Sez Who?

This week we read chapter 9, The Knowledge of God. We asked whether our sense of right and wrong is a clue that God is real.

There is a secular explanation for our sense of right and wrong. But that explanation leaves us with a question: why should we feel obligated to do what is right?
Definition. Moral obligation: “a belief that some things ought not to be done regardless of how a person feels about them within herself, regardless of what the rest of her community and culture says, and regardless of whether it is in her self-interest or not.” (page 152, paperback ed.)

Later, when we focused on the Christian view of morality, we found that it was not convincing for unbelievers. “Sez Who?” – the demand for a credible source for assertions of moral obligation – is hard for atheists and for Christians to answer.


Morality Without God
We started by watching a portion of a Ted Talk by Sam Haris, Science Can Answer Moral Questions. Harris sketched a secular view of objective morality:

• The separation between science and human values is an illusion.
• Values are facts about the well-being of conscious creatures.
• Although we may never get complete and full answers to all moral questions, objective answers exist.
• It is possible to recognize that some cultures do not promote the flourishing of all humans (for example, fundamentalist Islamic cultures that oppress women).
• Morality may be “open for revision”, but it can still be an accessible and meaningful concept.
• Values need not be absolute in order to be useful. There can be many ways to achieve human flourishing.

Summary: objective morality is accessible without God.


Free Floating Morality
Harris’ presentation did not seem especially “scientific” to one participant. Harris did not say why we ought to make the “well-being of conscious creatures” our goal.
Discussion:
Perhaps morality is that which helps everyone flourish – but why should we be moral?
It works to benefit us. Also, it makes us feel good.
(This prompted the question “where does that pleasure come from?” See the next section for that discussion.)
Then if there are two ways of being selfish – one helpful, one harmful – why is one way right, and one way wrong?
But doesn’t our society does find harming other acceptable in some situations? For example, in war and for capital punishment.
Sam Harris’ overall goal, maximizing the well-being of conscious creatures, was a value that he took for granted without giving a reason. A solid foundation for moral obligation was missing.
This is Keller’s argument: “if there is no God, then there is no way to say any one action is “moral” and another “immoral” but only “I like this.”” (page 159, paperback ed.)

Someone suggested that if our existence ends when we die, there is no basis for moral obligation. Our conscious existence would be so brief, compared to eternity, that our choices would be meaningless.
This was objectionable – “sad” – to another participant. We can still enjoy and value life (even if the reason we enjoy life is that we’re biologically programmed to do so). People who do not believe in God still have values.
But what is the basis of those values? When you consider do moral questions, do you think in terms of obligation?
I think of values in terms of “want,” not “should.”
Is morality always in our self-interest?
(There was some skepticism in the group that the right action would also be the most utilitarian one:
Hypothetical: if a bum is a drain on society, isn’t it for the “greater good” to kill him?
Response: perhaps he is a drain on society, but having members with such low empathy that they would be willing to kill the bum is a much greater negative for society as a whole.)


Where did Morality come from?
Tim Keller says that our sense of morality cannot be learned from observing nature, because nature is violent. It is natural for the strong to prey upon the weak. Yet we have a deep conviction that humans should protect the weak.
Objection: nature isn’t “all about violence.” Nature rewards efficiency, not violence. This is why species tend not to be indiscriminately violent, especially towards their own kind. It’s a waste of resources.

And we can explain human altruism as an efficient way for a species to behave. The value that we put on others’ happiness has cultural sources (via memes) and biological sources (we’re ‘hardwired’ for empathy). There are different types of altruism:

• Kin selection. Helping those who share your genes.
• Direct reciprocity. Helping someone who will help you in the future.
• Indirect reciprocity. Helping someone who may not help you in the future – someone else will help you in the future.
• Group selection. This is the most controversial type. Scholars are studying and debating it. Keller tried to discredit sociobiology by focusing on this.

Mathematical models and simulations support the idea that these types of altruism could evolve. (Hamilton’s theory.)
I don’t always think of helping others as a way to get a payback (either from others, or from God). I just want to help the other person.
But you don’t have to think through it consciously in order for it to “work.” Your altruistic impulses could come from biological and cultural factors, even if you didn’t realize it.

Summary: a secular viewpoint can explain how morality developed in humans. But it can’t prove that moral obligation exists.


Morality With God
We agreed that religions give people powerful reasons to be altruistic. If religion is an illusion, it at least can be a “useful illusion.” However, we want to know whether its claims are true.

If God does exist, then we can back up our belief in moral obligation. We can say that we are duty-bound to value others because God told us to do so. In this way, the religious view avoids the “free floating morality” problem of the secularists.
But whose religion? Some religions give bad answers to moral questions. In fact, we can find disturbing passages in the Christian scriptures.
Those passages need to be taken in their cultural context.
How do you pick and choose what teachings you follow and which ones you explain away?
Christians can’t pick and choose based on what they like. They do have to accept some unappealing statements in the Bible.
But Christians do not follow all of the commands found in the Old Testament. Isn’t it a contradiction that you aren’t following every word in the Bible?
Christ brought a new covenant. Therefore, Christians are not obligated to follow ceremonial law, or to offer sacrifices, and so on. Christ told us that (see Matthew 15). We’re saved by grace, not by our works – therefore, our motivation for obedience to God and for kindness to others is love, not a payback.
This appeal to “love” does not impress non-believers. It sounds like a fall-back line, and it looks inconsistent with Christians’ stance on social issues – homosexuality being a notable example.
The Christian response was to say that loving others is not the same as approving of their behavior.

Summary: Christians can justify absolute moral claims. However, establishing the link between their beliefs and God’s will is difficult.


NEXT WEEK: Chapter 13, “The Reality of the Resurrection.” Notice that we are skipping ahead because we have only one week left.