If we consider morality as the system of ideas and practices that human being employ to control their conduct, then we can begin to evaluate different moralities at least in part based on their effectiveness in influencing and improving conduct. I would suggest that a self-reflective and critical morality is superior to one based on dogma and closed-mindedness. This is a vice of both atheists and Christians – and in fact of all moralists, if we use the term in the pejorative sense.

In the end there may be certain fundamental values – such that a morality that is inclusive is better than one that is exclusive, one that limits the pain and harm that human beings do to each other is superior to one where harsh punishment is dolled out for moral failures. But there is evidence to suggest both within major religious traditions, broad trends in humanist thought and even in evolutionary biology and psychology that suggests that concepts such as fairness, sympathy and equality are basic to human understanding – and it probably matters little if we think those qualities are there because of God's will, the eccentricities of evolution or part of the nature of human rationality.

It seems we can set out some criteria for better moralities, but we first need to consider what morality is both conceptually/philosophically as well as in a historical/sociological perspective. I'd suggest that the source of ultimate values (God, nature, the flying spaghetti monster) is less important than the degree of critical self-reflection and intelligence we use in moral thinking/acting.

I went to the link you gave and cannot find the podcast episode you are referring to. I found the one about God commanding the Isrealites to clear out the promised land, but from your comment it sounds like you are saying that there is an episode that discusses how \with the exception of [clearing the promised land] every contention is absolutely false.\ Which episode argues for the falsehood of these contentions? Thank you.

Aaron F

I said Christianity asserts that “we are ruled by an all-powerful dictator who convicts us of thoughtcrime and will torture us if we do not bow before him.”

Which part of this do you deny? Christians certainly believe that God is the all-powerful ruler of the universe (by definition, a dictator). Christians also believe that Jesus convicts us of thoughtcrime (for example, Matthew 5:28). Finally, of course there are many Christian theologies about HOW to attain salvation (about 28 different Biblical theologies, in fact: http://tinyurl.com/cr2sxn), but the one I always heard growing up was that you had to submit yourself to a life of worshipping God in obedience. And finally, Christian theology has always condemned unbelievers to eternal torment, called hell.

I also said that “God commits or commands ethnic genocide, mass rape, child sacrifice, and baby-killing. Women are inferior, gays are evil, critical thinkers are in danger of hellfire, etc.”

I have listened to Craig’s podcast on this. Basically, Craig’s responses are intellectually dishonest and morally horrifying. I’ll write a blog post about this, okay?

Re: the moral argument. Craig basically says that “Without God, objective moral values don’t exist, because I have DEFINED objective morals as ‘the nature of God.’” But I could just as well say, “Without Vahiguru, objective moral values don’t exist, because I have DEFINED objective morals as ‘the nature of Vahiguru.’”

Nonsense.

Morality is about reasons for action. Reasons for action to feed the poor. Reasons for action to not rape someone. You do not need a God to have reasons for action. If I put my hand on a hot stove, I have reasons for action to take my hand off the hot stove. I also have reasons for action to warn others not to put their hand on a hot stove.

For a theory that grounds objective moral values in things that actually exist, I suggest reading up on desire utilitarianism. (Not to be confused with desire fulfillment act utilitarianism, which grounds moral values in something that does not exist: intrinsic value.)

Finally, I’d like to point out that even Craig does not think moral values can only come from God. Several times, for example when he talks about abortion, he says that we have moral reasons to oppose abortion even without looking to God, because there is intrinsic moral value in human life. I happen to disagree with Craig about that, but I’d just like to note that even Craig is not consistent.

First, let’s look at these:

“We are ruled by an all-powerful dictator who convicts us of thoughtcrime and will torture us if we do not bow before him – like an everlasting Jafar with unlimited wishes”.

K> I don’t know which god this is. It’s certainly not the God of Jesus Christ. Do I have to spell this out or do you remember any of the Scriptures on this? (e.g. the difference between mere temptation and what you would call “thought crimes”, and that we are not condemned for not believing a grocery-list of doctrinal items).

“God commits or commands ethnic genocide, mass rape, child sacrifice, and baby-killing.
Women are inferior, gays are evil, critical thinkers are in danger of hellfire, etc. ”

K> Listen to my podcast with William Lane Craig on this at http://www.reasonablefaith.org. I’m amazed at how often this is brought up. With the exception of one item (God used the armies of Israel in the ancient theocracy to take life) every contention is absolutely false.

Further, I’m amazed at how often atheists cry out for “better” morality. How can we have “better” if there is no real “best”. Naturalistic morality can only recognize process, not progress, for there is no ultimate standard.

Fyfe is close to right concerning how we all evaluate ethics. Ethicists evaluate moral values and duties by reflecting on them. Moral values and duties are discovered, not determined. This is evidence of their objectivity.

So how are they grounded? They’re apparently grounded in the nature of something personal and ontologically ultimate.

Kevin