Can Atheists Believe in Moral Values?

I wasn't aware that Ian McEwan, author of the novel Atonement (which was recently turned into a movie nominated for 7 academy awards), is an atheist.  I haven't seen the movie yet but was struck by what he had to say in this interview with the New Republic:

"But it is crucial that people who do not have a sky god and don't have a set of supernatural beliefs assert their belief in moral values and in love and in the transcendence that they might experience in landscape or art or music or sculpture or whatever." 

I just got done with a weekend where I led a So Cal church in some unique events designed to engage local atheists.  In our conversations, the atheists continued to point to the fact that they can either, (a) believe in moral values or (b) live moral lives.  This demonstrates the atheist's confusion.  The careful theist does not disagree with (a) or (b). 

The theist's objection is metaphysical not epistemological.  In other words, the theist makes no claims about the atheists beliefs about or knowledge of moral values.  Indeed, Christian theists expect atheists to have knowledge of morality because it's "written on their hearts" (Romans 2:14&15).  The theist affirms the atheist can be a moral realist epistemologically. 

However, the question of being is more fundamental than the question of knowing.  The theist is first concerned about the ontology of moral values, specifically what is referred to as the grounding question.  How does the atheist properly ground the existence of objective moral values?  Or in other words, does atheism offer an adequate explanation of the very existence of moral values?  The theistic argument claims that atheism is incompatible with moral realism of the ontological kind. 

I've heard Christians confuse the issue as well when they challenge the atheist with something like the following:  "How can you be moral without God?"  Both sides can clear up the confusion with this important distinction, which allows us to get at the very heart of the issue. 

Comments

[Josh]

If I understand you correctly, the question for the Atheist isn’t how can you be moral, but rather on what basis are you grounding your behavior (or anyone’s behavior for that matter) as moral or immoral?

To which I would imagine most would reply morals are social constructs enforced by rewards and punishments by the social structure. Nietzsche’s transverse of values concept makes it very difficult to argue about the objectivity of morality. Any suggestions on how to disarm or deflect Nietzsche’s argument?

-Josh

[Mike Westfall]

At the risk of Godwinizing the discussion, I'd point out that morality by "social construct" led to 6 million dead Jews in the 1940s.

The social construct theory of morality seems a bit fickle to me. I'm sure that my argument is not sufficient for those that want to believe it, though.

[Darin]

I don't know whether the question is "How do you have morals?", but what about the question, "WHY do you have morals?" Is the response "My evolutionary herd instinct" (which Lewis says is a typical response) all that can be expected?

[ChrisB]

Josh, the thing is, most atheists aren't going to say that moral are just social constructs. They really think murder is wrong.

I think the appropriate response is the four-year-old's question: why? "Why is murder wrong?" "Why is it wrong to take a life?" "Why do people have a responsibility to treat others like they want to be treated?" "Why do people have a right to live?"

Keep asking why until they're blue in the face. Whatever answer they come up with will either be vulnerable to "why" or it will be a utilitarian Nietzsche-esqe answer that denies universal moral norms.

[ToNy]

As a fallen Christian and hence, one of the godless, I have a LOT of trouble convincing my godless friends that objective moral truths require the existence of a God. I've tried various approaches over the years. I guess my favorite is to first get them to understand that appealing to universal oughts, indeed means that the oughts we appeal to, are part of the universe. In other words, get them to see that for objective moral truths to exist, would require that said oughts were at one time instantiated by a sentient creator of the cosmos.
or to put it another way, you must believe that written right up there next to E=mc2, is also the expression "Though shall not murder." and "Though shall not listen to music too loud and bother your neighbors."
Its odd how many atheists cling to the existence of objective morals, when i think the question is so easily answered via evolutionary psych.
Click over to wikipedia to see the absolutely ridiculous Atheists In Foxholes Monument in Alabama

http://tinyurl.com/o26fc

If materialism is true, and nothing happens when you'd die, i don't know why the heck these guys were willing to die in a fox hole. Talk about having your priorities messed up!
As an agnostic, you'd NEVER NEVER NEVER catch me in a fox hole!!!! My life is too important to me. Or as my Christian friends used to tell me, "Tony you're holding on to your scratch"

Hell ya i am!!!

It's all I got.

[cameron]

This blog reminds me of a story a dear brother told me. He was raised in an Orthodox Jewish home descended from a long line of Rabbis.He was up until the early hours of the morning trying to convince an "intellectual" atheist of his need for the Messiah,my friend was a University lecturer at the time and tackled the atheists arguments in an intellectual manner. Finally in the wee hours he asked the Lord what he should do and felt to say to the man "it is appointed for all men to die and face the judgement of a Holy God". At this the heretofore seemingly unmoved intellectual broke down and asked how he could be saved.
I think the lesson in this is that many times we feel we have to address all the stumbling blocks, whether real or perceived that others put before us about their doubts and we forget to look at the examples of the Messiah and his Apostles who constantly preached the Word of God which has the power to divide soul and spirit.
If I have a criticism of many apologetic ministries it is this. In our arguments we seem to strive for nonbelievers to have a mental ascendency to truth by our arguments rather than, as we are instructed in God's Word, to preach the gospel.

[ToNy]

GOT A QUESTION!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hey guys, unrelated question but i just stumbled upon this and i thought it was important.
This story below outlines the process of genetically altering the promiscuous meadow mole, to be monogamous.

http://tinyurl.com/2ayg9l

Ok so i'ts not perfect and more research needs to be done yadda yadda yadda. But purely hypothetically speaking, assume you're a newly married Christian male with a wandering eye. You really love your wife and you don't want to cheat on her ever. A scientists offers you a pill which will alter your brain such that you will only experience sexual attraction when you look at your wife.

Question:

Is it a sin to take the pill? Or is it a wise idea?

I'm honestly not sure how i would answer this (from a christian perspective)- ideas?

[Markku Koponen]

Tony wrote,

"Is it a sin to take the pill? Or is it a wise idea?"

I think it is not sin, but not wise either. The fact of sexual temptation is only material to obedience, using C. S. Lewis's term. The only way to get to the root problem of human evil, and not only treat its symptoms, is to actively resist temptation again and again. If you remove one temptation "forcibly", your weakness will manifest in another.

Only if the result of failing to resist would be absolutely catastrophic, would it be wise to do it. Paedophilia would be an example.

[Gregory]

ToNy,

Whether it's foolish or not to take the pill, one thing is certain. Upon taking the pill, there would be no basis for claiming to have a virtuous character. This is because marital fidelity is no longer an active decision of the will, but a compulsion. One who is coerced into an action (in this case monagamous desiring) may behave rightly, but not virtuously. To act virtuously (or morally, to use the modern term), requires a certain state of mind and involves an internal disposition. This is just as critical as getting the external action right, and that makes all the difference.

[Agilius]

>> To which I would imagine most would reply morals are social constructs enforced by rewards and punishments by the social structure.

The term "social construct" tells us that the construct has been set up by society - but not *why* it was set up by society.

Ultimately, the social construct response is a straw man.

---

Regarding the Monogamy Pill, I have thoughts on this, but I will wait for an appropriate blog entry to comment.

[ToNy]

Markku,
>> If you remove one temptation "forcibly", your weakness will manifest in another.
Huh? Christians forcibly act to remove temptation all the time. Consider the business man who alters his route to work so that he doesnt pass by a newstand with some particularly saucy literature.

>> Only if the result of failing to resist would be absolutely catastrophic, would it be wise to do it. Paedophilia would be an example.

Is not sin/divorce/infidelity catastrophic?

[Markku Koponen]

Tony wrote,

"Huh? Christians forcibly act to remove temptation all the time. Consider the business man who alters his route to work so that he doesnt pass by a newstand with some particularly saucy literature."

Yes, and that is just the kind of thing that one must do repeatedly. It builds character.

"Is not sin/divorce/infidelity catastrophic?"

I wouldn't consider the dangers of a normal sexual desire catastrophic, when compared to other sins. If you remove that temptation, and therefore those opportunities for training your soul, it becomes more likely that you will fail in some other area.

But if there is some desire that is much more dangerous than the others, then I would consider it wise to remove that one if it's possible.

[ToNy]

After some thought, i think one could make a good christian case for taking such pills.

Consider it this way. Man's mind is at a fallen state because of the fall. We are allowed (and even encouraged) to develop treatments and medicines that heal the wages of sin. i.e. we build artificial hearts to implant into people with failing hearts, we build tractors to work the ground (which didnt yield fruit as easily after the fall) etc.

So if we're allowed to fix things in this world that are fallen, why can't we fix the fallen brain?
let us assume that adam and eve had neuronal construct C, which prevented them from having thoughts of infidelity. If a particular pill fixed Philandering Phil's brain, such that he developed neuronal construct C, then whats wrong with that?

We already widely accept the use of anesthesia in childbirth, which temporarily alters the brain of the mother such that she does not feel pain in child birth - like eve wouldn't have.

We treat thousands of neurological disorders with drugs that alter the brain.

we've even implanted pig neurons in the brains of stroke victims.

so why not a pill that angles your libido toward your wife exclusively?

[Austin]

Good question ToNy. I can't think of any objections to the pill other than that it shows a lack of trust in God that he will help you stay faithfull to your wife. These types of challenges in life are meant to increase your dependence on Him.

[Mike Westfall]

But then again, maybe your faith in God has led you to the availablility of the pill...

Kind of like the guy who drowned in a flood because he refused to take assistance from other humans because he was "relying on God" to save him. He gets to heaven and complains that God didn't save him from the flood, and God answers, "But I sent you two boats and a helicopter, and you refused them!"

[jane1]

I once asked the question :

"where do you get your morals from,
what are they based on?", and "why is homocide wrong?". All of the 10 or so replies, even from some
Christians, said they came from
family or society or local custom , or some combination of those.

Not one person could tell me where the family/community got the
established morals from.
No one could say why homocide is wrong.

[SPQR333]

ToNY, good question for thought. If the "wandering eye" you mention is the result of abnormal brain chemistry (as in bipolar disorder), then a medical help would not at all be immoral. In fact, we might go so far as to say the man then has a moral responsibility to do that which returns his brain chemistry to its natural state.

But a "wandering eye" is not a result of brain chemistry, but one of weakness of the will (of course as a materialist you don't believe this). This doesn't necessarily mean taking a pill to help in this is immoral, but it is certainly imprudent and doesn't address the real issue.

Monogamy is also not just about "sexual desire". It is about remaining faithful to a promise one made. This again is more about the will than brain chemistry (but again, as a materialist, you don't believe this).

BTW, I teach a high school morality and ethics course and I think this is a good scenario question to ask in our current discussion on law natural law (I may edit the content...).

[Amy Hall]

Hey, Tony, what happened to your websites? They're not really gone, are they?

[Louis Kuhelj]

"So if we're allowed to fix things in this world that are fallen, why can't we fix the fallen brain?
let us assume that adam and eve had neuronal construct C, which prevented them from having thoughts of infidelity. If a particular pill fixed Philandering Phil's brain, such that he developed neuronal construct C, then whats wrong with that?"

Isn't the problem the mind, not the brain? Even if you can fix this by fiddling with chemistry(or is this just another overenthusiastic blurb from the scientific community), it would not fix the problem of the fallen nature of man and therefore it solves nothing. No, the only solution is Jesus' finished work on the cross. Fixing a flat tire on a car isn't going to get it going if the engine threw a rod.

[Drew]

In regards to the "magic" pill; I wonder if those who said they would take it actually think that in their internal mind and external behavior, by abstaining from perverse sexual desire, have obeyed the law and not sinned?

Come on, think about it for heaven's sake! The question should really be, "If one, while under the blood and righteouness of Christ; were to take a pill to curb their immoral sexual desire be taking the right action?"

This isn't a sin or non-sin issue. Everything done outside of the grace and mercy of God in Christ is sin, even good behavior.

Always remember where our righteousness comes from!

Louis,

>> it would not fix the problem of the fallen nature of man and therefore it solves nothing.

Obviously everyone still needs jesus to go to heaven. But this would reduce the number of sins per day – which is a good thing.

[ToNy]

Louis,

>> it would not fix the problem of the fallen nature of man and therefore it solves nothing.

Obviously everyone still needs jesus to go to heaven. But this would reduce the number of sins per day – which is a good thing.

[ToNy]

Drew,

>> Everything done outside of the grace and mercy of God in Christ is sin, even good behavior.

how can good behavior be sin?

[ToNy]

SPQR333,

>> But a "wandering eye" is not a result of brain chemistry, but one of weakness of the will (of course as a materialist you don't believe this).

The will reacts upon the stimuli from the outside world. If we reprogrammed our brain to only allow stimulation from our wife’s body exclusively, then the temptation would simply never be there.

This would be very much like the “Shallow Hal” movie with Jack Black. In which, he only saw his unattractive girlfriend as attractive.

[Drew]

>>>> Everything done outside of the grace and mercy of God in Christ is sin, even good behavior.

>>how can good behavior be sin?

ToNy,

In the eyes of God, as he sees everything we do with omnicience, no matter how attractive our good behavior may appear, no matter if we believe we have done something good from a pure motivation, outside of God's mercy in Christ we are damned because our works (yes, even our good works) are tainted by original sin.

Romans 3:11-18 states:

11there is no one who understands,no one who seeks God.
12All have turned away,they have together become worthless; there is no one who does good,not even one."
13"Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit."
"The poison of vipers is on their lips."
14"Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness."
15"Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16ruin and misery mark their ways,
17and the way of peace they do not know."
18"There is no fear of God before their eyes."

...this is our natural state without Christ, now here is what is said by Christ in the Gospel of John 15:5:

"I am the vine; you are the branches. If a man remains in me and I in him, he will bear much fruit; apart from me you can do nothing."

If something good is done by me it is only pleasing in the eyes of God because he doesn't see that it's my work, but rather, he sees that it was the work of Christ done through me. Apart from him I can do nothing.

The reason why this bugs me is twofold, first; I believe there is an error in semantics when somebody says, "is this sin, or not sin", because everything we do outside of Christ is indeed sin. If we were able to do good works in the first place we wouldn't need Christ's righteousness.

Secondly, every inquiring soul who comes to places like this for answers, is done a diservice when sin is reduced to outward appearances. Sin is death, plain and simple; it is a very serious thing, and should be taken seriously.

Conversely, the remedy to sin; Jesus Chist, is also done a diservice when his salvific work is treated so lightly (i.e. "Obviously everyone still needs jesus to go to heaven. But this would reduce the number of sins per day – which is a good thing.") It wouldn't reduce the number of sins per day, in fact, it would increase it, for the reason that if one believes they hadn't sinned because of their "good" behavior; they would indeed compound sin on sin adding that much more weight to the tresspass.

We must call things as they are, and resist the urge to reduce the meaning of powerful terms, because in doing so we may be used by Satan as a stumbling block to someone elses faith.

[Louis Kuhelj]

">> Everything done outside of the grace and mercy of God in Christ is sin, even good behavior.

how can good behavior be sin?"

ToNy
Excuse my rudeness in jumping in here, but my bad behavior is guided by the purest of intentions...that of enlightening you in the area your question covers. It is not the behavior that matters, it is the attitude of the heart that is under God's scrutiny.

There can be good behavior with bad intentions...like helping an old lady across the street after a bank robbery so that you blend into the crowd unnoticed by the authorities that are after you. When a selfish reason in your heart is the reason for doing good, that outwardly perceived good is actually just an example of the truth of the scriptures that state that it is out of the heart of man that proceed all manner of evil. Now, before you make a silly statement about how hopes of gaining heaven would lead a Christian to do good things out of selfish motives, let me spare you the embarrassment(of course I could be jumping to an unwarranted conclusion here and if so...I'm sorry). The motives for a Christian to do good is not to gain heaven as such is his already, but an expression of gratitude for that which he has already received. Would you say that helps to clear up the Christian perspective for you?

[Jim Pemberton]

Re: ToNy's magic pill.

I don't think it's necessarily a sin, but it's not wise either. Wasn't Christ tempted in the wilderness? From personal experience, I have grown spiritually from resisting sexual temptation while I've been married. If I had taken such a pill, I would not have grown.

Re: the article.

It seems the atheist would argue that metaphysics and epistemology are mutually exclusive. That's why they use the physical (naturalism et al) as a foundation for their epistemology rather than the metaphysical. They don't see how a realm functioning with univalent logic (absolute or eternal truth) is foundational to a realm functioning with bivalent logic (temporality). Despite the $10 words, it's a concept even children can grasp intuitively. Many atheists just don't want to deal with the ramifications of accepting this truth. That's why Cameron's comment is spot on. Even if you can, you don't have to answer every argument - but you must offer the truth.

[poppies]

ToNy,

I don't have much to add to what's being said, but I do want to note how much I appreciate one of the "godless" being so truly searching. You seem to be honestly looking at issues, and it's quite refreshing.

[SPQR333]

""The will reacts upon the stimuli from the outside world.""

The will can be influenced by outside stimuli, but does not "respond" to it mechanically. It is totally free and its movement toward an object of desire is not "caused" by the object (or stimulus).

Another thought: A man's desire for his wife is not simply a response to stimulus, but a free choice to give of himself. It is not "scratching an itch". He shouldn't need to simply feel sexual attraction to desire to express physically the promise he has already made in marriage.

[Justin]

You've simply assumed that moral realism is a tenable position. If by moral realism you mean that there is such a thing as moral truth separate from the agent's assent to or awareness of such truth, then how do you suppose THOSE truths are grounded? In God? If so, then you actually aren't arguing for a version of moral realism -- under that view morals are true because God says so, not because they are true; "is the good good because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is good?"

I'll give you an alternative: there are no ultimate grounds on which "ought statements", normative judgements, and morals may be based. Either you base it on God, in which case you don't get moral truth, but the preference of an agent, or you base it, ultimately, on descriptive grounds, which themselves are not moral truths.

[Mike Westfall]

Justin, the Euthyphro Dilema ("is the good good because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is good?") is a false dilema.

Didn't you read the Paul Copan article linked above?

[Justin]

"false dilemma..."

Well, not really. Even as Copan points out (and rightly), if one tries to get around the dilemma by invoking the "character" of God, one meets it again in regards to character. If you notice, Copan doesn't actually show that the dilemma is false. Rather, he tries to pin the dilemma back onto the atheist who argues for a form of moral realism.

Of course, I'm immune to those criticisms, because I emphatically do not argue for a form of moral realism. Ultimately, what I think ought to be the case is arbitrary.

[Justin]

PS.

To be clear, however, when I say that Copan doesn't show the dilemma to be false, I am not saying that he doesn't try to.

[Agilius]

>> "is the good good because the gods love it or do the gods love it because it is good?"

I want to comment, but I'm having a very difficult time trying to put the "first horn" into words. Wikipedia says the first horn reduces god to "little more than a passer-on of knowledge"; My question is "As opposed to what?", and "Why would that matter?".

I know what I want to say regarding Euthyphro's Dilemma, but I want to be able to say that I understand the dilemma - which I do - but for some reason it's difficult for me to correctly represent the first horn. I get it, but I can't put it into words.

If someone can help me put the first horn into words, that would be helpful to me. Thanks.

[Duane]

Recent article by Steven Pinker, printed in The Age, tries to explain morality from an evolutionary perspective.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-evolution-of-morality/2008/02/22/1203467375356.html

[Justin]

Aqilius,

that depends on what you consider the first horn. I paraphrased, ans so it may not (I think it does not) read like it does in the classic work by Plato. I'll have to re-check.

[Louis Kuhelj]

"Recent article by Steven Pinker, printed in The Age, tries to explain morality from an evolutionary perspective.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/in-depth/the-evolution-of-morality/2"

I noticed that the fat man off the bridge example included a false dichotomy. The fat man was not the only heavy object there. The real question is...are you morally obligated to give your life for the five on the track....or are there some situations where we must admit our limitations in being able to save others? The story assumes that we are never placed in a situation where we simply aren't able to save those in peril. That is just plain untrue. You can't wring truth out of a lie that this example is based on.

[Louis Kuhelj]

Excuse me...that's not a false dichotomy, it just has more choices than listed.

[Mike Westfall]

Greg Koukl has a commentary on Euthyphro's
Dilemma.

http://www.str.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5236

[Justin]

The dilemma has not been dismantled. One can easily ask: is God good because it is God, or is good God because it is good?

Not that this solves the problem of arbitrariness. For how did the idea of God ever solve the idea of a completely arbitrary entity and hence a completely arbitrary morality? It didn't. It merely postponed it; I could easily posit God plus the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a viable foundation, only to meet the arbitrary, once again.

[Alan Aronson]

Interesting article from Duane. Perhaps ontological concepts are merely thought experiments on steroids. The added value may be in the insights generated and we go too far when we actually believe them. Otherwise I fail to see where grounding is important and the downside of the belief generated may not be worth the insights gained. Perhaps an epistemological approach is sufficient unless one is writing a dissertation or on a tenure track.

Another interesting approach, which Duane's reference reminded me of which is referenced in the article is the Your Morals site. Interesting test for folks to take.

http://www.yourmorals.org/aboutus.php

Hi Josh, Brian Leiter has a Nietzsche blog with all sorts of links.

[Agilius]

>> I want to comment, but I'm having a very difficult time trying to put the "first horn" into words.

OK, I think I'm able to correctly represent the first horn in words, and solve the dilemma.

I got hung up on why it would matter if the standard of good had its grounding apart from god, since reality and logic have their grounding apart from god, and *these* aren't issues.

But Greg's article helped me see(Thanks, Mike W.) that morality can't be grounded apart from a lawgiver ("Why should I worship the fictions that you have imposed on me in the name of nothing?" -Thomas Merton, according to Greg Koukl). Why that escaped me, I will wonder about for some time. How embarassing.

So, here goes.

I'll need to preface that the definition of goodness will be key in understanding where I'm coming from, and I'll get to that a little later.

The first horn, according to Socrates (more than less), is that goodness cannot derive meaning apart from a lawgiver, and, therefore, a religion which promotes such a goodness does not represent reality.

The second horn is easy to put into words. A morality which derives its meaning from divine fiat is arbitrary, and looses its meaning.

OK, here's the solution.

A distinction needs to be made between a person's accountability to god, and his accountability to others.

A person's accountability to god - as such (If it helps, think of you and god as the only two beings in existence) - is based on divine fiat and power- that is, as creator and the most powerful, god can do anything he wants; but since goodness is not a factor, there is no arbitrariness - god really, truly, desires x from you; It's just a fact.

Now, a person's accountability to god, as pertains to his commands regarding other people - these are his moral commands - is based on how he chose to create humankind.

For example, if no one ever felt pain, and people were resurrected immediately upon death every time they died, then it wouldn't be a sin to kill people. God *could* have created such a universe, but he didn't, and the reasons why will probably never be known, and, ultimately, it doesn't matter what the reasons are.

This is a good place to define goodness.

According to the Bible, god creates evil (Is. 45:7; Deut. 30:15). Without going into detail, hopefully it will suffice to say that, in this verse, evil has an a-moral connotation. Basically, it means destruction or turmoil - a categorically appropriate antithesis to the peace to which the evil spoken of is compared.

The antithesis to evil in the Deuteronomy passage is "good" - a categorical equal to the "evil" of which is spoken -, and since good is in the same category as evil, and evil has an a-moral connotation, the good of which is spoken also has an a-moral connotation.

All this to say that goodness has a broader meaning than the prevalent usage suggests.

Now, knowing that goodness has an a-moral connotation, and given the way it is used in the bible, the most precise definition of "good" seems to be: a) that which is beneficial to mankind, b) that which is pleasureable to mankind (see the Proverbist's take on eating honey), etc.

But everything that is pleasurable or beneficial to us is not permissible by god, so the Bible is suggesting that, within its a-moral connotation, there is a sense in which good is to be understood as "greater good", or "ultimate good" - that is to say, ultimately pleasing or ultimately beneficial.

Now this good of which I speak is based on the experience of persons (god included), such that, again, if people couldn't be harmed, slapping people wouldn't ever be evil, nor, by extention, a sin.

In summation:

God designed humankind a particular way.

Good derives its meaning from the experience of persons, and as such, is relative to the experience of the individual person.

God designed us as equals - that is, that there is a sense in which all humans are equal -, and, as such, despite the relative nature of good, we are all designed to experience all "ultimately good" things the same way.

Since "ultimate good" derives its meaning from the relative experience of persons, the standard is not arbitrary - people truly experience ultimate good in an established fashion; and the second horn is avoided.

Since the relative experience of persons is designed by god, god has both the knowledge of good and the moral authority - not just authority based on power - to make moral laws and judgements; and the first horn is avoided.

The only problem with this solution might be found in the verse that says that in god there is no darkness (basically, moral evil); Whether or not my solution survives the pre-creation era (for lack of a better term) eludes me, seeing that this verse suggests that goodness is an inherent quality of god, and, therefore, that the standard of good derives its meaning apart from god; the implication for the pre-creation era being that the standard both derives its meaning apart from god, and is not dependent on the experiences of humankind.

But maybe this verse was only meant to be helpful in the context of human history, such that morality is a moot point during the pre-creation era.

[bc]

"Not that this solves the problem of arbitrariness. For how did the idea of God ever solve the idea of a completely arbitrary entity and hence a completely arbitrary morality? It didn't. It merely postponed it; I could easily posit God plus the Flying Spaghetti Monster as a viable foundation, only to meet the arbitrary, once again."

While the Flying Spaghetti Monster is funny, it has never been a serious consideration for the source of morality, creation, etc. The FSM is completely contrived without any basis of belief whatsoever, but the God of the Bible is pointed to as our moral lawgiver for substantial reason: the historical reliability of the Bible. It's a wholly different topic for another post that we may not agree on, but the New Testament is a written historical account composed of multiple eyewitness attestations, many events of which have been corroborated by ancient secular historians of the era. This doesn't prove that God is the author of morality, or even that the Bible is true, but it certainly gives God a much higher consideration than the unquestioned product of an active imagination.

"The dilemma has not been dismantled. One can easily ask: is God good because it is God, or is good God because it is good?"

Good is an attribute that depends on its existence on that which possesses it. God is not an attribute and therefore it is not reasonable to refer to God as one. Good is not God...God is so much more than good.

[Brian]

I have read whole page, in the beginning you said that atheist people are strongly believer of moral values. It is not the fact that these people have more moral values than God believers. Novel writer have their own perception try to understand his point of view.

[Aarin Agassi]

Even survival instinct to begin with, is biological and arbitrary. For as Socrates famously argues, how can the oblivion after death be any more painful than the oblivion before birth? In the immortal words of Protagoras, "Man is the measure of all things." There is no objective meaning. Meaning occurs in the human mind. And because values ultimately derive from biologically innate needs and drives; therefore as discovered in the Empirical childhood developmental psychology of Piaget, the clearest known actual source or morality remains sympathy emerging as a human, indeed an animal, propensity. Knowing myself to this degree, I do find myself untroubled thereby, that functional humans may be humane and need to be.