Can man be moral without God? Can morality be grounded in anything absolute without God? Can morality even exist without God? The moral argument for God's existence has taken numerous and different forms historically, most of which have dealt with the possibility (or impossibility rather) of being good without believing in any god that may hold us accountable for our actions. I have already tackled many of the objections to atheist ethics in my article, Being Good Without God, so I will not go into these forms of the argument here. This article will concern itself with one particular form of the moral argument for God, a form which has become increasingly popular among Christian apologists in recent years. The argument is usually stated as follows:

1. If there are objective moral values, then God exists. 2. There are objective moral values. 3. Therefore, God exists.

According to the apologist William Lane Craig,

Objective morality, then, is morality which is absolute and unchanging. This is an issue of some dispute among different thinkers, but for the sake of the argument, we'll simply call this understanding the 'Christian version'. Thus the argument from morality states that because some behaviors are factually right or wrong, there must be a god that has made them so. However, this claim runs into some problems right from the very beginning.

I. Deconstructing the Argument

Even before considering any of its premises, we can point out one error in the argument itself, as it commits a fallacy known as affirming the consequent. Arguments of this type may be correct in their two premises, and yet the conclusion can still be false. This can be demonstrated using another example.

1. If Bill Gates owns the Federal Reserve, then he is rich. 2. Bill Gates is rich. 3. Therefore, Bill Gates owns the Federal Reserve.

The reason these arguments are fallacious is because they do not sufficiently condition their premises. Owning the Federal Reserve is not the only way to be rich, nor is the existence of a god the only way for objective moral values to exist. In both examples, the first premise is undemonstrated and merely assumed true, but because they do not state an exclusive condition ('only if God exists can objective moral values exist'), they are of no use to the conclusion, even if they could be proven true.

Let's pretend the argument is revised to include the exclusive condition, that only God's existence can account for the existence of objective morality. Not only is this still undemonstrated, but it faces a major problem from Socrates' famous Euthyphro dilemma. The dilemma asks if something is moral because God commands it or if God commands it because it is moral. If something is moral because God commands it, then objective morality is not really objective after all, since it is contingent on God's opinions and commands. Conversely, if God commands something because it is moral, then morality is independent of God and thus no god needs to exist for objective morality to exist.

Proposing that God is the only sufficient grounding for objective morality is problematic for a few reasons. The Christian version of objective morality relies on the notion that some actions are intrinsicly wrong or intrinsicly good. To attribute this to a god defies intrinsic value though, because then there are extrinsic factors (God) that may determine the value of those actions. If something is good or bad independent of any opinion, it must be independent of God's opinion as well, or else all that we mean by saying 'rape is wrong' is that 'God opposes rape'. Additionally, if God suddenly commanded his followers to rape others, rape would become good for Christians, if God is the only standard for morality. Not so meaningful anymore, when compared to the idealism stressed in the moral argument, is it?

II. Biblical Morality

There are many other ways of going about deconstructing the moral argument too, and as with so many of the arguments for God, one particularly effective way is through the bible itself. The moral argument does not specify which god exists and sustains objective morality, but Christians are the primary proponents of the argument, and, ironically, their god is one that can be ruled out on the basis of Christian scripture. I mentioned before that God could command rape and it would suddenly become good, under the moral argument. As it turns out, God indirectly ordered just that in Numbers 31:14-18...

What was the point of sparing the young virgin girls? It certainly wasn't pity on defenseless youth, seeing how all the young boys were not spared. It certainly wasn't any kind of feminism, since many women were not spared either. The virgin girls were saved because of their 'purity' and their gender. Christians will vigorously protest on this matter, but in Numbers 31 we have Moses himself, the patriarch of Israel and prophet of the Judeo-Christian god, telling God's people to kill all but the virgin girls, which they are to "save for [them]selves". I don't imagine that any young virgin girl would willfully give herself over to her captors, after watching them slaughter her friends and family. Even if she resigned herself to her fate, where is the objective morality that should have told Moses not to do such a monstrous thing, or not to kill women and children at all? This is the same man who allegedly received the ten commandments from God, and read from them, "thou shalt not kill". Apparently God's commands are not absolute.

Most Christians already accept that God's commands are not unchanging. The New Testament would've been unnecessary if God had established everything perfectly and permanently the first time, in the Hebrew law. When pressed on the verses about rape, killing homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13), killing adulterers (Leviticus 20:10), and stoning disobedient children (Deuteronomy 21:18-21), many Christians will claim that those laws were for a different people, living at a different time, and living in a different culture, and they no longer apply to believers today. Even if this is not plainly stated, the fact that few to no Christians still follow these laws indicates that not all of God's commands in the bible are eternal or unchanging. Other laws on animal sacrifice and kosher foods were not just dropped by modern Christians, but were declared null and void in the New Testament as well (Hebrews 10:5-10, Mark 7:19).

If the apologist claims that God is the only grounds for objective morality, he must find something besides the bible to use as evidence of it.

III. Moral Experience

In his debate with John Shook, William Lane Craig receives a brilliant question from the audience during the Q&A. A student points out that the evdience for objective moral values seemed to be overlooked during the debate and asks Craig if he has any basis for the second premise in his argument, other than simply preferring it to the subjective alternative. Craig's response is surprising, to say the least.

No moral relativist would dispute that human beings apprehend moral oughts or apprehend a distinction between good and evil, as we all form moral judgments on a daily basis. On the contrary, I think relativists would consider such realizations to be key components in understanding why morality is relative. As I referenced above, Craig himself recognizes that "the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good". If moral experience is telling some of us that genocide is good, while its telling others that genocide is wrong, how can experience possibly be any kind of evidence for objective moral values? What reason does Craig have to reject the moral experience of the Nazis, while exalting the moral experience of Christians as evidence for divinely-ordained, objective morality?

Appealing to moral experience is no different from claiming that we all feel in our heart that some things are good and some things are bad. This is true, but we also know that many of us feel very differently about certain subjects than others do, not just on generally condemned issues like Nazi atrocities, but on issues that are not so widely condemned, like abortion and gay marriage. The United States alone seems quite divided on such issues. An appeal to our moral experience gives us no useful information in determining whose feelings are right, and it basically sends the message to do whatever you feel is right. This seems to be precisely the position Craig is attempting to argue against with the moral argument.

Experience of any kind, moral or religious, gives us no evidence for objective morality or for the involvement of a god along with it. You may feel in your heart that God exists and has given us objective moral standards to live by, but this is your own personal, subjective experience. It is not my experience, nor is it something you can communicate to me very effectively. I have no reason to believe your recollection of your experience either, anymore than you should believe people who claim to have had encounters with aliens, ghosts, bigfoot, or other paranormal entities. We humans are known to misinterpret events we may not understand, and some of us are also known to lie. This kind of experience of misleading experiences is verified quite frequently, and so if your experience cannot be verified, what reason do I have to assume you are not misinterpreting things or lying?

Many Christians already reject the moral and religious experiences of Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Scientologists, and people of other faiths. Even within Christianity, there are disputes over what one has to believe or do in order to be a 'true Christian'. If the presence of objective morality were really so self-evident to prove the existence of God, I think one could expect there to be a lot less disagreement among the faithful.

IV. The Danger of False Objectivism

Apologists pose the moral argument out of a fear of relativism, not just a desire to convert non-believers. It is often implied that without some unwavering and timeless standard for behavior, we will all resort to participating in whatever selfish barbarisms we can think of. The Nazi Holocaust is portrayed as an event owed to moral relativism, but nothing could be further from the truth. It is when subjective opinions and feelings are distorted into absolute truths and objective morals that things like the master race, the inferiority of Jews, and other sentiments take root. Research Adolf Hitler and the Third Reich and you will find writings laced with talk of destiny, divinity, authority, and other concepts expressing utmost conviction. Can you imagine what might have happened if German officials had questioned the sincerity of Nazi doctrine - if they had taken the feelings and opinions of Jews into account, and realized that anti-semitism might be no more valid than the anti-German message delivered in the aftermath of WWI?

Christians in America like to think that our government is founded upon the objective moral standards of Christianity and the ten commandments. I've exposed the fabrication of America's Christian heritage in the article, Is America a Christian Nation?, and I've also demolished the myth of The Ten Commandments being a worthy moral standard in another article, so I won't go into those issues. But there is a misconception among believers that Christianity's moral objectivism is best exemplified by American government. The irony of this is that the United States Constitution made us a secular nation, founded not on absolute and unchanging morality, but on relativistic morality. Intent and circumstances are taken into account in our legal system, and the whole thing is structured around the relationships and interactions of people with other people. No supreme being is consulted; God is not even mentioned once in the Constitution.

A more appropriate political analogy for Christian morality would be monarchy. There is certainly a standard in place, and it is not revisable by anyone subject to it, but it may change whenever the king wishes. I suspect few would argue monarchy to be a model system for objective morality though. The kings of ancient times were known to rule in ways benefitial to themselves and costly to their subjects, and in more than a handful of instances, the kings were considered to be above the law. When an entire standard of morality serves the interests of one person, it can hardly be called objective. How objective is it, then, when the first four commandments on God's list of ten are all self-serving? Christianity can only have an objective moral standard as good as the standards of medieval European monarchy.

Conflating personal interests with absolute moral truths is more dangerous than any sort of relativism. To consolidate their power, and achieve their self-interests more efficiently, the pharaohs of Egypt and the emperors of Rome and Japan did not invoke subjectivism, they declared themselves gods and handed down edicts from heaven. When a person accepts that their way of doing things may be no better or worse than any other way, atrocities do not ensue. What typically does ensue is a more open attitude to alternative ideas and a greater personal humility. The invocation of an objective morality, on the other hand, will typically dilute humility and close openness to alternatives, by default. Those who desire a lofty, cosmic standard of morality that surpasses all reason are usually looking for comfort and certainty in their choices, not content to think through things down here on earth with the rest of us. From there, it's a short road indeed to putting your own will into those perfect and unchanging standards, without even realizing it at times.

The only responsible thing to do in the absence of real evidence for objective morality (in the Christian sense), is to withhold judgment and participation.

V. Hope is Not Lost

Christians are left in exactly the same place as atheists, with regard to moral concerns. It's a scary place to be, for some, because they would like to believe that the bible and the holy spirit are their own personal teleprompters, instructing them every step of the way in life. It is much easier to take advice from an outside source than to spend the time carefully thinking it over on your own. This is why self-help books, psychics, and horoscopes are such booming industries. If we could just read something regularly or talk to someone regularly and get all the answers to our problems, many of us would never bother to think on our own again. Then there are those who have prejudices that find comfort in objective moral standards, which don't have to evolve or progress along with society. An unchanging and absolute moral code is easy, simple, and appealing for a lot of reasons.

However, the moral fiber of life as we know it will not tear once we realize the bankruptcy of Christianity's version of objective morality, for it's not the only version, as the name implies. Ethicists have been writing on morality for many centuries, and the crude teachings of Jesus and the bible have been greatly surpassed. It does not take faith in a god to recognize that there are moral facts in our universe, but it also does not take a belief in moral facts to behave like a civilized human being. The wonderfully paradoxical thing about our species is that our beliefs do not always inform our actions. We have the ability to think about our choices before we implement them, and we have the ability to reflect on our past behaviors, to assess the consequences and make a more informed decision the next time around. We can evaluate the consistency of our beliefs with that of our actions, and so the world will not fall into chaos while we deliberate the nature of morality.

Many atheists have argued that objective morality is very much a reality, even with no god to 'sustain' it. Alonzo Fyfe, Michael Martin, Ayn Rand, and others have seen the emptiness of Christianity's objective morality and sought a more objective alternative that relies on the interests of no deity. The moral argument for God may fail, but it is only the existence of God that fails to be demonstrated, not the existence or objectivity of morality. In fact, it is the disassociation of religion from morality that liberates morality from the problems of the Euthyphro dilemma, the Epicurean paradox, the vile behaviors permitted by God in the bible, the incompatibility of free will with an omniscient god, and a whole multitude of other troublesome issues. The Christian apologist may charge the atheist with having no grounds for morality, but it is the Christian whose grounds actually serves to obstruct morality.

1. Craig, W.L. (1997) The Indispensability of Theological Meta-Ethical Foundations for Morality. Retrieved Mar. 16, 2010.
2. YouTube.com. John Shook v. William Lane Craig Debate: "Does God Exist?". Retrieved Mar. 16, 2010.