DO OUR VALUES COME FROM GOD?
Any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and filial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well developed, or nearly as well developed, as in man.
—Charles Darwin
The religions of the world have laid claim to the role of arbiters of human behavior, and their leaders continually decry the moral decay they claim to see in society. They insist they have the right to tell the rest of us what is right and what is wrong because they have a special pipeline to the place where right and wrong are defined—in the mind of God.
Even secular institutions pay tribute to this claim. Whenever a moral issue arises in politics, such as stem cell research or when to end life support, clergy are called upon to provide their wisdom. On the other hand, the opinions of atheists, freethinkers, and humanists are rarely solicited—and frequently reviled.
The implication is that atheists and humanists are somehow undesirable members of society, people you would not want to invite into your house. According to lawyer Phillip Johnson, nonbelievers actually think humans came from monkeys, which is the source of many of the "evils" of modern society, including homosexuality, abortion, pornography, divorce, and genocide— as if the world had none of these before Darwin came along.1
However common may be the view that religion is the source of moral behavior, what do the data say? I have seen no evidence that nonbelievers commit crimes or other antisocial acts in greater proportion than believers. Indeed, some studies indicate the opposite. According to statistics from the Federal Bureau of Prisons, Christians make up almost 80 percent of the prison population. Atheists make up about 0.2 percent.2 It is to be admitted that these data are not published in a scientific journal, but I think it is safe to conclude that the godless do not fill prisons. Published studies do indicate that a child's risk of sexual abuse by a family member increases as the family's religious denomination becomes more conservative, that is, when the teachings of scriptures and other doctrines are taken more literally.3 Similarly, the probability of wife abuse increases with the rigidity of a church's teachings pertaining to gender roles and hierarchy.4
But let me not rely solely on sociological statistics, where correlation does not always imply connection given all the mitigating factors. Even observers from the Christian side have expressed dismay that the current dominance of evangelical Christianity in America has not translated into a strengthening of the nation's moral character or the characters of evangelical Christians themselves. In an article in Christianity Today, theologian Ronald Sider lamented: "Scandalous behavior is rapidly destroying American Christianity. By their daily activity, most 'Christians' regularly commit treason. With their mouths they claim that Jesus is Lord, but with their actions they demonstrate allegiance to money, sex, and self-fulfillment."5
Sider continues,
The findings in numerous national polls conducted by highly respected pollsters like The Gallup Organization and The Barna Group are simply shocking. "Gallup and Barna," laments evangelical theologian Michael Horton, "hand us survey after survey demonstrating that evangelical Christians are as likely to embrace lifestyles every bit as hedonistic, materialistic, selfcentered, and sexually immoral as the world in general." Divorce is more common among "born-again" Christians than in the general American population. Only 6 percent of evangelicals tithe. White evangelicals are the most likely people to object to neighbors of another race. Josh McDowell has pointed out that the sexual promiscuity of evangelical youth is only a little less outrageous than that of their non evangelical peers.
COMMON STANDARDS
It is not my purpose in this chapter to say how humans ought to behave. Rather I am acting as a scientist, observing how they do behave and asking what those observations tell us about the truth or falsity of the God hypothesis. In this regard, I reject the notion that science has nothing to say about morality.
Preachers tell us that any universal moral standards can only come from one source—their particular God. Otherwise standards would be relative, depending on culture and differing across cultures and individuals. The data, however, indicate that the majority of human beings from all cultures and all religions or no religion agree on a common set of moral standards. While specific differences can be found, universal norms do seem to exist. Anthropologist Solomon Asch has observed, "We do not know of societies in which bravery is despised and cowardice held up to honor, in which generosity is considered a vice and ingratitude a virtue."6
While we live in a society of law, much of what we do is not constrained by law but performed voluntarily. For example, we have many opportunities to cheat and steal in situations where the chance of being caught is negligible, yet most of us do not cheat and steal. While the Golden Rule is not usually obeyed to the letter, we generally do not try to harm others. Indeed, we are sympathetic when we see a person or animal in distress and take action to provide relief. We stop at auto accidents and render aid. We call the police when we witness a crime. We take care of children, aged parents, and others less fortunate than us. We willingly take on risky jobs, such as in the military or public safety, for the protection of the community.
That stealing from members of your own community is immoral requires no divine revelation. It is revealed by a moment's reflection on the type of society that would exist if everyone stole from one another. If lying were considered a virtue instead of truth-telling, communication would become impossible. Mothers have loved their children since before mammals walked the earth—for obvious evolutionary reasons. The only precepts unique to religion are those telling us to not to question their dogma.
Of course, not everyone agrees on every moral issue. These disagreements can be very pronounced, especially within specific religious communities where the same scriptural readings are often used to justify contradictory actions.
For example, consider the opposing interpretations of the commandment against killing found within the Christian community. Conservative Protestants interpret this commandment as prohibiting abortion, stem cell research, and removing life support systems from the incurable, among other actions. However, they do not view capital punishment as prohibited, pointing to the biblical prescription of an eye for an eye. Catholics and liberal Christians, on the other hand, generally interpret the commandment as forbidding capital punishment. But Catholics oppose while liberals allow abortion, the removal of life support, and stem cell research. In all these cases, the Bible is evidently ambiguous.
As philosopher Theodore Schick Jr. points out, both sides of the abortion debate believe murder is immoral. Where they disagree is on the nature of a fetus—whether or not it is the sort of entity that can be murdered. In other words, moral disagreements are often not about what is good or bad but about some other aspect of reality.7
So how do Christians decide what is right or wrong? While they may look at the Bible, how they interpret what they read must depend on ideals that they have already developed from some other source.
NOBLE IDEALS
The Judeo-Christian and Islamic scriptures contain many passages that teach noble ideals that the human race has done well to adopt as norms of behavior and, where appropriate, to codify into law. But without exception, the fact that these principles developed in earlier cultures and history indicates that they were adopted by—rather than learned from—religion. While it is fine that religions preach moral precepts, they have no basis to claim that these precepts were authored by their particular deity or, indeed, any deity at all.
Perhaps the primary principle upon which to live a moral life is the Golden Rule: "Do unto others, as you would have them do unto you." In our Christian-dominated society in the West, most people assume that this was an original teaching of Jesus from the Sermon on the Mount. For some reason, their preachers, who surely know better, perpetuate this falsehood. In fact, Jesus himself made no such claim. Here's what he actually said, according to the Gospel: "So, whatever you wish that men would do to you, do so to them; for this is the law of the prophets" (Matt. 7:12, Revised Standard Version). Indeed, the phrase "Love thy neighbor as thyself" appears in Leviticus 19:18, written a thousand years before Christ.
But the Golden Rule is not the exclusive property of a small desert tribe with a high opinion of itself. Here are some other, independent sources showing that the Golden Rule was already a widespread teaching well before Jesus:
• In The Doctrine of the Mean 13, written about 500 BCE, Confucius says, "What you do not want others to do to you, do not do to others."
• Isocrates (c. 375 BCE) said, "Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others."
• The Hindu Mahabharata, written around 150 BCE, teaches, "This is the sum of all true righteousness: deal with others as thou wouldst thyself be dealt by."8
In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus also urged his listeners, "Do not resist one who is evil. But if any one strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also" (Matt. 5:39, Revised Standard Version) and "You have heard that it was said, 'You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy' But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you" (Matt. 5:43-44, Revised Standard Version).
Again, these are generally regarded as uniquely Christian sentiments. But the call to "love your enemies" precedes Jesus and does not even appear in the Old Testament:9
• I treat those who are good with goodness. And I also treat those who are not good with goodness. Thus goodness is attained. I am honest with those who are honest. And I am also honest with those who are dishonest. Thus honesty is attained (Taoism. Tao Te Ching 49).
• Conquer anger by love. Conquer evil by good. Conquer the stingy by giving. Conquer the liar by truth (Buddhism. Dhammapada 223).
• A superior being does not render evil for evil; this is a maxim one should observe; the ornament of virtuous persons is their conduct. One should never harm the wicked or the good or even criminals meriting death. A noble soul will ever exercise compassion even towards those who enjoy injuring others or those of cruel deeds when they are actually committing them—for who is without fault? (Hinduism. Ramayana, Yuddha Kanda 115).
No original moral concept of any significance can be found in the New Testament. In the early twentieth century, historian Joseph McCabe noted: "The sentiments attributed to Christ are . . . already found in the Old Testament. . . . They were familiar in the Jewish schools, and to all the Pharisees, long before the time of Christ, as they were familiar in all the civilizations of the earth—Egyptian, Babylonian, and Persian, Greek and Hindu."10
As with the Bible, the Qur'an contains many sentiments that most of us would classify as commendable. It tells Muslims to be kind to their parents, not to steal from orphans, not to lend money at excess interest, to help the needy, and not to kill their children unless it is necessary.
But, again, these are not original moral principles. In the scriptures and other teachings of the great monotheisms we find a repetition of common ideals that arose during the gradual evolution of human societies, as they became more civilized, developed rational thinking processes, and discovered how to live together in greater harmony. The evidence points to a source other than the revelations claimed in these scriptures.
THE GOOD SOCIETY
Not only personal behavior but also societal behavior is supposedly regulated by God. But, once again, we can find no evidence for this. One of the prevailing myths in modern America is that the nation was founded on "Christian principles." However, the United States Constitution is a secular document that contains no reference to God, Jesus, Christianity, salvation, or any other religious teaching. Most of the early presidents were not fervent Christians and based their commitments to freedom, democracy, and justice on Enlightenment philosophy rather than biblical sources.
We often hear, especially from American politicians, that our legal system is founded on the Ten Commandments. Attempts have been made to display the Ten Commandments in public facilities such as courthouses, which the courts have so far disallowed. But, we need to read what the commandments actually say.
Since there are several versions, let me present a simplified wording with religious language omitted:11
The Ten Commandments
The Old Testament contains many examples of killings performed under God's orders. The only way this can be reconciled with commandment 6 is to assume that the proscription against killing must be restricted, say, only to your particular tribe rather than all humanity.
And, how many believers realize they are breaking commandment 2 every time they take a photograph or draw a picture? How many would stop if that were pointed out to them?
The restrictions imposed by the Ten Commandments can be found in other civilizations predating the time of Moses. Furthermore, it is clear from the above list that most of these restrictions are irrelevant to modern life and hardly form the basis for any existing legal system. Indeed, the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1780 BCE) represents a considerably more significant historical step in the development of laws of justice, containing not merely 10 but 282 detailed commandments.12 Perhaps these should be displayed on courthouse steps.
Or, another option would be the Laws of Solon. Solon (d. 558 BCE) was an Athenian who is regarded as the founder of Western democracy and the first man in Western history to record a written constitution. That constitution eliminated birth as a basis for government office and created democratic assemblies open to all male citizens, such that no law could be passed without the majority vote of all. (Equal rights for women were still a long way off.) American democracy owes far more to Solon than the crude rules of the Hebrews.13
Christendom and Islam have a long history of authoritarianism with little disposition toward individual freedom and justice. Nowhere in the Bible can you discover the principles upon which modern democracies and justice systems are founded.
Slavery provides another example where the Bible hardly forms a model for our modern free societies. The Old Testament not only condones slavery but actually regulates its practice:
Jesus had many opportunities to disavow slavery. He never did. St. Paul reaffirms the practice: "Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).
Prior to the Civil War, the Bible was widely used to justify slavery in the United States. Baptist leader and slave owner Richard Furman (d. 1825) laid the foundation for the biblical arguments that would be made in support of slavery leading up to the Civil War. While president of the State Baptist Convention, Furman wrote to the governor of South Carolina, "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."14 Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina, founded in 1826, was named for Richard Furman; his writings can be found in its archives.
Another prominent churchman, Alexander Campbell (d. 1866) wrote, "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."15 It is to be noted that Campbell declared himself against slavery, so once again we have a Christian following his own conscience despite what the scriptures say.
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, claimed to follow what the scriptures said: "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God . . . it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."16
While Christians in the South held onto their slaves as long as they could, secular humanist Richard Randolph of Virginia began freeing his in 1791.17 Popes and other fathers of the Catholic Church owned slaves as late as 1800. Jesuits in colonial Maryland and nuns in Europe and Latin America owned slaves. The Church did not condemn slavery until 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished the practice.18
Distinguished Catholic scholar John T. Noonan Jr. points out that the Church has traditionally denied that it has made any changes in the moral teachings of Jesus and the apostles.19 Slavery and other examples he presents amply illustrate that the Church's teaching does indeed change with the times.
Now, the campaign to end slavery in the United States and elsewhere was led by Christians, to their everlasting credit. However, the abolitionists clearly were not guided by the literal words of scripture but by their own interpretations and innate senses of a higher good.
Finally, let me just briefly mention the historical oppression of women. St. Paul said, "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior" (Eph. 5:22-23, Revised Standard Version). Western societies finally have begun to recognize the irrationality and injustice of treating women as lesser human beings, providing a clear, recent example of how our notions of right and wrong evolve independent of and often contrary to religious teachings.
HOLY HORRORS
The Old Testament is filled with atrocities committed in the name of God. These are rarely mentioned in Sunday school, but anyone can pick up a Bible and read them for herself. I will just mention some of the worst: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Num. 31:17-18, Revised Standard Version).
At another time, Moses orders three thousand men put to the sword on God's authority: "And he said to them, 'Thus says the Lord God of Israel, "Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his companion, and every man his neighbor"'" (Exod. 32:27, Revised Standard Version).
Most Christians dismiss this and other biblical carnage as anachronistic and imagine such orders were eliminated with the coming of Jesus. However, in the New Testament, Jesus frequently reaffirms the laws of the prophets: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law, or the prophets: I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17, Revised Standard Version). The theist may respond that the above quotation is not a law but merely the report of an event, but the stories of the Bible are supposed to provide guides to proper behavior.
Christians like to pride themselves on their "family values" and their desire for peace in the world. No doubt, most are devoted to their families and are upright members of society. But they fail to remember that Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth: I have not come to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:34-37, Revised Standard Version).
The history of Christendom abounds with violence sanctioned by the Church and thereby defined as divinely inspired "good." This divine inspiration is not limited to scripture but continually available to the specially anointed. Pope Urban II (d. 1099) assured the medieval knights of the Crusades that the killing of infidels was not a sin. And this did not apply just to Muslims in the Holy Land. The Cathar faith in southern France, which was apparently based on the notion of dual gods that appeared earlier in Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism,20 was brutally suppressed in the Albigensian Crusade in the thirteenth century. When the besieged Cathar city of Beziers fell in 1209, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He recommended: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly twenty thousand were slaughtered—many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.21
Incidentally, until recently the term crusade was used to refer to a Christian holy war, the equivalent of the Islamic jihad. Lloyd George's book of speeches given during his stint as British prime minister during the First World War was called The Great Crusade. General Dwight Eisenhower's memoir of the Second World War was called Crusade in Europe. The term crusade only fell into disuse recently, when shortly after September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush used it to refer to the war on terrorism and was warned off by his advisers because of its negative connotation for Muslims.22 Of course, the Muslim terrorists themselves felt they were obeying God's command to engage in jihad.
The Qur'an is as bloodthirsty as the Old Testament. Numerous references can be found for the horrible fate that awaits nonbelievers. However, it is Allah himself who generally metes out that punishment: "Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 4:56). Muslims are enjoined to kill infidels wherever they find them, but only those who initiate hostilities:
But, thankfully, they are the exception. Furthermore, each of these fanatics would be hard-pressed to demonstrate where exactly in their scriptures were they commanded to commit their dreadful acts.
Of course, no one of conscience today would think it moral to kill everyone captured in battle, saving only the virgin girls for their pleasure. Few modern Christians take the commands of the Bible literally. While they claim to appeal to scriptures and the teachings of the great founders and leaders of their faiths, they pick and choose what to follow—guided by some personal inner light. And this is the same inner light that guides nonbelievers.
AN INNER LIGHT
If God does not define what is good, who does? How are theists supposed to decide what is good?
Most do not go so far as to say that they hear it directly from God. While they claim to appeal to scriptures and the teachings of the great founders and leaders of their faiths, they pick and choose what to follow—guided by some personal inner light.
A good example is the Catholic community in the United States. Shortly after the death of Pope John Paul II in 2005, the New York Times reported:
The Bible is not clear on what may be killed and what may not be. It does not explicitly sanction or forbid the killing of a fetus or stem cell. And, it certainly sanctions the killing of enemies, specifically those who do not worship Yahweh.
In all these cases, believers clearly read the Bible to find support for moral principles that they have already developed from some other source.
Christians draw Jesus Christ in their own image. As philosopher George Smith explains, "Because of the theological obligation to endorse the precepts of Jesus, Christian theologians have a strong tendency to read their own moral conviction into the ethics of Jesus. Jesus is made to say what theologians think he should have said."27
Philosopher Walter Kaufmann agrees, "Most Christians gerrymander the Gospels and carve an idealized self-portrait out of the texts: Pierre van Passen's Jesus is a socialist, Fosdick's is a liberal, while the ethic of Reinhold Niebuhr's Jesus agrees, not surprisingly, with Niebuhr's own."28 As George Bernard Shaw commented, "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says. He is always convinced that it says what he means."29
Every time a theologian reinterprets Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad, he further reinforces my crucial point: we humans decide what is good by standards lying outside the scriptures.
Believers are guided by their consciences in deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, just as are nonbelievers. The basic notions of good and evil that we all share—believers and nonbelievers—are, for the most part, common and universal. Psychological tests indicate that there are no significant differences in the moral sense between atheists and theists.30
In short, the empirical facts indicate that most humans are moral animals whose sense of right and wrong conflicts with many of the teachings of the great monotheistic religions. We can safely conclude they did not originate at that source.
NATURAL MORALITY
If human morals and values do not arise out of divine command, then where do they come from? They come from our common humanity. They can be properly called humanistic.31
A considerable literature exists on the natural (biological, cultural, evolutionary) origins of morality.32 Darwin saw the evolutionary advantage of cooperation and altruism. Modern thinkers have elaborated on this observation, showing in detail how our moral sense can have arisen naturally during the development of modern humanity.
We can even see signs of moral, or protomoral behavior in animals. Vampire bats share food. Apes and monkeys comfort members of their group who are upset and work together to get food. Dolphins push sick members of a pod to the surface to get air. Whales will put themselves in harm's way to help a wounded member of their group. Elephants try their best to save injured members of their families.33
In these examples we glimpse the beginnings of the morality that advanced to higher levels with human evolution. You may call animal morality instinctive, built into the genes of animals by biological evolution. But when we include cultural evolution as well, we have a plausible mechanism for the development of human morality—by Darwinian selection.
It seems likely that this is where we humans have learned our sense of right and wrong. We have taught it to ourselves.
THE MORAL ARGUMENT
Since Thomas Aquinas, theologians have claimed that the very fact that humans have a moral conscience can be taken as evidence for the existence of God:
Not only personal behavior but also societal behavior is supposedly regulated by God. But, once again, we can find no evidence for this. One of the prevailing myths in modern America is that the nation was founded on "Christian principles." However, the United States Constitution is a secular document that contains no reference to God, Jesus, Christianity, salvation, or any other religious teaching. Most of the early presidents were not fervent Christians and based their commitments to freedom, democracy, and justice on Enlightenment philosophy rather than biblical sources.
We often hear, especially from American politicians, that our legal system is founded on the Ten Commandments. Attempts have been made to display the Ten Commandments in public facilities such as courthouses, which the courts have so far disallowed. But, we need to read what the commandments actually say.
Since there are several versions, let me present a simplified wording with religious language omitted:11
The Ten Commandments
1. Have no other gods before me.Only commandments 6, 8, and 9 (the numbering is different for Catholics and Protestants) can be found in the laws of any modern nation. Killing, stealing, and perjury are illegal—except when done by the government. While adultery is normally considered immoral, it is not generally illegal.
2. Make no images of anything in heaven, Earth, or the sea, and do not worship or labor for them.
3. Do not use the name of your God in vain.
4. Do no work on the Sabbath.
5. Honor your parents.
6. Do not kill.
7. Do not commit adultery.
8. Do not steal.
9. Do not give false testimony against another.
10. Do not desire another's wife or anything that belongs to another.
The Old Testament contains many examples of killings performed under God's orders. The only way this can be reconciled with commandment 6 is to assume that the proscription against killing must be restricted, say, only to your particular tribe rather than all humanity.
And, how many believers realize they are breaking commandment 2 every time they take a photograph or draw a picture? How many would stop if that were pointed out to them?
The restrictions imposed by the Ten Commandments can be found in other civilizations predating the time of Moses. Furthermore, it is clear from the above list that most of these restrictions are irrelevant to modern life and hardly form the basis for any existing legal system. Indeed, the Code of Hammurabi (c. 1780 BCE) represents a considerably more significant historical step in the development of laws of justice, containing not merely 10 but 282 detailed commandments.12 Perhaps these should be displayed on courthouse steps.
Or, another option would be the Laws of Solon. Solon (d. 558 BCE) was an Athenian who is regarded as the founder of Western democracy and the first man in Western history to record a written constitution. That constitution eliminated birth as a basis for government office and created democratic assemblies open to all male citizens, such that no law could be passed without the majority vote of all. (Equal rights for women were still a long way off.) American democracy owes far more to Solon than the crude rules of the Hebrews.13
Christendom and Islam have a long history of authoritarianism with little disposition toward individual freedom and justice. Nowhere in the Bible can you discover the principles upon which modern democracies and justice systems are founded.
Slavery provides another example where the Bible hardly forms a model for our modern free societies. The Old Testament not only condones slavery but actually regulates its practice:
When you buy a Hebrew slave, he shall serve six years, and in the seventh he shall go out free, for nothing. (Exod. 21:2, Revised Standard Version)
If his master gives him a wife and she bears him sons or daughters, the wife and her children shall be her master's and he shall go out alone. (Exod. 21:4, Revised Standard Version)
Jesus had many opportunities to disavow slavery. He never did. St. Paul reaffirms the practice: "Bid slaves to be submissive to their masters and to give satisfaction in every respect" (Titus 2:9).
Prior to the Civil War, the Bible was widely used to justify slavery in the United States. Baptist leader and slave owner Richard Furman (d. 1825) laid the foundation for the biblical arguments that would be made in support of slavery leading up to the Civil War. While president of the State Baptist Convention, Furman wrote to the governor of South Carolina, "The right of holding slaves is clearly established in the Holy Scriptures, both by precept and example."14 Furman University in Greenville, South Carolina, founded in 1826, was named for Richard Furman; his writings can be found in its archives.
Another prominent churchman, Alexander Campbell (d. 1866) wrote, "There is not one verse in the Bible inhibiting slavery, but many regulating it. It is not then, we conclude, immoral."15 It is to be noted that Campbell declared himself against slavery, so once again we have a Christian following his own conscience despite what the scriptures say.
Jefferson Davis, president of the Confederacy, claimed to follow what the scriptures said: "[Slavery] was established by decree of Almighty God . . . it is sanctioned in the Bible, in both Testaments, from Genesis to Revelation."16
While Christians in the South held onto their slaves as long as they could, secular humanist Richard Randolph of Virginia began freeing his in 1791.17 Popes and other fathers of the Catholic Church owned slaves as late as 1800. Jesuits in colonial Maryland and nuns in Europe and Latin America owned slaves. The Church did not condemn slavery until 1888, after every Christian nation had abolished the practice.18
Distinguished Catholic scholar John T. Noonan Jr. points out that the Church has traditionally denied that it has made any changes in the moral teachings of Jesus and the apostles.19 Slavery and other examples he presents amply illustrate that the Church's teaching does indeed change with the times.
Now, the campaign to end slavery in the United States and elsewhere was led by Christians, to their everlasting credit. However, the abolitionists clearly were not guided by the literal words of scripture but by their own interpretations and innate senses of a higher good.
Finally, let me just briefly mention the historical oppression of women. St. Paul said, "Wives, be subject to your husbands, as to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior" (Eph. 5:22-23, Revised Standard Version). Western societies finally have begun to recognize the irrationality and injustice of treating women as lesser human beings, providing a clear, recent example of how our notions of right and wrong evolve independent of and often contrary to religious teachings.
HOLY HORRORS
The Old Testament is filled with atrocities committed in the name of God. These are rarely mentioned in Sunday school, but anyone can pick up a Bible and read them for herself. I will just mention some of the worst: "Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the young girls who have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves" (Num. 31:17-18, Revised Standard Version).
At another time, Moses orders three thousand men put to the sword on God's authority: "And he said to them, 'Thus says the Lord God of Israel, "Put every man his sword on his side, and go to and fro from gate to gate throughout the camp, and slay every man his companion, and every man his neighbor"'" (Exod. 32:27, Revised Standard Version).
Most Christians dismiss this and other biblical carnage as anachronistic and imagine such orders were eliminated with the coming of Jesus. However, in the New Testament, Jesus frequently reaffirms the laws of the prophets: "Think not that I have come to abolish the law, or the prophets: I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them" (Matt. 5:17, Revised Standard Version). The theist may respond that the above quotation is not a law but merely the report of an event, but the stories of the Bible are supposed to provide guides to proper behavior.
Christians like to pride themselves on their "family values" and their desire for peace in the world. No doubt, most are devoted to their families and are upright members of society. But they fail to remember that Jesus said: "Do not think that I have come to send peace on earth: I have not come to send peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man's foes will be those of his own household. He who loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me" (Matt. 10:34-37, Revised Standard Version).
The history of Christendom abounds with violence sanctioned by the Church and thereby defined as divinely inspired "good." This divine inspiration is not limited to scripture but continually available to the specially anointed. Pope Urban II (d. 1099) assured the medieval knights of the Crusades that the killing of infidels was not a sin. And this did not apply just to Muslims in the Holy Land. The Cathar faith in southern France, which was apparently based on the notion of dual gods that appeared earlier in Zoroastrianism and Manichaeism,20 was brutally suppressed in the Albigensian Crusade in the thirteenth century. When the besieged Cathar city of Beziers fell in 1209, soldiers reportedly asked their papal adviser how to distinguish the faithful from the infidel among the captives. He recommended: "Kill them all. God will know his own." Nearly twenty thousand were slaughtered—many first blinded, mutilated, dragged behind horses, or used for target practice.21
Incidentally, until recently the term crusade was used to refer to a Christian holy war, the equivalent of the Islamic jihad. Lloyd George's book of speeches given during his stint as British prime minister during the First World War was called The Great Crusade. General Dwight Eisenhower's memoir of the Second World War was called Crusade in Europe. The term crusade only fell into disuse recently, when shortly after September 11, 2001, President George W. Bush used it to refer to the war on terrorism and was warned off by his advisers because of its negative connotation for Muslims.22 Of course, the Muslim terrorists themselves felt they were obeying God's command to engage in jihad.
The Qur'an is as bloodthirsty as the Old Testament. Numerous references can be found for the horrible fate that awaits nonbelievers. However, it is Allah himself who generally metes out that punishment: "Lo! Those who disbelieve Our revelations, We shall expose them to the Fire. As often as their skins are consumed We shall exchange them for fresh skins that they may taste the torment. Lo! Allah is ever Mighty, Wise" (Qur'an 4:56). Muslims are enjoined to kill infidels wherever they find them, but only those who initiate hostilities:
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors. Do not fight wars of aggression. And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers. But if they desist, then lo! Allah is Forgiving, Merciful. And fight them until persecution is no more, and religion is for Allah. But if they desist, then let there be no hostility except against wrong-doers. (Qur'an 2:190-193)Of course, in every religion there are a few fanatics who follow to the letter what they regard as God's will:
• Yigal Amir, who assassinated Israeli prime minister Yitzhak Rabin in 1995, was an extremely religious Jew who stated in court, "Everything I did, I did for God."23
• Paul Hill, who murdered abortion provider Dr. John Britton in Florida in 1994, made the following statement just before his execution in 2003: "I feel very honored that they are most likely going to kill me for what I did. I'm certainly, to be quite honest, I'm expecting a great reward in heaven for my obedience."24
• Mohammed Bouyeri, the Muslim extremist who killed Dutch filmmaker Theo van Gogh in 2004, declared in his trial, "What moved me to do what I did was purely my faith. . . . I was motivated by the law that commands me to cut off the head of anyone who insults Allah and his prophet. "25
But, thankfully, they are the exception. Furthermore, each of these fanatics would be hard-pressed to demonstrate where exactly in their scriptures were they commanded to commit their dreadful acts.
Of course, no one of conscience today would think it moral to kill everyone captured in battle, saving only the virgin girls for their pleasure. Few modern Christians take the commands of the Bible literally. While they claim to appeal to scriptures and the teachings of the great founders and leaders of their faiths, they pick and choose what to follow—guided by some personal inner light. And this is the same inner light that guides nonbelievers.
AN INNER LIGHT
If God does not define what is good, who does? How are theists supposed to decide what is good?
Most do not go so far as to say that they hear it directly from God. While they claim to appeal to scriptures and the teachings of the great founders and leaders of their faiths, they pick and choose what to follow—guided by some personal inner light.
A good example is the Catholic community in the United States. Shortly after the death of Pope John Paul II in 2005, the New York Times reported:
The roughly 65 million Catholics in the United States no longer have as distinctive an identity as they did a generation ago, and as they assimilated more thoroughly into American society, their views on social and moral issues came to mirror those of other Americans.
"Catholics as a whole occupy the mainstream of American life, when 50 or 60 years ago, they were on the periphery of society," said John Green, director of the Ray C. Bliss Institute of Applied Politics at the University of Akron in Ohio and an expert on religion and politics.As a result, the Vatican's teachings on a number of subjects, including contraception, the ordination of women, and homosexuality, are out of step with the beliefs and lifestyles of most American Catholics. But the Americans mostly find a way to stay in their faith by adhering to values most important to them and quietly ignoring those they disagree with.26
The Bible is not clear on what may be killed and what may not be. It does not explicitly sanction or forbid the killing of a fetus or stem cell. And, it certainly sanctions the killing of enemies, specifically those who do not worship Yahweh.
In all these cases, believers clearly read the Bible to find support for moral principles that they have already developed from some other source.
Christians draw Jesus Christ in their own image. As philosopher George Smith explains, "Because of the theological obligation to endorse the precepts of Jesus, Christian theologians have a strong tendency to read their own moral conviction into the ethics of Jesus. Jesus is made to say what theologians think he should have said."27
Philosopher Walter Kaufmann agrees, "Most Christians gerrymander the Gospels and carve an idealized self-portrait out of the texts: Pierre van Passen's Jesus is a socialist, Fosdick's is a liberal, while the ethic of Reinhold Niebuhr's Jesus agrees, not surprisingly, with Niebuhr's own."28 As George Bernard Shaw commented, "No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says. He is always convinced that it says what he means."29
Every time a theologian reinterprets Moses, Jesus, or Muhammad, he further reinforces my crucial point: we humans decide what is good by standards lying outside the scriptures.
Believers are guided by their consciences in deciding for themselves what is right and wrong, just as are nonbelievers. The basic notions of good and evil that we all share—believers and nonbelievers—are, for the most part, common and universal. Psychological tests indicate that there are no significant differences in the moral sense between atheists and theists.30
In short, the empirical facts indicate that most humans are moral animals whose sense of right and wrong conflicts with many of the teachings of the great monotheistic religions. We can safely conclude they did not originate at that source.
NATURAL MORALITY
If human morals and values do not arise out of divine command, then where do they come from? They come from our common humanity. They can be properly called humanistic.31
A considerable literature exists on the natural (biological, cultural, evolutionary) origins of morality.32 Darwin saw the evolutionary advantage of cooperation and altruism. Modern thinkers have elaborated on this observation, showing in detail how our moral sense can have arisen naturally during the development of modern humanity.
We can even see signs of moral, or protomoral behavior in animals. Vampire bats share food. Apes and monkeys comfort members of their group who are upset and work together to get food. Dolphins push sick members of a pod to the surface to get air. Whales will put themselves in harm's way to help a wounded member of their group. Elephants try their best to save injured members of their families.33
In these examples we glimpse the beginnings of the morality that advanced to higher levels with human evolution. You may call animal morality instinctive, built into the genes of animals by biological evolution. But when we include cultural evolution as well, we have a plausible mechanism for the development of human morality—by Darwinian selection.
It seems likely that this is where we humans have learned our sense of right and wrong. We have taught it to ourselves.
THE MORAL ARGUMENT
Since Thomas Aquinas, theologians have claimed that the very fact that humans have a moral conscience can be taken as evidence for the existence of God:
There must be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness and every other perfection: and this we call God. —Thomas Aquinas34Contemporary Christian apologist William Lane Craig puts it this way, "If we can in some measure be good, then it follows that God exists."35
However, I have turned that argument on its head. The very fact that humans have a common moral conscience can be taken as evidence against the existence of God.
As we have seen from an examination of the empirical evidence, God cannot be the source of commonly accepted human morals and values. If he were, then we would expect to see evidence in the superior moral behavior of believers compared to nonbelievers. Even if you deny that any discrepancy exists between the behavior of believers and what is taught in their scriptures, the empirical fact that nonbelievers show themselves to be no less virtuous provides strong evidence that morals and values come from humanity itself. Observable human and societal behaviors look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.
As we have seen from an examination of the empirical evidence, God cannot be the source of commonly accepted human morals and values. If he were, then we would expect to see evidence in the superior moral behavior of believers compared to nonbelievers. Even if you deny that any discrepancy exists between the behavior of believers and what is taught in their scriptures, the empirical fact that nonbelievers show themselves to be no less virtuous provides strong evidence that morals and values come from humanity itself. Observable human and societal behaviors look just as they can be expected to look if there is no God.
1. Phillip E. Johnson, Darwin on Trial (Downers Grove, IL: Inter-Varsity Press, 1991).
2. According to a March 5, 1997, letter to Rod Swift from Denise Golumbaski, research analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, online at http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm (accessed February 5, 2006).
3. Ruth Miller, Larry S. Miller, and Mary R. Langenbrunner, "Religiosity and Child Sexual Abuse: A Risk Factor Assessment," Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 6, no. 4 (1997): 14-34.
4. Michael Franklin and Marian Hetherly, "How Fundamentalism Affects Society," Humanist 57 (September/October 1997): 25.
5. Ronald J. Sider, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience," Christianity Today 11, no. 1 (January/February 2005): 8, http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/001/3.8.html (accessed March 22, 2005).
6. Solomon Asch, Social Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1952), pp. 378-79.
7. Theodore Schick Jr., "Is Morality a Matter of Taste? Why Professional Ethicists Think That Morality Is Not Purely Subjective," Free Inquiry 18, no. 4 (1998): 32-34.
8. For other historical statements of the Golden Rule, see Michael Shermer, The Science of Good & Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care,Share, and Follow the Golden Rule (New York: Times Books, 2004), p. 23.
9. Thanks to Eleanor Binnings for providing these quotations.
10. Joseph McCabe, The Sources of Morality of the Gospels (London: Watts and Co., 1914), p. 209, as quoted in George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989), p. 317.
11. Richard Carrier, "The Real Ten Commandments," Internet Infidels Library (2000), http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html (accessed August 14, 2005).
12. The text of the Code of Hammurabi, translated by L. W. King, online at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html (accessed April 3, 2005). Commentaries by Charles F. Home (1915) and the Encyclopaedia Brittanica entry, 11th ed. (1910), written by Claude Hermann Walter Johns, also can be found at this site.
13. Carrier, "The Real Ten Commandments."
14. Richard Furman, "Exposition of the View of the Baptists Relative to the Colored Population of the United States to the Governor of South Carolina 1822," transcribed by T. Lloyd Benson from the original text in the South Carolina Baptist Historical Collection, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina. Available at http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmnl.htm (accessed December 1, 2004), p. 6.
15. Alexander Campbell, "Our Position to American Slavery—No.V," Millennial Harbinger, ser. 3, vol. 2 (1845): 193.
16. Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, February 18, 1861, Confederate States of America Congressional Journal 1 (1861): 64-66; quoted in Dunbar Rowland,Jefferson Davis's Place in History as Revealed in His Letters, Papers, and Speeches, vol. 1 (Jackson, MS: Torgerson Press, 1923), p. 286.
17. Melvin Patrick Ely, Israel on the Appomattox: A Southern Experiment in Black Freedom from the 1790s through the Civil War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005).
18. John T. Noonan Jr., A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005).
19. Ibid.
20. Jean Markale, Montsegur and the Mystery of the Cathars, trans.Jon Graham (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2003).
21. For this and other tales of atrocities in the name of religion, seeJames A. Haught, Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990).
22. Joan Acocella, "Holy Smoke; What Were the Crusades ReallyAbout?" New Yorker, December 13, 2004.
23. CNN Report, March 27, 1996, http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/amir_verdict/ (accessed December 9, 2004).
24. Associated Press, September 2, 2003, http://www.fadp.org/news/TampaBayOnline-20030903.htm (accessed December 9, 2004).
25. Trial statement, Associated Press, July 12, 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5136448,00.html (accessed July 20, 2005).
26. Dean E. Murphy and Neela Banjeree, "Catholics in U.S. Keep Faith, but Live with Contradictions," New York Times, April 11, 2005.
27. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, p. 313.
28. Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic, paperback ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1963), p. 216.
29. From a Saturday Review article, April 16, 1895.
30. Marc Hauser and Peter Singer, "Morality without Religion," Free Inquiry 26, no. 1 (December 2005/January 2006): 18-19.
31. Paul Kurtz, Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism (Amherst,NY: Prometheus Books, 1988).
32. Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984); Richard D. Alexander, The Biology of Moral Systems (Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987); Robert Wright, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology (New York: Vintage Books, 1994); Frans B. M. de Wall, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals (Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, 1996); Larry Arnhart, Darwinian Natural Right; The Biological Ethics of Human Nature (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998); Leonard D. Katz, ed., Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (Bowling Green, OH: Imprint Academic, 2000); Jessica C. Flack and Frans B. M. de Wall, "'Any Animal Whatever' Darwinian Building Blocks of Morality in Monkeys and Apes," Journal of Consciousness Studies 7, nos. 1-2 (2000): 1-29; Donald M. Broom, The Evolution of Morality and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Shermer, The Science of Good & Evil.
33. Shermer, The Science of Good & Evil, pp. 26-31.
34. Thomas Aquinas, Fourth Way in Summa Theologica.
35. William Lane Craig, "The Absurdity of Life without God," http://www.hisdefense.org/audio/wc_audio.html (accessed March 9, 2004).
2. According to a March 5, 1997, letter to Rod Swift from Denise Golumbaski, research analyst, Federal Bureau of Prisons, online at http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm (accessed February 5, 2006).
3. Ruth Miller, Larry S. Miller, and Mary R. Langenbrunner, "Religiosity and Child Sexual Abuse: A Risk Factor Assessment," Journal of Child Sexual Abuse 6, no. 4 (1997): 14-34.
4. Michael Franklin and Marian Hetherly, "How Fundamentalism Affects Society," Humanist 57 (September/October 1997): 25.
5. Ronald J. Sider, "The Scandal of the Evangelical Conscience," Christianity Today 11, no. 1 (January/February 2005): 8, http://www.christianitytoday.com/bc/2005/001/3.8.html (accessed March 22, 2005).
6. Solomon Asch, Social Psychology (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1952), pp. 378-79.
7. Theodore Schick Jr., "Is Morality a Matter of Taste? Why Professional Ethicists Think That Morality Is Not Purely Subjective," Free Inquiry 18, no. 4 (1998): 32-34.
8. For other historical statements of the Golden Rule, see Michael Shermer, The Science of Good & Evil: Why People Cheat, Gossip, Care,Share, and Follow the Golden Rule (New York: Times Books, 2004), p. 23.
9. Thanks to Eleanor Binnings for providing these quotations.
10. Joseph McCabe, The Sources of Morality of the Gospels (London: Watts and Co., 1914), p. 209, as quoted in George Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1989), p. 317.
11. Richard Carrier, "The Real Ten Commandments," Internet Infidels Library (2000), http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/features/2000/carrier2.html (accessed August 14, 2005).
12. The text of the Code of Hammurabi, translated by L. W. King, online at http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/hamcode.html (accessed April 3, 2005). Commentaries by Charles F. Home (1915) and the Encyclopaedia Brittanica entry, 11th ed. (1910), written by Claude Hermann Walter Johns, also can be found at this site.
13. Carrier, "The Real Ten Commandments."
14. Richard Furman, "Exposition of the View of the Baptists Relative to the Colored Population of the United States to the Governor of South Carolina 1822," transcribed by T. Lloyd Benson from the original text in the South Carolina Baptist Historical Collection, Furman University, Greenville, South Carolina. Available at http://alpha.furman.edu/~benson/docs/rcd-fmnl.htm (accessed December 1, 2004), p. 6.
15. Alexander Campbell, "Our Position to American Slavery—No.V," Millennial Harbinger, ser. 3, vol. 2 (1845): 193.
16. Jefferson Davis, "Inaugural Address as Provisional President of the Confederacy," Montgomery, AL, February 18, 1861, Confederate States of America Congressional Journal 1 (1861): 64-66; quoted in Dunbar Rowland,Jefferson Davis's Place in History as Revealed in His Letters, Papers, and Speeches, vol. 1 (Jackson, MS: Torgerson Press, 1923), p. 286.
17. Melvin Patrick Ely, Israel on the Appomattox: A Southern Experiment in Black Freedom from the 1790s through the Civil War (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005).
18. John T. Noonan Jr., A Church That Can and Cannot Change: The Development of Catholic Moral Teaching (Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2005).
19. Ibid.
20. Jean Markale, Montsegur and the Mystery of the Cathars, trans.Jon Graham (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions, 2003).
21. For this and other tales of atrocities in the name of religion, seeJames A. Haught, Holy Horrors: An Illustrated History of Religious Murder and Madness (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 1990).
22. Joan Acocella, "Holy Smoke; What Were the Crusades ReallyAbout?" New Yorker, December 13, 2004.
23. CNN Report, March 27, 1996, http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/9603/amir_verdict/ (accessed December 9, 2004).
24. Associated Press, September 2, 2003, http://www.fadp.org/news/TampaBayOnline-20030903.htm (accessed December 9, 2004).
25. Trial statement, Associated Press, July 12, 2005, http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-5136448,00.html (accessed July 20, 2005).
26. Dean E. Murphy and Neela Banjeree, "Catholics in U.S. Keep Faith, but Live with Contradictions," New York Times, April 11, 2005.
27. Smith, Atheism: The Case Against God, p. 313.
28. Walter Kaufmann, The Faith of a Heretic, paperback ed. (New York: Doubleday, 1963), p. 216.
29. From a Saturday Review article, April 16, 1895.
30. Marc Hauser and Peter Singer, "Morality without Religion," Free Inquiry 26, no. 1 (December 2005/January 2006): 18-19.
31. Paul Kurtz, Forbidden Fruit: The Ethics of Humanism (Amherst,NY: Prometheus Books, 1988).
32. Robert Axelrod, The Evolution of Cooperation (New York: Basic Books, 1984); Richard D. Alexander, The Biology of Moral Systems (Hawthorne, NY: Aldine de Gruyter, 1987); Robert Wright, The Moral Animal: Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology (New York: Vintage Books, 1994); Frans B. M. de Wall, Good Natured: The Origins of Right and Wrong in Humans and Other Animals (Cambridge, MS: Harvard University Press, 1996); Larry Arnhart, Darwinian Natural Right; The Biological Ethics of Human Nature (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 1998); Leonard D. Katz, ed., Evolutionary Origins of Morality: Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives (Bowling Green, OH: Imprint Academic, 2000); Jessica C. Flack and Frans B. M. de Wall, "'Any Animal Whatever' Darwinian Building Blocks of Morality in Monkeys and Apes," Journal of Consciousness Studies 7, nos. 1-2 (2000): 1-29; Donald M. Broom, The Evolution of Morality and Religion (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003); Shermer, The Science of Good & Evil.
33. Shermer, The Science of Good & Evil, pp. 26-31.
34. Thomas Aquinas, Fourth Way in Summa Theologica.
35. William Lane Craig, "The Absurdity of Life without God," http://www.hisdefense.org/audio/wc_audio.html (accessed March 9, 2004).
No comments:
Post a Comment