Morality without God?

[TOG]

One of Chuck Colson’s favorite ideas and phrases in the realm of cultural apologetics was “The Grand Sez Who?” Chuck first discovered it in a piece Philip Johnson wrote for the journal First Things in 1993.

In it, Johnson told the story of Arthur Leff, a renowned legal scholar at Yale. In an article entitled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law,” Leff articulated what Johnson called the “modernist impasse.” It goes like this: If you believe that “God is really dead” and that we “have to decide all the big questions for [ourselves],” how “can we persuade other people that what they want to do to us is barred by some unchallengeable moral absolute?”

Leff’s conclusion was that you can’t, at least not with any logical consistency. Okay, stick with me here: You cannot simultaneously believe in an absolute and transcendent set of “propositions about right and wrong,” and the notion that “We are all we have,” that there is no God.

You may want to believe that “napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, [and that] buying and selling each other is depraved.” And you maywant to insist that “there is in the world such a thing as evil.” But, as Leff realized, the answer to these and every other moral claim is: “Sez who?”
​

Full article on Religion Today

The TOG​

 

[th1b.taylor]

Until I, just, got to tired to think any more, I argued this in some Atheist forums. Did I manage to lead any to the cross? I do not know but I know who does. I must believe that seeds were planted and some have or will germinate.

 

[Claudya]

One of Chuck Colson’s favorite ideas and phrases in the realm of cultural apologetics was “The Grand Sez Who?” Chuck first discovered it in a piece Philip Johnson wrote for the journal First Things in 1993.

In it, Johnson told the story of Arthur Leff, a renowned legal scholar at Yale. In an article entitled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law,” Leff articulated what Johnson called the “modernist impasse.” It goes like this: If you believe that “God is really dead” and that we “have to decide all the big questions for [ourselves],” how “can we persuade other people that what they want to do to us is barred by some unchallengeable moral absolute?”

Leff’s conclusion was that you can’t, at least not with any logical consistency. Okay, stick with me here: You cannot simultaneously believe in an absolute and transcendent set of “propositions about right and wrong,” and the notion that “We are all we have,” that there is no God.

You may want to believe that “napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, [and that] buying and selling each other is depraved.” And you maywant to insist that “there is in the world such a thing as evil.” But, as Leff realized, the answer to these and every other moral claim is: “Sez who?”
​

Full article on Religion Today

The TOG​

On the level of idividual humans a set of moral propositions is not required for the human individual to try to do right. Compassion or empathy with other humans (or even animals and plants), or the desire to live in a somewhat safe environment can make humans stick to rules, care for others or even go out of their way to improve things for other beings. Even lowly animals are capable of altruistic behaviour, and even more so are humans. The "Sez who?" question could be answered as "Sez my heart".
However, your heart's desires can justify destructive behaviour just as much. Also, ethics based on compassion may work for individual choices, but not for making rules for a whole society.
Haven't read the article (but will do so!), but I'm afraid it'll turn into an "atheism is inherently immoral" kind of agrumentation. As a christian I do of course believe that God as an absolute determines right from wrong (the biggest problem is our inability to recognise absolutes because our minds are afflicted with subjectivity), but I'm living in a place where 70% people are agnostics or atheists so I can't avoid having atheist friends. And some of them are the most genuinely good, selfless and ethical people you can imagine. So according to evidence there must be something wrong with the "no morality without God" idea. Maybe it's just the thought that moral behaviour requires the belief in absolutes.
Okay I really need to read the article.

 

[sourberry]

One of Chuck Colson’s favorite ideas and phrases in the realm of cultural apologetics was “The Grand Sez Who?” Chuck first discovered it in a piece Philip Johnson wrote for the journal First Things in 1993.

In it, Johnson told the story of Arthur Leff, a renowned legal scholar at Yale. In an article entitled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law,” Leff articulated what Johnson called the “modernist impasse.” It goes like this: If you believe that “God is really dead” and that we “have to decide all the big questions for [ourselves],” how “can we persuade other people that what they want to do to us is barred by some unchallengeable moral absolute?”

Leff’s conclusion was that you can’t, at least not with any logical consistency. Okay, stick with me here: You cannot simultaneously believe in an absolute and transcendent set of “propositions about right and wrong,” and the notion that “We are all we have,” that there is no God.

You may want to believe that “napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, [and that] buying and selling each other is depraved.” And you maywant to insist that “there is in the world such a thing as evil.” But, as Leff realized, the answer to these and every other moral claim is: “Sez who?”
​

Full article on Religion Today

The TOG​

Simple things presented in a very complicated manner?

We are humans. That is all what we are.

 

[th1b.taylor]

On the level of idividual humans a set of moral propositions is not required for the human individual to try to do right. Compassion or empathy with other humans (or even animals and plants), or the desire to live in a somewhat safe environment can make humans stick to rules, care for others or even go out of their way to improve things for other beings. Even lowly animals are capable of altruistic behaviour, and even more so are humans. The "Sez who?" question could be answered as "Sez my heart".
However, your heart's desires can justify destructive behaviour just as much. Also, ethics based on compassion may work for individual choices, but not for making rules for a whole society.
Haven't read the article (but will do so!), but I'm afraid it'll turn into an "atheism is inherently immoral" kind of agrumentation. As a christian I do of course believe that God as an absolute determines right from wrong (the biggest problem is our inability to recognise absolutes because our minds are afflicted with subjectivity), but I'm living in a place where 70% people are agnostics or atheists so I can't avoid having atheist friends. And some of them are the most genuinely good, selfless and ethical people you can imagine. So according to evidence there must be something wrong with the "no morality without God" idea. Maybe it's just the thought that moral behaviour requires the belief in absolutes.
Okay I really need to read the article.

Claudia,
I do not want to be harsh but this, truly, a harsh reality to examine and it needs to be done at this point. The state of Texas is basically composed of Mexican and German peoples. I loved and still love George Schoenberg, my grandpa. I loved my time in Hanau and to a less extent, my time in Frankfurt, Germans are wonderful people but there was WWII and the extermination of the Jewish people.

In my two year tenor there I was only in two serious fist fights with a Nazi but that was enough to understand they were and they are still there. Adolf cast the scriptures aside and thousands of young men and women followed him on his trip into Hell.

Now, let's look at this, Christian America. I spent thirty months in South Vietnam and the people loved me there. There is a three month period I remember nothing of, save the beginning and the end. My First Sergeant, Commanding Officer and friends told me only that I was a beast for that period and, for some reason, I understand I do not want to know why they said that.

I was always, before and after, considered a soft tempered Non-Com and often instructed to be tougher on my men. This began with a horrible incident, common to war. I found my best friend blown to pieces by a Chinese 82mm Mortar to the chest and after that morning, I'm blank. I came to my sense of myself with the beating of one of the sweetest Porta Rican men I have ever known, three months later. Freddy had, it is told me, put his hands on me to lift me from the ground where, in a drunken stupor, I had stumbled over a 55 gal drum (trash can.) For the remaing four months of that tour, Freddy did not speak to me except for duty reasons.

To this day people say I have a soft spot the size of Texas, but I remember a time. Without God, morality is relative and I have living proof of that. He is a mix of Apache, German and Irish, his name is Bill Taylor and he has seen both extremes and the one without God is... bad!

 

[th1b.taylor]

Simple things presented in a very complicated manner?

We are humans. That is all what we are.

No, there is the image of the One God, even in you.

 

[jasoncran]

Claudia,
I do not want to be harsh but this, truly, a harsh reality to examine and it needs to be done at this point. The state of Texas is basically composed of Mexican and German peoples. I loved and still love George Schoenberg, my grandpa. I loved my time in Hanau and to a less extent, my time in Frankfurt, Germans are wonderful people but there was WWII and the extermination of the Jewish people.

In my two year tenor there I was only in two serious fist fights with a Nazi but that was enough to understand they were and they are still there. Adolf cast the scriptures aside and thousands of young men and women followed him on his trip into Hell.

Now, let's look at this, Christian America. I spent thirty months in South Vietnam and the people loved me there. There is a three month period I remember nothing of, save the beginning and the end. My First Sergeant, Commanding Officer and friends told me only that I was a beast for that period and, for some reason, I understand I do not want to know why they said that.

I was always, before and after, considered a soft tempered Non-Com and often instructed to be tougher on my men. This began with a horrible incident, common to war. I found my best friend blown to pieces by a Chinese 82mm Mortar to the chest and after that morning, I'm blank. I came to my sense of myself with the beating of one of the sweetest Porta Rican men I have ever known, three months later. Freddy had, it is told me, put his hands on me to lift me from the ground where, in a drunken stupor, I had stumbled over a 55 gal drum (trash can.) For the remaing four months of that tour, Freddy did not speak to me except for duty reasons.

To this day people say I have a soft spot the size of Texas, but I remember a time. Without God, morality is relative and I have living proof of that. He is a mix of Apache, German and Irish, his name is Bill Taylor and he has seen both extremes and the one without God is... bad!

I agree, while my testimony isn't like yours. I have been across the pond. war does things to men. the sick thing is those that cant seem to not enjoy killing. they get a rush, either they still do it at home or manage by gods grace to control it and find a rush by other means. I am closer to the later. while I never killed , I did get the rush.i had such one experience where I thought I would have to beat a dog for attacking me. it merely was guarding but did close into my space and I swiped it.fortunately it wasn't harmed and I was retreating rather then beating the dog. the owner saw part of this and controlled the dog and put him inside. if not I would have to leave the yard or beat the dog.

 

[Jack Hectorman]

One of Chuck Colson’s favorite ideas and phrases in the realm of cultural apologetics was “The Grand Sez Who?” Chuck first discovered it in a piece Philip Johnson wrote for the journal First Things in 1993.

In it, Johnson told the story of Arthur Leff, a renowned legal scholar at Yale. In an article entitled “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law,” Leff articulated what Johnson called the “modernist impasse.” It goes like this: If you believe that “God is really dead” and that we “have to decide all the big questions for [ourselves],” how “can we persuade other people that what they want to do to us is barred by some unchallengeable moral absolute?”

Leff’s conclusion was that you can’t, at least not with any logical consistency. Okay, stick with me here: You cannot simultaneously believe in an absolute and transcendent set of “propositions about right and wrong,” and the notion that “We are all we have,” that there is no God.

You may want to believe that “napalming babies is bad, starving the poor is wicked, [and that] buying and selling each other is depraved.” And you maywant to insist that “there is in the world such a thing as evil.” But, as Leff realized, the answer to these and every other moral claim is: “Sez who?”
​

Full article on Religion Today

The TOG​

TOG, great Opening Post and much appreciated. Its quite a coincidence since I was reading your quote by Arthur Allen Leff just a day ago. It was at the end of William Lane Craig's closing arguments in his debate against the atheist Sam Harris. The debate was titled "Is The Foundation Of Morality Natural Or Supernatural?" Many of we Christians are convinced, along with Dr. Craig, that the foundations of morality are indeed supernatural.

In support of that belief and as a contribution to your excellent Opening Post, permit me to quote that aforementioned brief passage, sayeth William Lane Craig in reply to the atheist Sam Harris:

William Lane Craig Wrote:
"To conclude, I want to quote from a remarkable article that appeared in the Duke Law Journal, by, uh, Arthur Allen Leff, called “Unspeakable Ethics, Unnatural Law.” Dr. Leff’s difficulty is the same as Dr. Harris’s. He wants to find a foundation for moral values and duties, in this case, for the law, that would be, uh, independent of human opinion—it would be objective and it would be in the world. And he can’t find one. He says any attempt to ground values is open to the playground bully’s retort, “Who sez?” And this is how his article concludes:

Arthur Allen Leff Said:
"Nevertheless:
Napalming babies is bad.
Starving the poor is wicked.
Buying and selling each other is depraved. . . .
There is in the world such a thing as evil.
(All together now: Sez who?)
God help us.

All I can say is this: It looks as if we are all we have. . . . Only if ethics is something unspeakable by us [that is, something transcendent], could law be unnatural, and therefore unchallengeable. As things now stand, everything is up for grabs."
End of Leff quote.

Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-the-foundation-of-morality-natural-or-supernatural-the-craig-harris#ixzz2qhOakE6b


__________________



The human moral code MUST come from a source with moral authority greater than human beings because if human beings are the author and source of their own morality then they have no legitimate right to claim that other men have a moral obligation to accept or follow their moral code, because if human beings are the source and the highest authority then no human being's moral opinions is more or less authoritative than any other human being. Or put another way:

"Sez who?" is exactly right. And Arthur Allen Leff was correctly in utter despair because of this moral absurdity created by atheism.

Cheers.

♫ ♪ ♫ ♪

PS

I expect many of us have read William Lane Craig's excellent work titled Reasonable Faith. In that powerhouse of a Christian Apologetic there is the proposition that human life without God is absurd. Dr. Craig defends this proposition quite well.

 

[TOG]

TOG, great Opening Post and much appreciated.

Thank you.

The human moral code MUST come from a source with moral authority greater than human beings because if human beings are the author and source of their own morality then they have no legitimate right to claim that other men have a moral obligation to accept or follow their moral code, because if human beings are the source and the highest authority then no human being's moral opinions is more or less authoritative than any other human being.

I've thought about this before, and that's pretty much the conclusion I reached. The way I see it is, if there is no God to tell us what is right and what is wrong, then on what do we base our morality? There are a few possibilities:

• Each individual - If each individual decides for himself what is right or wrong, then what do we do when two people's views on morality conflict? What if a man believes that polygamy and concubinage are acceptable and has many women whom he sleeps with, but his wife believes that anything beyond one wife is adultery? Which of them get's to decide what is moral? If the man decides, then he forces his wife to live with conditions she finds unacceptable, but if the woman decides, then she is putting restrictions on her husband's behavior that he believes are unreasonable. Who has the authority to tell someone else that they're wrong?
• The legal system - We could base our morality on the laws passed by our elected (or other) officials, but what do we do when laws conflict? Prostitution is legal in Nevada, but illegal in California. Does visiting a prostitute change from being moral to immoral and back again, just by stepping over an imaginary line?
  
• Society - Similar to the last one, but a bit different. If society as a whole accepts a certain type of behavior, we could consider it moral, and if society considers it unacceptable, it would be immoral, regardless of what immoral laws may be in place. But societal views can change. Fifty years ago, practically everyone thought homosexuality was immoral, but today most people don't have a problem with it. The same can be said of abortion and a number of other issues. Do things change from moral to immoral or vice versa over the years? And what about when different societies have different views? Americans, for example, generally believe that women should have equal rights with men, while people in Saudi Arabia would disagree. If each society determines it's own morality, what gives Americans the right to say Saudis are violating women's human rights?

Whatever we choose, we end up with relative morality, which is, in reality, no morality at all. The only thing we can trust to remain unchanged is a revelation of morality from God.

The TOG​

 

[Infinity]

So apparently the only reason we atheists think that napalming babies and starving the poor is not moral is because it is not moral? Funny, I thought that morality actually consists of things like feelings and reasoning among other.

 

[jasoncran]

So apparently the only reason we atheists think that napalming babies and starving the poor is not moral is because it is not moral? Funny, I thought that morality actually consists of things like feelings and reasoning among other.

reasonings shift and emotions? yah those aren't that reliable. years ago it was quite reasonable to own a man.

 

[TOG]

Funny, I thought that morality actually consists of things like feelings

That's just another way of putting my first option above - Each individual. If each individual determines for himself what is moral, based on his feelings ,then what about cases where people feed differently? Who get's to determine what's right or wrong?

and reasoning among other.

This is just another way of putting my third option - Society. If morality is determined by the members of society reasoning together, then what do we do when different societies reason together and reach different conclusions? Does something change from being moral to immoral when you cross a border?

You have to base your morality on something. I mentioned three options (and you re-worded two of them), and showed that they all have serious problems. All of them are relative and will change according to what suits people at any given time. Some may change slower than others, but they all change. Relative morality isn't really morality at all. It's a set of rules we want to impose on others, while keeping the option of changing the rules for ourselves.

The TOG​

 

[jasoncran]

I often wonder what to say to an atheist soldier who wants to commit suicide. I have learned after the Iraq pullout that god is my only source of meaning and purpose. not that I didn't see that just that I had to see it even deeper. when one goes to war and comes back one would like to know if it was worth it. the us government through all those mens live away. they died for nothing. sure it can be argued otherwise but the retaking of Fallujah says otherwise.

 

[Infinity]

The mistake that you are making TOG is that you look at each thing individually instead of looking it as a whole. And I also think that allot (too many) of people want to see things black and white, while also ignoring the thing that we call opinions. As much as it may suck, the sooner everyone realize that things are more complicated than they want them to be, the better it will be.

 

[sourberry]

We constantly make mistakes, Infinity.

However things are not more complicated. Things are simpler than "they want them to be". As I think. Our hearts are just too crude to comprehend things.

With love.

 

[th1b.taylor]

So apparently the only reason we atheists think that napalming babies and starving the poor is not moral is because it is not moral? Funny, I thought that morality actually consists of things like feelings and reasoning among other.

You would be, truly amazed, how restrained American forces are with things like Napalm. Folks take extremes and magnify them to the "false" norm. We did not use Napalm in 'Nam except we had no hope of resolution from other means.

Even the day my Pilot, the Flight Leader, called Broken Arrow, no Napalm was dropped until it was the 'only' solution and then, only after all six gun ships, all six slicks and all 42 grunts were exiting the Red LZ.

You mouth off, not meant to offend but that is what you are doing, about Napalming babies and I do take offense. The most infamous incident has been so distorted that the truth has been lost about it. To qualify this, you need to understand, I am qualified to speak to the horror of Mortal Combat. I held a six month old baby boy in my arms as he died before we got him to an American Base Hospital. He was killed because his dad did not love his son and his wife and opened fire on about fifty entrenched soldiers that were there to take him alive and to stop the carnage he was inflicting on his own nation's babies. When you have awakened a few thousand nights from sweating nightmares of little girls and Nuns with their deaths caused by the live removal of their wombs you might be able to make a case to me, but you had better believe, I wanted every one of the First NVA dead and even to General Giam, I do not apologise.

The American Armed Services are known, world wide, for our hearts in the face of evil and when we cease to fight it the world is finished.

 

[th1b.taylor]

The mistake that you are making TOG is that you look at each thing individually instead of looking it as a whole. And I also think that allot (too many) of people want to see things black and white, while also ignoring the thing that we call opinions. As much as it may suck, the sooner everyone realize that things are more complicated than they want them to be, the better it will be.

Nope! You are the one compartmentalizing issues.

 

[jasoncran]

I cant say I disagree with that tb1, remember the protesters that protested nam are the one that run the country. that said, not all that disagree with nam were hippies.mlk didn't believe in it.

 

[Infinity]

That was the example TOB used in his OP. I honestly didn't want to use that as anything else other than an example. And I didn't went through the things you did, but trust me that I have also seen stuff nobody should.

 

[Deborah13]

So apparently the only reason we atheists think that napalming babies and starving the poor is not moral is because it is not moral? Funny, I thought that morality actually consists of things like feelings and reasoning among other.

I agree with you that morality or at least how we respond to what is moral can/is based on feelings and reasoning.
So for me the question is where does our reasoning come from? For me as a Christian I recognized that God says murder is immoral. Before I was a Christian I recognized that murder is immoral. Why?

I believe that God can use anyone He so chooses to bring about His plans and the things He wants done, His morality.

We can see this through out the Bible. One instance would be....
God used Pharaoh's daughter ( an unbeliever) to save the life of the baby Moses. When she saw him she had a feeling of compassion for this baby, she reasoned to save him. She defied her father Pharaoh who declared all infant Jewish boys to be slain.

So I reason that before I recognized that I was agreeing with God's morality about murder, that that morality came from Him.