That’s the claim anyway. Michael Shermer is fond of using this kind of argument in debates. He reasons that God’s existence is irrelevant to morality because even if God didn’t exist, people would still think killing, stealing, and lying were wrong. Want proof? If it could be proven to you today that God doesn’t exist, would you go out and kill/steal tomorrow (particularly if you knew you could do so without getting caught and punished by the authorities)? No. There are still good reasons to act morally even in the absence of God. Therefore, it follows, claims Shermer, that God is not necessary for morality.
While this has great rhetorical force in a debate, Shermer misses the point completely. The question isn’t whether one needs to believe in God to know and do good, but whether God’s existence is necessary for the good that we know to actually be “good.”
Greg Koukl has pointed out that Shermer’s question—Would you still do good even if God didn’t exist?—makes as much sense as asking whether you would still be faithful to your wife even if you were not married. If there is no transcendent source to ground moral values as objective features of the world, then there is no such thing as the good to know or do. Morality becomes completely relative. Whether morality is the result of social norms of conduct or impulses caused by our evolutionary past, the good is not objectively good. So while humans may behave the same way whether God exists or not, if God does not exist none of those behaviors could be characterized as “good” in an objective sense.[1] They are just accepted socio-biological behaviors that we choose to label as “good” and “evil.”
Shermer is right when he insists that people are fully capable of recognizing what is right and wrong wholly apart from a belief in God, and that—from a practical perspective—most people would not change their moral behaviors even if they stopped believing in God (though only the most naïve could believe that people’s moral decisions would not be impacted at all). Unfortunately for Shermer, this isn’t the issue being debated. The Bible teaches that all men have moral knowledge in virtue of being made in the image of God (Romans 2), so Christians heartily agree that people know what is good and are able to do good apart from belief in God. The debate is about what makes morality moral, or what makes the good truly good. Where does the good come from? Theists contend that while all people can know moral truths without knowing God, God must exist for moral truths to actually be truths rather than fictions. God’s being and nature is the grounding and essence of the good.
No headway will ever be made in this debate if we fail to make the basic philosophical distinction between what makes something true (ontology) and how we come to know that truth (epistemology). Shermer et al focus only on matters of moral epistemology (how we know what is right and wrong), while we theists address both the matter of moral epistemology and the deeper issue of moral ontology (what makes something right or wrong). The mere fact that we have moral knowledge tells us nothing about why there are moral truths to know in the first place. Shermer doesn’t want to address questions of moral ontology, however, because on his evolutionary account of moral values there is no moral reality to ground. The good is just a result of socio-biological evolution. Not only does this negate the objectivity of moral values, but it makes questions of moral ontology irrelevant. The problem for Shermer is that he wants to affirm both the objectivity of moral values and their evolutionary origin. But I digress.
Shermer confuses our ontological claim that God is necessary for moral truths to exist for an epistemological claim that God is necessary for us to know the content of those moral truths. I will not speculate as to whether this confusion is intentional or not, but no speculation is required to conclude that Shermer is addressing a straw man argument. Christians are not arguing that we cannot know the good and do good apart from belief in God, but rather that there would be no good to know apart from the existence of God.
Shermer also confuses the order of being with the order of knowing. While our knowledge of the good may precede our knowledge of God (order of knowing), the existence of God must precede our knowledge of the good because without God there can be no such thing as objective good to know (order of being).
No headway will be made between atheists and theists until atheists take seriously the question of moral ontology. If an atheist wants to deny the objectivity of morality, fine. We can debate that issue. But atheists like Michael Shermer who want to affirm the objectivity of moral values and yet ignore the question of moral ontology need to address this glaring omission in their worldview. If our moral intuitions reveal the objectivity of moral values, and the objectivity of those moral values are best explained by a God whose very nature is good, then that is a good reason to believe God exists.
[1]Greg Koukl, “Prepping for Engagement,” Solid Ground, March/April 2010.
August 2, 2012 at 6:25 am
“They are just accepted socio-biological behaviors that we choose to label as “good” and “evil.” ”
With the philosophy that he is using, the moral ontology question is irrelevant. You don’t need to ask the question of moral ontology if you hold the belief that the labels of good and evil are socio-biological behaviors. As you state, morality beomes completely relative.
LikeLike
August 2, 2012 at 7:22 am
No, HIs authority cannot ground morality; reality does that! So, we humanists do have an objective morality; now my covenant combines objectivity and subjectivity as a paradox. Our need to be nice to each other partakes of that grounding.
Per the Aqunas superfluity argument, do not add God to matters as doing so adds nothing.
Yet, with his five failed ways-suggestions- he could not overcome his own argument and the presumption of naturalism nor Lamberth’s argument from inherency nor the Euthyphro!
To think that God’s nature obviates getting around the dilemma cannot work, for that dilemma applies to it as well, and it begs the question of that good nature. Hereofore, I’ve quite well illuminates how God’s will is simple subjectivity, and that Yahweh has an atrocious ethic that no one else has even tried to overcome, merely evading the problems!
LikeLike
August 2, 2012 at 7:23 am
I’ve quite well illuminated…
LikeLike
August 2, 2012 at 11:35 am
Jason,
Quite true. The interesting thing about Shermer is that he wants to insist that moral values are objective. I listened to a 3 hour radio debate between him and Greg Koukl and Koukl tried in vain to get Shermer to see how inconsistent his thinking is on this issue.
Jason
LikeLike
August 2, 2012 at 11:41 am
Griggs,
I did not say God’s authority grounds morality. I said “God’s being and nature is the grounding and essence of the good.” God is an appropriate moral authority, however, and thus can issue moral commands that constitute our moral obligations. But it’s not His commands that make something moral. His commands constitute our moral duties, but not the moral good. The moral good is constituted by God’s nature. See my recent post reviewing the book “Good God” for more on this distinction.
Jason
LikeLike
August 2, 2012 at 11:53 am
Moral values are objective? That does seem very inconsistent. I’d love to listen to that debate. Is it available online?
LikeLike
August 3, 2012 at 9:45 am
Act 17:26 And he made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined allotted periods and the boundaries of their dwelling place,
Act 17:27 that they should seek God, in the hope that they might feel their way toward him and find him. Yet he is actually not far from each one of us,
Act 17:28 for “‘In him we live and move and have our being’; as even some of your own poets have said, “‘For we are indeed his offspring.’
I couldn’t resist posting these verses of scripture. Please read them and then you will be able to figure out where your morality comes from.
Naz
LikeLike
August 4, 2012 at 6:32 pm
Dear Jason,
If God told you to stop giving to charity, would that mean giving to charity is evil, or that God is evil?
If God told you to steal instead, would that mean stealing is good, or that God is evil?
Yours,
Frank Bunne
LikeLike
August 6, 2012 at 11:20 am
Jason, you can probably find it in the archives of Hugh Hewitt’s website, or Stand to Reason’s website (www.str.org).
Jason
LikeLike
August 6, 2012 at 11:31 am
Frank,
Your question reveals your confusion about theistic ethics. Theists are not voluntarists, meaning we do not hold to the notion that God’s commands constitute the good, such that if God commanded rape, then rape would be morally good. Rather, God’s nature is itself good, and His commands will always be consistent with His nature. That’s why it would never be possible for God to command us to rape someone (and actually intend for us to do so).
You also need to distinguish between what is good (a matter of axiology) and what is right (a matter of deontology). While God’s nature is good, God’s commands constitute our moral duties (the right). So, for example, while it is clearly a good thing to sell all that we have and give it to the poor, we would not be morally obligated to do so apart from a command from God. God’s nature serves as the ontological foundation for the good, and God’s commands—which reflect God’s good nature—serve to constitute our moral duties.
See my post here for more information: https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2012/07/30/what-ive-been-reading-good-god-the-theistic-foundations-of-morality/
Jason
LikeLike
August 6, 2012 at 2:27 pm
God’s nature is good when people beg the question thereof, but where lies the evidence that it is? That is, do you then claim we discern the good in the world that both the logical and the evidential arguments from evil claim that the evils note that He then cannot be good?
We humanists ontologically ground morality in our moral sense, but have to refine that sense.
Again, what is the stance of general theism as one has to speculate on what He deems good as He always speaks with a forked tongue as particular theisms reveal?
LikeLike
August 6, 2012 at 2:49 pm
Thinking that God Himself is the onological foundation of the good is not question-begging. See my post on the evidence for God’s goodness:https://theosophical.wordpress.com/2011/11/29/how-do-we-know-god-is-good/
You ground morality in our moral sense? It’s our moral sense that needs to be grounded. If our moral senses connect us with objective moral truths, then we need to explain where those moral truths come from. If our moral sense does not connect us with moral truths, then there is no morality to ground.
Jason
LikeLike
August 8, 2012 at 5:51 am
One of the problems I see is that we tend to have a very limited view of what constitutes good. We go for the obvious things, like financial charity, not stealing or murdering, etc. and say of ourselves, “See, I am good. No God needed”. But what constitutes good and moral from God’s point of view is so much greater than the obvious conscientious scruples of the average human being.
While it’s nice and well that people have such scruples, they don’t and cannot help a person achieve God’s ultimate standard of moral goodness, which is Himself vis a vis, that He is sinless, wholly perfect, without flaw, at all times, in all ways, in all things.
It’s only when we compare ourself to the right standard of good do we get a sense of how much good we are not. Only then, if we believe, do we realize there is none good, and none, apart from God and His Christ, can anyone ever be deemed good.
LikeLike
August 9, 2012 at 6:45 am
I see some discussion here questioning God’s goodness because we see there is evil in the world.
From an unbeliever’s point of view I can see how one could question God’s goodness. However that unbeliever must then use himself as the measuring stick of what is good and what is evil. In essence the unbeliever makes himself the judge and jury on all matters of right and wrong. You could say, he makes himself god.
From the believer’s point of view, we are looking for answers to why there is evil in this world and we find the answers through the knowledge of Who God is. The knowledge that God is perfectly good and that His redemption plan is for the purpose of redeeming mankind through Jesus Christ fills in all the gaps for us and satisfies our questions. We make Him Judge and jury and can rest with the contentment that God is sovereign and that He is in control.
The only real question here is whether the unbeliever is willing to believe in Who God is. As to the nature of God, there is no question about that…….
1Jn 1:5 This is the message we have heard from him and proclaim to you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all.
1Jn 1:6 If we say we have fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the truth.
1Jn 1:7 But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus his Son cleanses us from all sin.
Naz
LikeLike
August 9, 2012 at 9:19 pm
Dear Jason,
You said, “it would never be possible for God to command us to rape someone,” but who are you to say what is impossible for God?
This is hypothetical. If I asked you whether you would travel back in time if you got the chance, wouldn’t you have an answer other than “time travel is impossible?”
I’ll rephrase. If charity was not in God’s nature, would it mean charity is evil or that God is evil?
If theft was in God’s nature, would it mean that theft is good or that God is evil?
Yours,
Frank
LikeLike
August 13, 2012 at 11:40 am
Frank,
Asking “Who are you to say” is a question of one’s authority. I have no authority, and I’ve never appealed to my authority. I am appealing to the Christian understanding of God. And if that God is real, then it would be impossible for Him to command us to rape someone because such a command would go against His good nature.
If time travel is impossible, then what do we learn about time or travel by asking whether I would want to travel back in time? That’s like asking, “If you could create yourself, would you do it?” It’s a nonsensical, pointless question. Likewise, if God exists and—as the metaphysical ultimate—His nature is the Good, then it is pointless to talk about the possibility of God commanding rape or of charity being evil because it is metaphysically impossible.
Jason
LikeLike
February 4, 2013 at 10:55 am
[…] Since you would be good even if God didn’t exist, then God is not necessary for morality […]
LikeLike
October 1, 2014 at 7:34 am
[…] Since you would be good even if God didn’t exist, then God isn’t necessary for morality […]
LikeLike
March 9, 2015 at 3:37 pm
[…] Since you would be good even if God didn’t exist, then God is not necessary for morality […]
LikeLike