Atheistic Morality?

Recently, I had the pleasure of participating in a small Facebook debate, triggered by a video of a Christian abortion survivor speaking out, and proclaiming Christ, at a summit of political and religious leaders in Australia. This ventured into the question of moral foundations for atheists.

It makes for interesting reading.

ATHIEST: [Quoting the young woman speaking in the video] "It is not at all politically correct to say the name of Jesus Christ in a place like this." She's quite right, it's not. And for good reason: that was on the eve of a Parliamentary debate over abortion, and Australia maintains separation of Church and State, presumably. It would be 'politically incorrect' to mention the name of Krishna or Muhammad just as much as it would be to mention Jesus.

Religion should be kept out of public debate. If she wanted to speak about her experience as a survivor of an abortion, that's fine - her experience provides a perfectly valid argument in the matter. There was no need to bring Jesus Christ into it. What an offense against the secular democracy that is Australia!

M

ME: God help the secular democracy. If a government rejects any kind of religious considerations, surely it rejects any kind of foundation for morality. In that instance, what does her experience provide in the way of argument over right and wrong? It would simply be her experience.

ATHEIST: ‎"If a government rejects any kind of religious considerations, surely it rejects any kind of foundation for morality."

/facepalm [Author's comment: I have since learned this is an expression of dumbfounded awe upon perceiving a person's ignorance]

No it doesn't. There are plenty of secular ethical theories that provide a splendid reason to be moral.

ME: If you were able to point me toward some of these secular ethical theories, I would appreciate it. It would be helpful to understand what foundation of reasoning these theorists use to support any moral framework. I find it difficult to understand how one can 'define' right and wrong while leaving God out of the picture. Without any kind of divine authority to declare what is right and what is wrong, it comes down to your definition and my definition. And where our definitions conflict, who is right? And why should you be forced to subscribe to my definition, or I to yours?

Sadly, the exchange was short, but gratifying in that my opponent was unable (or perhaps not bothered) to supply any of these theories, as I requested. But then, I would not expect him to be able to.

In Letter from a Christian Citizen, Christian author and apologist Douglas Wilson responds to some age-old atheist arguments in a clear and engaging fashion. The book was written in response to atheist propaganda widely distributed in the US by atheist, Sam Harris; a book entitled Letter to a Christian Nation.

I thoroughly enjoyed reading this book and would recommend it to anyone interested in getting a basic understanding of some of the premises of atheism, and some straightforward Christian responses.

With respect to the exchange above, I'll reiterate that I am confounded by atheists' claims to have a foundation for morality. Simplistically put:

If we, as human beings, are simply the result of a big bang (or, as Wilson puts it, "time and chance acting on matter") and you and I, and the rest of our random existence, are destined for dust and oblivion, then everything that happens in between amounts to nothing. What reasoning then, motivates me to be moral, or 'good'?

And even if we assume that we should, what is universally defined as 'good'? Harris argues that whatever brings pleasure and happiness is good, and whatever brings pain and suffering is bad, but what brings pleasure to my set of nerve endings may be different to what brings pleasure to yours. Paedophilia brings pleasure to some, yet even your average atheist would argue that this is 'immoral' (which is, gratefully, inconsistent with their world view). So then, what, do we go with the majority? A greater proportion of society believe it's wrong than right, so we're going to say it's wrong? That's just preference. That's no foundation for morality - it's just governed by numbers, or in some particularly unfortunate nations, governed by firearms. And if I disagree with your idea of 'right', why should I conform to it? If good is what brings pleasure, then why should I be concerned about anything that happens beyond my set of nerve endings?

The only person who can set a universal standard for right and wrong, good and evil, is the one who set the universe in place; the one who can claim the authority to decide such things.

But if you get the chance, read Wilson's book. He sets things out much better than I. It's a great and useful read. SG

• 
  UPDATE: Google books has the whole thing online. You can read it here. The foreword is worthwhile reading in itself.