The Moral Argument For God

The question that we are going to explore is: Can we be good without God? At a glance, this question seems like a pretty simple one. There are plenty of people who have no belief in God, that lead morally good lives, and in some cases even exceptionally good lives. It would seem arrogant and ignorant to claim, then, that people cannot be good without belief in God.

But that is not the real question. The question is whether people can be good ‘without the existence of God’? This is a question of the objectivity of moral values. In other words, are our values set in stone, or mere expressions of personal preference. If the latter, then why should we act morally, especially when it conflicts with self-interest? Or are we in some way held accountable for our moral decisions and actions?

This article will look at the idea that if God exists, then the objectivity of moral values, moral duties, and moral accountability is secured, but that in the absence of God’s existence, morality is just a human convention, that is subjective and non-binding.

Good or Bad, Right or Wrong

If there is no God, what basis remains for objective good or bad, right or wrong?

If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist. Without some objective reference point, we do not have a way of saying whether something is really good or bad; we are essentially left with subjective values, which means that one person’s viewpoint is no better than any other person’s viewpoint.

In this situation, what is the foundation for moral values? More particularly, what is the basis for the value of human beings? If God does not exist, then it is difficult to see any reason to think that human beings are special or that our morality is objectively true. Moreover, why think that we have any moral obligation to do anything? Who or what imposes any moral duties upon us? If God does not exist then there is, as Richard Dawkins puts it, “no purpose, no evil and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

Evolution of Herd Morality

It has been suggested that as a result of socio-biological pressures, there has evolved among homo sapiens a sort of "herd morality" which aids our species in the struggle for survival. But there does not seem to be anything about homo sapiens that makes this morality objectively true.

If there is no God, then any ground for regarding the herd morality evolved by homo sapiens as objectively true seems to have been removed. After all, what is so special about human beings? They are just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on a tiny rock somewhere in a hostile and mindless universe, and which will inevitably perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time.

What is Right?

Consider something like incest; it may not be biologically or socially advantageous and so in the course of human evolution has become taboo; but there is on the atheistic view nothing really wrong about committing incest. If, as Paul Kurtz states, "The moral principles that govern our behaviour are rooted in habit and custom, feeling and fashion," then the non-conformist who chooses to go against the herd morality is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably. There is nothing actually wrong about their actions.

Materialist Viewpoint

If we are purely an animal organism, as a materialist would say we are, then we have no immaterial aspect (a soul or mind), and we are not qualitatively different from other animal species. From this materialistic viewpoint, there is no reason to think that human beings are objectively more valuable than rats. Secondly, if there is no mind distinct from the brain, then everything we think and do is determined by the input of our five senses and our genetic make-up. There is no personal agent who freely decides to do something. But without freedom, none of our choices are morally significant.

If this viewpoint is true, then it becomes impossible to condemn war, oppression, or crime as evil. Equally, you cannot praise equality, love or peace as good. It simply does not matter what values you choose, as there is no right or wrong, good or evil. Which then means that the Holocaust and other similar atrocities are essentially indifferent. You may believe it was wrong but what makes your viewpoint more valid than that of a Nazi war criminal who thought it was the right thing to kill Jews and other ethnic minorities. There is no moral accountability for one’s actions, from an atheistic viewpoint.

If There is a God

However, If there is some sort of intelligent being that created life, then we have an objective reference point for moral values. God’s nature is often described as loving, generous, just and patient; words which are often used to measure someone's qualities in an objective way; a standard by which all decisions and actions can be assessed against.

Was the Holocaust Objectively Wrong?

To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. An example of this objective morality would be that Nazi anti-Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War 2 and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

The Holocaust was objectively wrong!

The fact is, we do apprehend objective moral values. We all know that actions like rape, torture, child abuse and brutality are not just socially unacceptable, but they are morally abhorrent. As Michael Ruse states: “The man who says that it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2+2=5”. In the same way, love, generosity, equality, and self-sacrifice are good. People who fail to see them are just morally handicapped, and there is no reason to allow their thoughts to call into question what we see clearly. Thus, the existence of objective moral values serves to demonstrate the existence of a transcendent cause that has installed these objective moral values within us.

Summary and Conclusion

In the absence of a transcendent being such as God, to which we can establish a baseline for moral values, moral values and duties just become socio-biological spin-offs of the evolutionary process; they are relative to time, place, culture and individuals. So, if God does not exist then neither do objective moral values. However, it is clear that objective moral values do exist, such as, it is wrong to torture a little child for fun. It follows that a transcendent being, such as God does exist.