“Hi, Nathan. If you don’t believe in God, what stops you from murdering other people?”
This question (or some variation of it), is very popular amongst apologists, and is often used as an introduction to a popular theistic argument: The “Argument From Morality.” Atheist writers/speakers often dismiss this question with responses such as: “What makes you think I have any desire to murder people?” and “Is your faith in God the only thing stopping YOU from murdering people?” (I’m looking at you, Christopher Hitchens…) These deflections may satisfy someone who just wants to shut down a conversation quickly, but I don’t think they’re quite good enough. While this argument might sound easy to dismiss, I think the underlying question IS important:
Where do we get our sense of morality from, and how do we consistently choose right and wrong if it’s not written in a book?
So, that’s what we’re talking about today.
(I say “we”, but I would like to emphasize that YOU have been gifted the free-will to leave at any time. I, unfortunately, have been predestined to finish this blog post.*)
*Calvinist humor
Let’s get into it!
************************************************************
The underlying premise of the question “If you aren’t a Christian, what stops you from being a murderer” (and questions like it) can be summed up like this:
“If humans don’t have an Ultimate Moral Authority telling us how to live our lives, we have no choice but to just make up a moral code on our own and do whatever we want. Therefore, humans need some sort of objective standard (like the Bible) for how to live so we don’t devolve into chaos and nihilism, where everyone just does what is right in their own eyes.” [referencing Judges 17:6 for impact]
I have many issues with this premise, and I love making lists about the issues I have. So, I’ll start by making a list:
Critique #1: (the most obvious critique) - Behaving badly has consequences in the real world, even if we don’t account for a god punishing us later. The premise of the question incorrectly assumes that humans have no incentive to behave aside from a god-given moral code (and the alleged punishment that comes from violating said code). This is patently NOT the case.
For one, human societies have always had laws. The threat of punishment in the mortal world has seemingly always been necessary to achieve polite society. In spite of the fact that many people believe in a future “judgement day” where everyone will suffer the consequences of their actions, no society has been unable to avoid writing down some extra rules to guide people’s actions. A prime example is the very act presented in the initial question: Murder. In all societies around the world, murder results in some consequence (usually jail time.) If you murder someone in the US, you will be prosecuted. If you murder someone in any other country, you will be prosecuted (or, depending on where you do it, swiftly killed in retaliation.) Legal consequences for murder ensure a population that thinks twice before murdering each other. The threat of punishment isn’t just confined to the legal realm, however.
A secondary form of behavior modification comes from the fact that people just treat you better when you’re not a jerk. If you’re someone who is known as a backstabbing liar, I can assure you that nobody is inviting you to the next neighborhood BBQ. This seems obvious enough, doesn’t it? Steal from enough people, and soon you’ll have a reputation as a thief and your picture will be hanging in every grocery store. No one needs a book from God to understand that their actions have consequences in the human realm too, do they?
Act like a jerk, and you’re gonna have a bad time.
As a related note: it seems that even having a “moral code” like the Bible doesn’t seem to stop bad things from happening in Churches. [Here’s an article about the large numbers of abuse cases covered up by the Southern Baptist Convention]Critique #2: being good feels good. This one seems obvious too, doesn’t it? When I open a door for a pregnant mother who is pushing a stroller with kids, I’m not doing it because I’m picturing God sending me to heaven for doing so. Being kind to a fellow human just…feels right. Unless you’re the rare clinical sociopath, chances are: you feel the same way. There are plenty of studies on this: (Here’s an article about one) —but I’m sure each reader here can verify this by demonstration themselves: It’s almost Christmas time: and I’m sure most of us are excited to give our loved-ones gifts of some kind. A selfless act like gift-giving provides one of the best feelings in the world. Why wouldn’t you want to feel this way all the time? Being good feels good.
Critique #3: (the main point of this blog post) - The Bible doesn’t actually work as an objective moral standard. Let’s break down some reasons why:
-For one, each individual still needs to (subjectively) decide to use some version of the Bible in the first place. We are relying on human decision-making to pick the “right” moral standard. After all, plenty of other religions and religious texts provide a moral code. There are also plenty of secular moral constructs that provide the same. How do you choose which code to follow? The simple answer? ——You ask yourself: “what makes the most sense and seems right?”…and you pick that thing.
Adding even more to this problem: we have to first decide which books of the Bible actually come from God in the first place…which requires us to make a very important decision based simply on how we feel about those books. Do we think all of these books come from God? How can we be sure Paul actually speaks for God? Did Paul even write all of the books that are attributed to him?
To put it more clearly: Humans always choose what is “right in their own eyes” - but some humans have decided that following some version of the Bible is the right thing to do, and they’ve each decided on a specific version of the Bible that they feel is right. (Or worse, they’ve chosen to accept a version someone told them was right, simply because they decided that person was worth trusting.) Regardless of how you got there—either doing your own research or trusting your pastor: You, the subjective human, must decide what is right.
-Secondly, a written text can NEVER be fully objective. It will ALWAYS require interpretation by the reader. This should be obvious just by looking at the sheer number of Christians who disagree on fairly large issues (Do you need good works to get to heaven? Is slavery immoral? Is pacifism the right way to live, or is violence okay? Should babies be baptized? Does the Pope speak for God? Is God a 5-point Calvinist? Does hell last forever? Can you pray to the dead?)
A biblical case can be made for (and against) all of these things…and yet: it seems obvious that it would be helpful to have a clear moral framework to decide if slavery was ACTUALLY wrong. (I’m sure the victims of American chattel slavery would have preferred the Bible be more clear on this issue.) The Bible, unfortunately, does not provide such a framework for us: Instead, it requires lots of contextualizing (and interpreting) for a Christian to make the argument that slavery is definitively wrong. Some Christians to this day will argue that slavery ISN’T wrong.
If the moral code from God was clear, there also wouldn’t be theological debates in Christian circles about whether it’s moral for a woman to divorce her abusive husband. (If you’ve spent any amount of time in a fundamentalist Christian church, you’ve heard the “biblical” argument that a woman SHOULD stay with her abusive spouse because “God hates divorce” and so that God can “use her to get through to him”.)
This is a severe problem. Even if we conclude that the Bible is 100% true, we need to use our (subjective) human understanding to read it and decide what it means. We still need to interpret its moral code for situations that don’t appear in the text, and we need to make our best guess (interpret) when the text contradicts itself on various issues. You, the subjective human, must decide what is right.
(But what about the Holy Spirit, Nathan? Doesn’t The Holy Spirit help us interpret the Bible when we run into parts we can’t figure out?)
Well, that concept, in itself is a subjective belief. Not all Christians view the work of the Holy Spirit the same way (is the “speaking in tongues” that happens in some churches demonic, or from God?) The “guidance” that the Holy Spirit is presumed to provide comes in only one form: an internal one that only the individual can reference. This is the most subjective thing possible. Is that “still, small voice” really the Holy Spirit….Or is it just what you’re leaning toward after thinking about it for a while?
No one else hear what you’re thinking, which makes Holy Spirit claims extremely subjective. (Raise your hand if you’ve heard stories about “that guy” at Bible college telling a girl he had a crush on that God told him they should get married…) Maybe the guy honestly believes he heard God telling him to marry that girl, but it seems just as likely he just had a big crush and confused his strong feelings for something more. Even worse: maybe he’s lying.
How can you be sure that you’re not mistaken about your own feelings? And how can you decide who is lying (or mistaken) when someone claims to have a specific Holy Spirit guidance that you don’t feel? You, the subjective human, must decide what is right.
*****************************************************
Let’s do a brief summary:
There are plenty of reasons to do good things without referencing the Bible
The Bible doesn’t actually stop Christians from doing bad things
Deciding to use the Bible as a moral code in the first place is still a very subjective decision, based on an individual’s subjective morals.
Calling the Bible “objective” doesn’t make sense, because it requires subjective interpretation, based on an individual’s subjective understanding of the text.
Conclusion:
While the various versions of the Bible contain lots of beautiful poetry and wisdom, they do not provide an objective moral code that can be clearly followed. Each individual still needs to decide for themselves how to interpret the texts and which texts to follow.
In addition, the texts do not provide guidance for many situations that result from living in society. We still need lawyers and laws to figure out the fair way to handle a landlord stealing a tenant’s deposit, a person committing embezzlement, and how much to fine a company for polluting a local river. We need laws to figure out how many years in prison someone gets for negligent homicide vs. premeditated murder. The Bible says that children should be killed for disrespecting their parents. Do you agree with that? Hopefully not.
This is a big topic, which makes it hard to address in a short blog post. I’ve tried very hard to stay focused on a few main points without chasing down too many side-quests. If anyone comments, I’m happy to chase down additional targets.
Suffice to say: I, a non-believer, have zero interest in murder….and luckily, most people seem to be on the same page.
Signing off for now,
Nathan “I Do Not Think Murder Is Good For Society” Brazil