culture. I’m also well aware that Judeo-Christian teachings are a core component of Western civilization. So are the democratic principles picked up from the Greek and Roman cultures, as well as philosophical principles from ancient Greece. I have no problem with any of that, and I agree that they influence my outlook.
My argument is that morality does not have to rely on theism. There are logical reasons to live morally. There are even evolutionary reasons to live morally, as some animals show. Do you disagree with that?
LikeLike
” It’s not like people needed God to tell them that murder was wrong — that was already known.”
Nate you have no proof whatsoever of your claims. Its a fact that every civilization we can think of in the past was theistic so the claim that it was already known outside of a theistic construct is just history denialism. there are no reasons to live morally in an evolutionary framework for the individual. Collective mores have no overwhelming rationale for the individual. In an evolutionary framework the only thing that is completely reasonable is survival. No animal shows anything approaching a morality that is needed for civilization and primates are known to murder each other so whatever study you are looking at is VERY selective.
LikeLike
“Nate you have no proof whatsoever of your claims. Its a fact that every civilization we can think of in the past was theistic so the claim that it was already known outside of a theistic construct is just history denialism.” ~Mike Anthony
This statement is shown falsife by the following account from Don’t Sleep, There Are Snakes: Life and Language in the Amazonian Jungle:
And from a book review:
Ron sorry but you do research like Nate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirah%C3%A3_people
“However, they do believe in spirits that can sometimes take on the shape of things in the environment. These spirits can be jaguars, trees, or other visible, tangible things including people.[12] Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.” Everett and his daughter could see nothing and yet the Pirahã insisted that Xigagaí was still on the beach”
You statement that they falsify my comment just got totally debunked. The belief in spirits is theistic regardless of whether they believe in one supreme spirit or not. Furthermore unless you are claiming they are ancient enough to have developed their own moral code (which is dubious since you only quoted a sympathetic review and not one that indicated quite clearly they were fine with murdering babies) then it was derived from other cultures from which the Pirahã split.
LikeLike
This blog makes a decent case for morality existing before modern humans evolved:
http://drenn1077.com/2013/01/17/morality-existed-long-before-religion-january-17-2013/
Do primates sometimes murder one another? Of course. But no one can deny that they observe specific rules within their societies. They protect members of their group and fight against members of rival groups. Many other species do the same thing, not just primates.
But this is all beside the point. Can morality for a certain group come from religion? Of course it can. But can morality also exist without religion? Yes, as evidenced by all those non-religious people who choose to live morally. The fact is, there are good reasons to be moral, regardless of one’s opinion on God.
I’m not saying that morality’s ability to exist independently of religion is a strike against religion. I’m simply saying that the existence of morality is not evidence for God. It can’t be used by either side. Do you disagree with that?
LikeLike
Michael,
Theism is defined as belief in the existence of a god or gods, not spirits. And according to Everett, The Pirahã entertain no belief in gods, souls, or an afterlife. In fact, he claims these concepts are so foreign to them that they don’t even have words to describe them. Moreover, they are strict empiricists (i.e. they don’t believe things which can’t be perceived via the senses or firsthand experience). Upon learning that neither he, nor anyone he knew, had ever seen this Jesus fellow he was talking about, they immediately asked him to drop the subject. And most importantly, they live entirely in the present, without myths or legends of any kind. Their morality is founded on one overriding principle: being respectful to one another. After several years living amongst them he discovered they were already peaceful and happy without his gospel of salvation.
It’s a fascinating read. You can watch his presentations on line right here.
LikeLike
“This blog makes a decent case for morality existing before modern humans evolved:
http://drenn1077.com/2013/01/17/morality-existed-long-before-religion-january-17-2013/”
Nate…Is that your proof? Sheesh weak. All you did was link to a blog that makes your argument which links to more people who make the argument.
“Do primates sometimes murder one another? Of course. But no one can deny that they observe specific rules within their societies.”
So do fish and Honeybees. its called instinctual behaviour Nate. My Dog by that argument has morality – again weak argument.
” But can morality also exist without religion? Yes, as evidenced by all those non-religious people who choose to live morally.”
You have none. Nada. All of them come from cultures that preceded them that had morality from theism and therefor passed om those values. You keep saying the same thing over and over as if you can slice any existing group as having created morality out of thin air without reference to their theistic culture past or present. Even Ron’s desperate ignoring of the spirit believing Pirahã come from a previous group that was religious and had morality that would have passed down so his illogical begging that spirits that tell them what to do isn’t theistic fails nevertheless.
LikeLike
“Theism is defined as belief in the existence of a god or gods, not spirits.”
Ron thats a ridiculous nonsense duck on your part because your point has been blown sky high. By that definition Christians believing in the Holy spirit would not be theists, Again read
“Everett reported one incident where the Pirahã said that “Xigagaí, one of the beings that lives above the clouds, was standing on a beach yelling at us, telling us that he would kill us if we go into the jungle.””
So you are trying to spin that a spirit that lives above the clouds barking out commands telling them they would be killed if they went against his wishes is not theistic?
this is just total and complete nonsense and the silliest argument to date anyone has made on this blog. It doesn’t matter what Everett your atheist comrade wishes to say – that is a form of theism – looks like polytheism
“It’s a fascinating read.”
I watched one of the videos and its laughable. it fascinates you because you think it makes some point for atheism. The idea that a tribe that knows no science, does not adhere to historical realities does not concern itself with asking questions of origins under some short sighted living for the moment and in the moment ethos would make any true believer in Christ recant their faith is just vast and I mean VAST silliness.
The Pirahã are not an even ancient primary tribe to say they invented a morality that would not have been communicated and adjusted from another theistic culture before them. they are derived from other cultures before them,. So the whole thing is just wishful thinking on your part. They prove nothing that you claim and their belief in spirits is a form of theism no matter what you claim. Even if you found a truly atheistic tribe you would still ave to show that they had not derived their morality from theistic ancestors before them which of course you cannot do.
In the end our most ancient civilizations were theistic and our morality was based on those ideas. Thats just a fact.
LikeLike
No offense, but until you post your CV, I’m inclined to lend greater credence to a professor of anthropology and linguistics with 30 years of field research on this tribe over the bald assertions of some unknown Internet blowhard.
LikeLike
No offense but I’m not inclined to care what you give credence to. I gave a quote from the book itself and no atheist blowhard is going to tell me thats not theism especially since its apparent they have not even read the book which states in another section that Spirits are one of the ways they regulate behavior. its al nonsense and garbage you buy into because it serves your own purpose. The end.
LikeLike
Mike, we simply see this differently. If secularism could not support morality in any way, then there would be evidence of that in countries that have become predominantly non-religious. No one denies that the vast majority of people in the past were theists. And yes, their ideas on morality have greatly influenced culture.
But it also can’t be denied that animals’ instincts lead them to follow certain rules within their groups. Whether this is driven by instinct or reason, it’s still “morality” in some degree or another. The thing is, there’s no way to prove if morality as we see it found its basis more in instinct or from divine revelation. I would argue that the scientific evidence seems to support the former claim, but that can’t be proven yet, and I’m sure you would argue for the latter position. It all comes down to that old question of nature vs nurture.
We don’t have to agree on this issue — even the experts aren’t united in their opinions.
LikeLike
“Mike, we simply see this differently. If secularism could not support morality in any way, then there would be evidence of that in countries that have become predominantly non-religious”
Nate all those countries already had a code of morality predicated on religion handed down to them and you know it. You have no proof of your clams that morality can be constructed without religion
“But it also can’t be denied that animals’ instincts lead them to follow certain rules within their groups. Whether this is driven by instinct or reason, it’s still “morality” in some degree or another.’
Following rules is not the same as morality nate. You are trying to fudge the meaning. If thats the case my computer has morality because the operating system has rules
” The thing is, there’s no way to prove if morality as we see it found its basis more in instinct or from divine revelation.”
Of course there is. We can look at our culture and see that logically it derived itself from religiously inspired rules.Thats a historical fact. What you have to do is show that in the abscence of solid evidence morality can arise without reference to that. You can’t. You can only beg without the actual proof that I have within our own culture
LikeLike
If this is true then a large part of religiously inspired morality is worthless and, in fact, harmful, thus should be rejected.
LikeLike
I’ve already provided links to articles and studies that support what I was saying. Again, we simply disagree here. We can continue to post comment after comment illustrating how much we disagree, or we can simply leave it at this.
LikeLike
“I’ve already provided links to articles and studies that support what I was saying. ”
NO nate you linked to a skeptic blog that agreed with you and then linked to others that did the same. Would you take me linking to answersingeneiss as proof of anything? No we don’t have to continue posting comments but you can’t honestly claim to have presented evidence when you haven’t . Anyone can link to an article or even a study and then claim it supports their thesis. thats not proof. Neither is pointing to some experiment where apes figured out where something was advantageous based on results and ignoring they kill each other with no remorse.
LikeLike
“If this is true then a large part of religiously inspired morality is worthless and, in fact, harmful, thus should be rejected.”
WHy? because you are outraged at things done in the name of Religion that have been done by humans without reference to it? (proving religion is not the common denominator) and from what morals do the outrage come but from what you learned from your culture as to right and wrong derived from the same religions?
LikeLike