Translation

01 October 2008

No Morality Without God

I’ve already finished “The God Delusion” by Dawkins, and I’ll be resuming the breakdown of the book later. However, I would like to make one observation about materialism and atheism.

I’ve heard many atheists and agnostics say that they can be “moral” even if they don’t believe in God. In other words, they can believe that they can act morally even though they do not believe in God. I believe this claim is self-contradictory and false. One cannot deny the existence of God while at the same time believe that they are moral.

If one does not believe in God, I would argue, one is a materialist by definition. If there is nothing spiritual or supernatural, everything has only a material dimension contained within. Since everything is believed to contain only material essence, only material causes can determine how everything acts. Since only material manipulates material, there is no basis for morality since morality presupposes that there is a free will contained in some material in some fashion. In other words, in order for a material human to be moral, more than just internal material processes must determine any action taken.

For an atheist to be non-contradictory, there can be no morality since only material processes determine causes and ends. Therefore, one cannot believe at the same time that God does not exist and that they are moral.

On the other hand, as a Christian, I believe free will is a spiritual construct that comes from God since humans were specifically chosen to be made in the image and likeness of God. Theists, and even Deists can be moral since they believe that morality has a basis in God, in whatever form. Further, Christians can acknowledge that Atheists are moral or immoral since Christians have a non-material basis for morality. However, to be consistent, Atheists can never see anyone as moral, otherwise they will be indirectly acknowledging a moral Creator of the moral universe.

2 comments:

  1. Hmm. I'm a secular fellow, and I have a few questions.

    First, you say man is in the image and likeness of God. Since man is capable of sin, can we then infer that God is capable of sin? Is it possible for God to fall short of his own glory?

    If he cannot fall short of his own glory, is his will really free?

    Second, why is it impossible for there to be morality within a purely material system?

    Morality concerns personal choices, and choices concern self-awareness. You have to be aware of what you are doing to hold any responsibility for your actions.

    Then the question becomes: is self-awareness possible in a purely material system?

    Another thing: how can the spiritual influence the material without becoming entangled? How can these two realms, the spiritual and the physical, influence each other and yet remain apart? If they influence each other, I think there should be some overlap, if not outright fusion.

    Such fusion would make your distinction between materialists and dualists moot though. If the two fuse due to their interactions with each other they become one substance, and we come back to the materialist issue again.

    So a major question is: how and why do the physical and the spiritual realms influence each other while also remaining separate?

    ReplyDelete
  2. First, you say man is in the image and likeness of God. Since man is capable of sin, can we then infer that God is capable of sin? Is it possible for God to fall short of his own glory?
    I assert that man is made in the image and likeness of God not that man is God. One imperfect analogy: if one looks in the mirror, the reflection is not the one; in the same way, a reflection of God is not God. It cannot be inferred that since man sins, God sins.

    As far as God’s glory, what do you define as God’s glory? I’m assuming that you mean that if God sins, God is falling short of God’s glory. It then begs to question: what is sin?
    To sin is to act contrary to God’s will. Therefore, it is impossible for God to sin against God’s own will by definition.

    If he cannot fall short of his own glory, is his will really free?
    God’s free will is what defines what is right (or what is not sin). Therefore, God cannot fall short of God’s glory in sin.

    Second, why is it impossible for there to be morality within a purely material system?
    Morality concerns personal choices, and choices concern self-awareness. You have to be aware of what you are doing to hold any responsibility for your actions.
    There can be no morality within a purely material system since all material follows processes and reactions of previous processes or states of material. Therefore, personal choices and self-awareness are only reactions of body material. Therefore, within a purely material system, one cannot hold any responsibility for their actions.

    Then the question becomes: is self-awareness possible in a purely material system?
    No. self-awareness is purely the manifestation of material processes in the brain that essentially simulate self-awareness in a purely material system.

    Another thing: how can the spiritual influence the material without becoming entangled? How can these two realms, the spiritual and the physical, influence each other and yet remain apart? If they influence each other, I think there should be some overlap, if not outright fusion.
    I agree there is fusion. In Theology of the Body of Pope John Paul II (The Great), a human is an “embodied soul”: one cannot act on one without effecting the other human essence. (See here and here.)

    Such fusion would make your distinction between materialists and dualists moot though. If the two fuse due to their interactions with each other they become one substance, and we come back to the materialist issue again.
    I disagree. An “embodied soul” does not engage the world as a purely material entity or a solely spiritual entity. Therefore, the (purely) materialist issue is avoided.

    (Side (let me know if I’m off with this side comment vis your comment): The distinction between materialist and “dualist” (Theist) that I make is that to be consistent, the materialist must admit that there is no morality due to the lack of some sort of soul or spiritual aspect of themselves that comes from God (the Source of morality). The distinction is not that one view is correct or incorrect in reality.)

    So a major question is: how and why do the physical and the spiritual realms influence each other while also remaining separate?
    As above, they are not separate; they interact in one human.

    ReplyDelete

Please comment in a civil manner, i.e., no foul language, name calling, threats, etc.