For a long time theists have been asking naturalists (and indeed all atheists) what they can base morality on if there is no God. The argument is that without God or some other third party, morality descends into mere opinion; who’s to say if our culture’s values are right and another cultures values are wrong? Atheists often hear this as a personal attack on their moral values and point out that you can be “good without God”. This is objectively true and believers should be quick to acknowledge that unbelievers can be exceedingly good, and believers can be exceedingly bad. Christians for example, aren’t claiming to perfectly practice an objective morality, but claiming that they have one that they can point to, summed up in Jesus’ imperatives to love God and love your neighbour.
The failure of Christians to always love their neighbours gives unbelievers the valid objection that Christians don’t practice what they preach, but citing Old Testament commands to Israel gives unbelievers the invalid objection that the bible’s morality is barbaric. Jewish morality may be barbaric, but Christians are those who follow Christ, not the Old Testament law. Christian ethics are based on the life and teaching of Jesus, including his interpretation of the Old Testament law: to love God and love your neighbour. Taking commands from the Old Testament out of the context that Jesus gives them in the New Testament can form the basis of an objection against Jewish morality, but not against Christian morality. Claiming otherwise only betrays an ignorance of Christianity.
But the fact that unbelievers can be “good without God” is precisely the point that undermines naturalism. If we all got here by the strong eating the weak in evolution, then why do we cry out when the strong eat the weak in society? Richard Dawkins rightly asserts that we should not base our morality on Darwinian evolution. In a discussion on Q and A, Dawkins said: “I very much hope that we don't revert to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life. I have often said that I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to explaining why we exist. It’s undoubtedly the reason why we're here and why all living things are here. But to live our lives in a Darwinian way, to make a society a Darwinian society, that would be a very unpleasant sort of society in which to live. It would be a sort of Thatcherite society and we want to - I mean, in a way, I feel that one of the reasons for learning about Darwinian evolution is as an object lesson in how not to set up our values and social lives.”
Dawkins is to be commended for promoting a society that looks after the less fit rather than one that’s based on the survival of the fittest, but what logical reason does he have for doing so? If the survival of the fittest conditions us to strive to be the alpha male/female, then why are we (and especially the new atheists) so repulsed by the mentality that “might makes right”? By contrast, Friedrich Nietzsche based his philosophy on the idea that “God is dead”, and concluded that an ubermensch (alpha male) can and should rise up and dictate right and wrong to everyone else, “overcoming of traditional views on morality and justice that stem from the superstition beliefs still deeply rooted or related to the notion of God and Christianity.” If this is what evolution conditions us to do, what argument can naturalism offer to the next would be dictator who honestly believes that “might makes right”?
Evolution has often been used to explain human altruism, but it can only ever explain altruism within one’s tribe. Humans are not the only species to wage war, some species of chimpanzees also fight other tribes of the same species for resources that ensure their tribes survival. While evolution can explain why we would develop the desire to help those who are like us, and why we might fight those who are unlike us, it cannot also account for why we might have the desire to help those who are unlike us. Why do people feel sympathy when we see children who are unlike us in poverty in 3rd world countries? Why don’t we just shrug our shoulders knowing that the survival of the fittest means that the less fit won’t survive? Why don’t we rejoice that there will be more resources for our families and our tribe to thrive on? In short, why does human compassion go beyond the evolutionary good?
Christianity on the other hand, accounts for the compassion and morality of humanity (Romans 2:14-15) as well as our capacity for tremendous evil (Romans 3:9-18). The bible describes humanity as made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27) but fallen (Genesis 3); crowned with glory and honour (Psalm 8) and yet deeply corrupt (Psalm 14). Unlike animals, people have an innate morality and are capable of great good, but we also display a deeply rooted selfishness that gives us a capacity for great evil. Christianity explains why unbelievers can be “good without God”, and also why believers can be the perpetrators of incredible evil; for the church is a hospital of sinners, not a museum of saints. Christians aren’t claiming to be morally superior, but that Jesus’ imperatives to love form an objective basis for morality.
I’m so glad that the compassion of theists and atheists alike goes beyond the evolutionary good. I’m also glad that so many atheists are keen to base their morality on human compassion and empathy. Unfortunately there is simply no reason to pursue compassion and empathy arising from philosophical naturalism, in fact, it’s quite the opposite. If there is no supernatural, and nature is red in tooth and claw, then what reason do we have to go against the natural? If we keep telling people that they’re animals, then they’re eventually going act like animals. How will abandoning the Christian values that have influenced western society do anything but that which Dawkins dreads; revert society back to the idea of survival of the fittest in planning our politics and our values and our way of life?
