Thanks for commenting and I’m glad you enjoyed the post. To respond to your points:

In terms of conflating secularism and atheism, I know that ideologically speaking they are different, but I’m saying on a pragmatic level they’re the same thing. I think the problem that Christianity has with secularism is the same that it has with atheism: there is no neutral common ground on which to stand where we can objectively decide what its wrong and right. So for the purposes of this blog post I treated them equally.

“we ground our morality in the consequences that our actions have, whether they improve the lives of those around us or whether they are harmful”

Here you are assuming inherent categories of “improving” and “harmful”, i.e. I think you are begging the question. What in naturalism would lead you to believe that certain actions were good and others harmful? If we’re all ‘moist robots’ (to borrow Scott Adam’s phrase) what does it really matter?

If we’re all robots as well I don’t think that would give you grounds for saying that we’re actually having a rational conversation, as ‘rational’ as a concept could not exist. But let’s not go down that road for the moment.

Also, I think even if what you say is true, you cannot make an ought from an is. In other words, certain things may appear to us to be ‘moral’ or ‘immoral’ but there is nothing in the world to say you should do it. And lots of people don’t. Let’s say you see someone walking down the street, shouting names at people and generally being nasty. You say to him, “Hey, that’s immoral!” He says, “So?” What could you reply to him to make him obey your particular version of morality?

An interesting piece, but I’d like to point out a few misconceptions you appear to hold. First, you seem to conflate ‘secularism’ with ‘atheism’, these terms are not interchangable, the atheist doesn’t believe in God, the secularist doesn’t believe that controversial concepts of the Good ought to be brought into public debate. Therefore it is entirely possible to be a religious secularist. Indeed, secularism has its roots in Christianity. Of course, we can accept that people’s reasons will invariably stem from their concepts of the Good, their religious outlook, etc, but the secularist argues that they must provide persuasive reasons to behave in particular ways which are acceptable to most reasonable people rather than resorting to claiming this is wrong because it says so in my preferred religious text.

This brings me to my second point, you argue that there is no morality without God, as an atheist I find this (commonplace) argument wrong-headed. There are many atheists who are deeply moral and who do not ground their morality in relativism (what is right is what my culture says is right), we ground our morality in the consequences that our actions have, whether they improve the lives of those around us or whether they are harmful. Therefore, stoning an adulterous woman to death is wrong because it is harmful both to the woman and the society of which she is part.

Finally, you mention that you have an issue with the idea that secularism is neutral but it appears you have made the mistake of thinking that secularism must, therefore, be some kind of (to use Nagel’s term) ‘view from nowhere’, this is erroneous. Apart from the fact that an entirely neutral position is impossible, it is also important to note that there is a difference between neutrality in justification and neutrality in outcome; secularism is neutral in justification because it entails that no one world-view can be privileged ahead of others in the political sphere. However, this has the effect of pushing certain comprehensive doctrines out of public discourse because those who hold them seek to impose their beliefs on to society as a whole and this isn’t acceptable.

As a secularist, I respect your right to hold Christian beliefs, but I firmly believe that you do not have a right to impose them upon me through the law or in the political sphere. Any reasons given here must be acceptable to all.

Exactly my point. Those Islamic countries as nation states have worked out by themselves that it’s OK to stone a woman caught in adultery. On what basis do you say that it’s immoral?

The second thing is, the Christian can say that we “know” what’s right and what’s wrong only because God has created us with that knowledge. What I’m asking you to do is justify why we have that knowledge from a naturalistic perspective.

“However you define love, if you stop loving Mrs Phil, you’re breaking your wedding vows”

So you’re saying I get a choice in the matter? So love is more than just a chemical reaction?

“No. I’m defining actions that result in positive emotions good and actions that result in negative emotions bad.”

So, you are using a circular argument then? Sorry, couldn’t resist. Define ‘positive’ and ‘negative’, and why they should be called as such. I’m not playing a semantics game here, I’m honestly asking how from a strictly naturalistic view of the world those categories can be said to exist in an objective way.

Remember that we are all basically biological and chemical machines, ‘happiness’ is just a label for the state of that machine at any given time; ‘sadness’ similarly.

The other thing is, different people will define ‘positive’ and ‘negative’ differently. Is it negative, for example, to discipline a child, or punish someone for breaking a law? Anything that starts off with ‘positive feelings = good, negative feelings = bad’ is pretty soon going to run into conflicts between what different people want, and you’re going to have to make a value judgement on those.

Also, even if we accept the premise that ‘negative’ and ‘positive’ as categories actually exist, in your view what would you say to someone who didn’t want to live like that, given a naturalistic worldview? Douglas Wilson posed a question to Christopher Hitchens which I think is relevant:

Take the vilest atheist you ever heard of. Imagine yourself sitting at his bedside shortly before he passes away. He says, following Sinatra, “I did it my way.” And then he adds, chuckling, “Got away with it too.” In our thought experiment, the one rule is that you must say something to him, and whatever you say, it must flow directly from your shared atheism—and it must challenge the morality of his choices. What can you possibly say? He did get away with it. There is a great deal of injustice behind him, which he perpetrated, and no justice in front of him. You have no basis for saying anything to him other than to point to your own set of personal prejudices and preferences. You mention this to him, and he shrugs. “Tomayto, tomahto.”

(from here, which is well worth reading).

In other words, even if we concede that there is some kind of moral system in the world, there is no obligation to follow it. You can’t turn an is into an ought It’s more of a moral guideline, really – these are the morals here, but hey! – take ‘em or leave ‘em.

What I’m getting at is that the world you describe doesn’t seem to fit with the world we perceive. I think we perceive the world with things like happiness, love, good, bad, evil actually existing – they’re not just labels. And I can’t see how anyone could get to that from a naturalistic view of the world (i.e. if naturalism was true the world wouldn’t look like it does). Consequently I think Christianity is the only view of the world which makes any sense, because it explains those things.

“The same can be said for Christianity. Wasn’t one of Jesus’ objectives to update the Old Testament? Including the morals.”

No, it wasn’t. The morals don’t change. “Love God and love your neighbour” are the greatest commandments of the Old and New testaments. They haven’t changed.

“Exactly my point: altruism is ultimately selfish. I’m open about the fact that I give blood, not to help others, but because I like the feeling I get from knowing I’ve saved a life (the discomfort from the needles is short-lived compared to that).”

I’m sorry, I must have misunderstood. I thought you were criticising Christianity for saying that no altruistic act is truly altruistic. Which is basically what you’ve just said here of atheism, so at the very least by your own admission both are equal on that front.

Incidentally, I disagree that Christianity leads to no true altruism. I think Christians are supposed to do “good things” because they are good in and of themselves. “Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly father is perfect” (Mt 5:48). There are benefits but that’s not the reason for doing good things.

Seriously? I’d like to think that humans were capable of being able to work out for themselves what’s right and what’s wrong, rather than being so (I’m going to sound insulting here, for which I apologise) ignorant that they have to be told by some “higher authority”.

“Let’s stay if my chemical reactions cease with respects to Mrs Phil – should we get divorced?”

However you define love, if you stop loving Mrs Phil, you’re breaking your wedding vows (you promised to love her till death do you part, right?). Whether you get a divorce or not is up to you; it’s not my place to say.

“In other words, I think you are essentially using ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to define good and bad.”

No. I’m defining actions that result in positive emotions good and actions that result in negative emotions bad.

If people get on with each other, positive emotions result. Therefore, getting on with each other is good. If we fight with each other, negative emotions result. Therefore, fighting with each other is bad.

“In fact you could make a plausible, rational case for being incredibly ambitious and trampling on everyone else to become successful, for in Darwinism the fittest survive – therefore that’s what we should do.”

No. The “fittest” in Darwinism refers to the fittest for that environment, the most apt. It’s frequently misunderstood to mean fittest as in strongest, healthiest. It’s no use being extremely muscular and therefore requiring a lot of protein in your diet if all there is to eat is leafy plants, for example.

“Well, with morals as atheism defines them, there is absolutely no guarantee that one day raping and pillaging of some description won’t be considered moral.”

The same can be said for Christianity. Wasn’t one of Jesus’ objectives to update the Old Testament? Including the morals.

“Either there is something intrinsically good about an altruistic act, which means that objective good exists; or naturalistic Darwinism is true and an altruistic act is actually a selfish act in disguise.”

Exactly my point: altruism is ultimately selfish. I’m open about the fact that I give blood, not to help others, but because I like the feeling I get from knowing I’ve saved a life (the discomfort from the needles is short-lived compared to that).

~ pandammonium

What I mean is, as an atheist you would have to conclude stoning someone in another country, according to their law, was morally permissible. There is no higher authority or universal standard to appeal to.

As a Christian I can say that there is a moral standard which transcends societal and national boundaries, so I could say that it was an immoral act.

“I’d say the love of a couple towards each other is just chemical reactions. Mother love is a manifestation of the survival instinct and the instinct to see one’s genes passed on; that sort of thing. And I don’t see what’s so bad about it being so.”

What I’m getting at is, if love is just chemical reactions – what happens if those chemical reactions cease? Let’s stay if my chemical reactions cease with respects to Mrs Phil – should we get divorced? Would that be love? I’m just saying I think there is a standard of ‘love’ above and beyond what Hollywood portray, and it’s more than just an arbitrary label we’ve assigned to a certain set of human actions.

“What does it *mean* for God to be good? For God to be the definition of good?”

I think it means we can only call things good or bad because of God. We only know what good is because of what God is, and the fact that he has given us a moral sense (created in his image). God is the standard of good – the only standard of good – to which we Christians can appeal.

“I think atheists can assume good and bad. We can say that something is good if it benefits the planet or mankind and bad if it doesn’t; something is good if it helps us get on with each other and bad if it doesn’t.”

I think your argument is circular. Firstly, you are assuming categories of ‘benefiting’ or ‘harming’ (they are loaded words). Think about it – where do we get those categories from? Are they objective categories? Benefiting by definition means something that is good, but where does that come from? Harming by definition means something bad. In other words, I think you are essentially using ‘good’ and ‘bad’ to define good and bad.

For example, what is intrinsically good about “helping us get on with each other”? You’re making a value judgement there. One could make a plausible, rational argument for actually letting the weaker humans die out. In fact you could make a plausible, rational case for being incredibly ambitious and trampling on everyone else to become successful, for in Darwinism the fittest survive – therefore that’s what we should do.

The other thing is, if our morals are purely a product of evolutionary naturalism – then there is no guarantee they won’t change. You mentioned God defining good in some other way. Well, with morals as atheism defines them, there is absolutely no guarantee that one day raping and pillaging of some description won’t be considered moral.

“I’d also like to think that people don’t need the promise of eternal reward or eternal punishment to condition our behaviour. It means nothing we do is ever truly altruistic; we’ve always got one eye one the prize, as it were.”

Hold on a second. I’ve heard atheists describe how morals evolve before, and they always run into a problem with altruism. It just doesn’t fit the mould: how can something which is NOT beneficial to an individual have evolved in a Darwinian system? The main explanation I’ve heard is that in some ways it *does* benefit the individual, indirectly.

But then, what they are positing is that altruistic acts are essentially selfish acts. You can’t have it both ways. Either there is something intrinsically good about an altruistic act, which means that objective good exists; or naturalistic Darwinism is true and an altruistic act is actually a selfish act in disguise.