God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality
In February 2007, I participated in the Greer-Heard Forum at New Orleans Baptist Theological Seminary. The two featured speakers were the Christian theologian Alister McGrath and the “new atheist” philosopher Daniel Dennett. I had the opportunity to present a paper entitled “God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality.” I argued that God’s existence makes much better sense than naturalism to account for our basic moral intuitions, human rights/freedom/responsibility, moral duties. Naturalism cannot get us to objective morality, and the subjective morality that roots morality solely in survival-enhancement fails to account for what is integral to human nature.
A couple of weeks ago, the book based on this particular Greer-Heard Forum appeared in print: The Future of Atheism: Alister McGrath and Daniel Dennett in Dialogue, edited by Robert Stewart (Fortress Press). My essay, published therein, is available at my website. It’s a long piece, but here it is. I welcome your comments.
When Daniel Dennett responded to it at the Forum, he observed that I had hit on all the important challenges that naturalists had to come to grips about morality. He claimed that, by “reverse engineering,” he could account for objective morality naturalistically. I argued in response that, even given evolution, theism offers a more robust backdrop to explain the emergence of value than does naturalism. Dennett’s view begins with valuelessness and ends with value; theism begins with value (in the good character of God) and ends with the basic moral values we commonly agree on.
So check out the essay for yourselves and let me know what you think.
Join us in reclaiming the mind for Christ. Start The Theology Program in your church.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!
- The Moral Indignation of Richard Dawkins
- The Language of God: Some Reflections on Francis Collins’s Perspectives on God and Science
- The Greer-Heard Forum: A Few Observations
- Conversations with an Atheist Concerning the Irrationality of Atheistic Rational
- 10 Arguments for God’s Existence
Joshua on 07 Oct 2008 at 10:39 am #
Hey Paul,
I really enjoyed the article, it was very well done. Correct me if I’m wrong but it seems like your paper has 3 major points:
1. Dealing with post-modernism and skepticism; “The ability to detect error presumes an awareness of truth”, even if we cannot “know” Truth in its fullness. In other words, by our very ability to be skeptical about our own cognitive abilities, it signifies that we recognize two categories of understanding about reality: right and wrong, true and untrue.
2. Rejection of naturalistic explanations for objective morality on the basis that it has no metaphysical grounding:
Value cannot arise from non-value. How does naturalism “infuse” worth and value onto a human being? What makes human being’s value any different than bacteria? What is the metaphysical grounding for the statement “murder is wrong”, and how/why do we recognize it as such?
3. Naturalistic Evolution produces arbitrary morality because its goal and design is for the purpose of survival. Things like rape (which have been explained biologically) cannot be said to be immoral on the basis that we are “hard-wired” to perform such actions within a naturalistic framework. As such, we have no “free will” and cannot be held morally accountable for any so called “moral” action.
From your paper I gather that Naturalism has the fundamental problem of explaining the foundations for morality. Social constructs do not suffice because historically and intrinsically humans consciously recognized “good” and “evil” on a universal level (this is not to say that they are necessarily identical, but rather to point out that the conscious awareness of “good” & “evil” are present within humanity). So the naturalist is “stuck” in his explanation of morality because it is a logical leap of blind faith to assert that human value can arise through purely naturalistic processes on the basis that value cannot arise from non-value. Thus without a meta-physical foundation to rest upon, naturalism fails as a sufficient explanation for morality.
While I realize you don’t discuss this issue in your paper, my question is this:
From a Christian perspective: What makes Yahweh/Jesus’ morality objective (i.e. the True morality) as oppose to Allah’s?
Thanks for the great article.
Your brother in Christ,
-Josh
Jason on 07 Oct 2008 at 2:42 pm #
May I answer, Josh?
Allah is not an objective source of morality because in the Muslim view god is unlimited. That is even to say “Allah is good” is to place a limitation on his power. Moreover the example of Mohamed is that nothing is forbidden if it furthers the cause of Islam. In the histories (even those written by Muslims) we find Mohamed encouraging rape, lying and murder to further his ends.
YHWH is an objective source of morality for two main reasons.
Firstly He cannot lie. When He says something that’s it. I sometimes wonder if that’s not because the power of His word is such that reality adjusts itself to suit Him… but whatever.
He cannot change His nature, although He can change His mind. His nature is goodness, He embodies the perfection of character we should strive for. His moral commands require us to act in the same way He would act if He were in our shoes.
Jesus meanwhile demonstrated that character in His own life. Although He could be angry (as when cleansing the temple) He acted righteously (He used the rope to drive out the cattle, not beat the moneylenders). His evasions, as when telling His brothers “I go not to the temple this day” (He went the next) were accepted forms of avoiding insult in an honour/shame society.
On a social level, having a common moral code means that when someone acts immorally the opportunity presents itself to remonstrate with them bringing them back to the fold (as with Ambrose and Theodosius). As I pointed out in one online forum, the worst Christian ruler in history (in terms of willingness to kill his own subjects) was Charles IX of France, who in response to his mothers urging had 10,000 French Protestants murdered. He was roundly condemned by his peers and went to his grave a repentant man.
The Greek atheistic government from 1947-49 killed 20,000 people, and they were the lowest count of any atheistic regime. The highest was the Chinese who, as of 2007, had killed 76 million. There have been 52 atheist rulers in 28 regimes through the twentieth century. Do we hear atheists condemn them?
Of course not. Atheistic “morality” is entirely self-centered and completely non-binding on any other atheist.
Vladimir on 08 Oct 2008 at 11:58 am #
Apologetics can be fun and even serve as a means to get one thinking in a different frame-work, but I am more convinced that the division between the two Kingdoms is based on a judicial determination of God Himself (cf Rom 1:21-31, 2:12-16, 8:28ff). It is causative in its effect (St Jn 12:38-40, St Jn 17, etc).
Apologetics aids the believer most of all and solidifies their understanding much like the alphabet and grammar aid, solidify and make possible expression and comprehension.
Vladimir
Paul Copan on 14 Oct 2008 at 11:31 am #
Thanks to you all for your comments.
Vladimir, thanks for the note. (Do you have a Slavic background like me?) I’m not sure about the specific meaning of “the division between the two Kingdoms is based on a judicial determination of God Himself.” Please clarify.
I appreciate your point Josh, I think you’ve given a helpful summary of my essay. Jason, thanks for jumping in to offer your perspective on Josh’s question.
In response, I would say that to use the term “Allah” can be a bit confusing, as Arab Christians used the term to refer to the triune God before Muhammad was ever around–and many still do today. The linguistic use of “Allah” is different from the theological use (just as Paul used “God” to refer to the true God and also to false/unreal gods/idols). I would still use the term “Allah” (as Paul would have had he been interacting with Muslims), but one must clarify the theological content of the term.
That said, yes, Muslims do have a faulty/inaccurate understanding of God in that they reject the Trinity and God as “Father”; they deny that God could not humble himself to death on a cross; and they tend to affirm God as pure will rather than essentially good (as Jason noted). Thus I would affirm that the one true, triune God is the locus of goodness and the source of objective moral values. One’s having a false or distorted understanding of the true God doesn’t change this fact, and human beings (whether they embrace the one true God or not) are still created in the image of the triune God, and, as a result, they are able to recognize objective moral truths. I hope that helps.
Best wishes,
Paul
Vladimir on 15 Oct 2008 at 10:16 am #
Greetings Paul,
Yes, I am of Russian lineage and still speak Russian.
What I meant by the caustic demarcation judicially imposed by God Himself between God’s Kingdom/Reign and Satan’s domain(of darkness)/kingdom is perhaps best expressed by St Mt 13:37-39 and St Jn 12:37-41.
Vladimir
Paul Copan on 24 Oct 2008 at 11:34 am #
Brat Vladimir, kak dyela!
Thanks for the clarification. Nice to know know of the Slavic roots we both share. My father is from the Dnieperpetrovsk region of the Ukraine, and my mother’s from Latvia. They met in Munich after World War II.
I look forward to the time our paths cross. Maybe we can drink some kvass and eat some borshcht together!
S’bogom!
Pavel