Yes, atheists can have objective morality

[Arthur King]

You can make the assertions, but they go far beyond what people acknowledge. Human history speaks of another reality at work, especially the bloody dominance of atheism in the 20th century.

“The goods of human nature” seems to me a formulation foreign to reality. Human nature more readily recognizes good from a selfish perspective.

Of course “you shouldn’t murder me or mine” works just fine. But excuses will be formulated to explain why this should not necessarily work the other way.

Again, the point is that the moral standard tacitly being appealed to is actually external to us, even though sensed by us. Human nature has the law written on it, but only one way.

This is not to say that strains of atheism haven’t tried to co-opt components of God’s morality while denying the source, for of course they have, and often even try to take the credit.

You said “The goods of human nature” seems to me a formulation foreign to reality. Human nature more readily recognizes good from a selfish perspective.

Human nature is the definition of what it means to be human. The goods of human nature are the universal purposes (bedrock desires) that human nature seeks. When we say something is "good" we mean that it is beneficial to the culmination of a purpose. Among such goods are objective realities like long term holistic pleasure and long life and survival of the species.

Even Christianity emphasizes these goods in the vision of the New Heaven and Earth - everlasting life and joy. The moral vision of Christianity is not divorced from the goods of human nature.

You couldn't imagine a world in which all people were living in happiness forever and call it "evil."

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

You said “The goods of human nature” seems to me a formulation foreign to reality. Human nature more readily recognizes good from a selfish perspective.

Human nature is the definition of what it means to be human. The goods of human nature are the universal purposes (bedrock desires) that human nature seeks. When we say something is "good" we mean that it is beneficial to the culmination of a purpose. Among such goods are objective realities like long term holistic pleasure and long life and survival of the species.

Even Christianity emphasizes these goods in the vision of the New Heaven and Earth - everlasting life and joy. The moral vision of Christianity is not divorced from the goods of human nature.

You couldn't imagine a world in which all people were living in happiness forever and call it "evil."

Human nature is not a definition but a term. Humans have this nature, but what it actually is does need some defining, or some description.

Human nature does not naturally seek ultimate good but its own selfish “good.” Christians know this for certain from Jesus’ own example in the garden where he prayed, “Not my will but thine.” We also know it from the command, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” which is not the natural aim of human nature.

However, all men know this about human nature both from introspection and observation. What we know is that we love ourselves and that we do not by nature love others as ourselves.

We could agree that the supposed objective “goods” you pose naturally universally exist, but only for the self. And even then their definition will be subjective.

As for what one can imagine, no one can imagine a world where all the people in this one live in happiness forever without some major changes of state involving the self. I think CS Lewis tried to address this in his novel The Great Divorce.

 

[taisto]

The goods of human nature and order in the universe are sufficient to provide the moral standard.

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
- Luke 18:19

 

[Arthur King]

And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone.
- Luke 18:19

Truth! My argument is not that any person is "good" in terms of a pure character. My argument is that things like human life and happiness are good, and that the created order is good, as God saw in Genesis 1.

 

[Arthur King]

Human nature is not a definition but a term. Humans have this nature, but what it actually is does need some defining, or some description.

Human nature does not naturally seek ultimate good but its own selfish “good.” Christians know this for certain from Jesus’ own example in the garden where he prayed, “Not my will but thine.” We also know it from the command, “Love your neighbor as yourself,” which is not the natural aim of human nature.

However, all men know this about human nature both from introspection and observation. What we know is that we love ourselves and that we do not by nature love others as ourselves.

We could agree that the supposed objective “goods” you pose naturally universally exist, but only for the self. And even then their definition will be subjective.

As for what one can imagine, no one can imagine a world where all the people in this one live in happiness forever without some major changes of state involving the self. I think CS Lewis tried to address this in his novel The Great Divorce.

No, happiness is not a subjective thing. Happiness is an objective thing.

"no one can imagine a world where all the people in this one live in happiness forever without some major changes of state involving the self"

Totally irrelevant and avoids the question. If everyone lived in happiness forever, would it be evil?

 

[atpollard]

See the attached chart with distinctions between the two.

I read the chart, but I am confused.

Ignoring “Divine Command Theory” and focusing exclusively on “Natural Law Morality”, could you explain to me why this is wrong:

• I smash your head in with a rock and eat your cheeseburger.

If I was a wolf and you were a raccoon, I might certainly attack you to get the rabbit that you were eating. Clearly, NATURE says my actions are not immoral.

 

[Arthur King]

I read the chart, but I am confused.

Ignoring “Divine Command Theory” and focusing exclusively on “Natural Law Morality”, could you explain to me why this is wrong:

• I smash your head in with a rock and eat your cheeseburger.

If I was a wolf and you were a raccoon, I might certainly attack you to get the rabbit that you were eating. Clearly, NATURE says my actions are not immoral.

Such an act is a violation of your own human nature. It is destructive to your own soul and the ends you truly seek. You deprive yourself of several goods: the person you killed, the good of reward for service (since you stole), the empathy you would feel with the happiness of another person.

The good you seek is the life and long term holistic pleasure of all human beings. Killing and stealing is a violation of those ends.

Even on Christianity, the good we seek is the everlasting life and joy of all human beings. That is what God saved us for. You couldn't imagine a world in which all human beings are in torment forever and call that "good."

 

[taisto]

Truth! My argument is not that any person is "good" in terms of a pure character. My argument is that things like human life and happiness are good, and that the created order is good, as God saw in Genesis 1.

If this is your argument, I completely missed it in your OP.

 

[taisto]

Such an act is a violation of your own human nature.

Judges 21:25

"Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

Is that not human nature? Left to humanity there would be no objective truth, only the truth of the one who carries the biggest stick.

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

No, happiness is not a subjective thing. Happiness is an objective thing.

"no one can imagine a world where all the people in this one live in happiness forever without some major changes of state involving the self"

Totally irrelevant and avoids the question. If everyone lived in happiness forever, would it be evil?

That's getting way off track and ignoring the points being made. We need to restate the OP argument, as it seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. And let’s not forget that the context of the OP is atheism, namely the assertion that atheists share in the same objective moral standard as that being argued—per the title “Yes, atheists can have objective morality.” So, here is the OP argument:

…To establish an objective moral standard, we need an objective purpose. A purpose is a desire. If there is a universal human nature with a universal human desire, then there is an objective moral standard.

So what we Christians should rather argue is that “If God did not exist, we would not have the objective moral values that we, in fact, do have.” The human being is a Godward creature (a creature oriented to God). God is the source of our happiness. If there was no God, then the human being would not be a Godward creature.

And so a better moral argument for God’s existence would be:

1) A universal human desire for God would not exist if God did not exist.

2) A universal human desire for God exists.

3) Therefore, God exists.

Questions:

1. How do atheists openly, objectively demonstrate their universal human desire for God?

2. In what way do atheists admit to being Godward creatures (creatures oriented to God)?

My own answers to these is that atheists do not so demonstrate this, but vehemently oppose any desire for God, that atheists do not admit to being Godward but instead vigorously work and argue against God, and they do so by "virtue" of being atheists.

 

[kyredneck]

Happiness is an objective thing.

"I reckon people are going to be just about as happy as they make up their minds to be". Abraham Lincoln. [supposedly]...but true...

 

[Arthur King]

Judges 21:25

"Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

Is that not human nature? Left to humanity there would be no objective truth, only the truth of the one who carries the biggest stick.

No that is not wha

That's getting way off track and ignoring the points being made. We need to restate the OP argument, as it seems to be getting lost in the shuffle. And let’s not forget that the context of the OP is atheism, namely the assertion that atheists share in the same objective moral standard as that being argued—per the title “Yes, atheists can have objective morality.” So, here is the OP argument:


Questions:

1. How do atheists openly, objectively demonstrate their universal human desire for God?

2. In what way do atheists admit to being Godward creatures (creatures oriented to God)?

My own answers to these is that atheists do not so demonstrate this, but vehemently oppose any desire for God, that atheists do not admit to being Godward but instead vigorously work and argue against God, and they do so by "virtue" of being atheists.

what I argued was that atheists can have objective moral values.

Things like human life and happiness are objective goods that atheists can acknowledge.

this is part of an argument for natural law morality, that evil actions are intrinsically harmful, and do not just result in harm because of punishment

 

[kyredneck]

Things like human life and happiness are objective goods that atheists can acknowledge.

"Live long and prosper".

 

[Marooncat79]

If God is missing, it cannot be objective; it is only subject to the whim of man

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

...
what I argued was that atheists can have objective moral values.

Things like human life and happiness are objective goods that atheists can acknowledge.

this is part of an argument for natural law morality, that evil actions are intrinsically harmful, and do not just result in harm because of punishment

The problem is that the argument you propose here and in the OP takes major leaps without establishing validity.

The assertions in them have no basis in fact beyond what my own posts are stating. There is agreement when the self is the focus, but not when venturing beyond that.

If the proposal were that atheists recognize a need to somehow protect their own assets via societal contract, then there is still agreement. But the focus is still on the self, not on others.

Your posts seem to claim that there is some sort of inherent caring for others universally, that is, for the entire human species. While there may be tribal concerns, human nature does not naturally care about everyone else in the world. Not even close.

There is no care for universal human life or universal human happiness in human nature. This doesn’t mean no one gives lip service to it in some way, but that’s not the same thing.

Matthew 5:46-47

46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

 

[RighteousnessTemperance&]

"Live long and prosper".

Backatcha.

 

[Arthur King]

Judges 21:25

"Everyone did what was right in his own eyes."

Is that not human nature? Left to humanity there would be no objective truth, only the truth of the one who carries the biggest stick.

No, that is not what "human nature" means within the context of natural law. Human nature refers to the objective definition of what it means to be human. You could think of human nature as the way humans ought to behave. Or humans as they were before the Fall.

No, even without God, it would still be objectively true that 2 + 2 = 4.

"only the truth of the one who carries the biggest stick"

See, what is interesting is that you are actually presupposing a morally relative and morally subjective framework, which is why you need God to come in with the biggest stick and impose order. That is not the Christian vision of the universe. The Christian vision is that God created the world with order, an order he sees as very good. To violate that order is to destroy oneself. This order can be recognized by people who don't even believe in God. This is why atheists can recognize that 2 + 2 = 4, and that gravity will make things fall at a certain rate.

 

[taisto]

No, that is not what "human nature" means within the context of natural law. Human nature refers to the objective definition of what it means to be human. You could think of human nature as the way humans ought to behave. Or humans as they were before the Fall.

No, even without God, it would still be objectively true that 2 + 2 = 4.

"only the truth of the one who carries the biggest stick"

See, what is interesting is that you are actually presupposing a morally relative and morally subjective framework, which is why you need God to come in with the biggest stick and impose order. That is not the Christian vision of the universe. The Christian vision is that God created the world with order, an order he sees as very good. To violate that order is to destroy oneself. This order can be recognized by people who don't even believe in God. This is why atheists can recognize that 2 + 2 = 4, and that gravity will make things fall at a certain rate.

You realize the Fall (sin) corrupted nature, don't you?

"For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?"
- Romans 8:22-24

It seems you are holding to definitions God has not endorsed. It seems odd to me that you are bringing up a godless topic on a Baptist discussion board.

 

[Arthur King]

You realize the Fall (sin) corrupted nature, don't you?

"For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?"
- Romans 8:22-24

It seems you are holding to definitions God has not endorsed. It seems odd to me that you are bringing up a godless topic on a Baptist discussion board.

You realize the Fall (sin) corrupted nature, don't you?

Sin did not change the definition of what it means to be human, or the way humans ought to behave. Sin itself depends on the definition of what it means to be human and the way humans ought to behave.

 

[taisto]

You realize the Fall (sin) corrupted nature, don't you?

Sin did not change the definition of what it means to be human, or the way humans ought to behave. Sin itself depends on the definition of what it means to be human and the way humans ought to behave.

How ought humans behave if God did not create them and God does not exist?