Morality Centered on God is not Objective

Those of us who have left or never had religion know that you don't need to believe in any deity to live a moral life, to have morals, or to choose moral actions. You really only need empathy to start creating a moral system, and I think most of us would agree we would like to lead a good life. Although what that means will vary from individual to individual, I think we can agree we would like to minimize fear, pain, suffering, dread, and other negatives that impinge on the positives.

Identifying as an atheist, as many of us point out, does not say anything about our moral beliefs. It is simply the lack of belief in a god. However, living as social animals, we need to start engaging what our bases are for moral choices. Once we agree on some standards, we can begin to agree as a culture what right and wrong actions are.

There are lots of religious people that like to claim that there is an objective morality and their god is the moral standard. Without that deity, there is no way we can get to objective morals. I see many problems with this argument.

I won't be the first to say that the fact that objective morality exists needs to be demonstrated, and I have yet to see that happen. What I see is imperfect humans making claims about morality that vary depending on time and place. I also don't see any interpretation of holy books that can be used to bolster such a claim. The holy books espouse different moral actions. Basically, besides saying "we all know objective morality" (which is far from what I observe), what basis do we have for thinking something like this exists?

Second, I'm not sure how saying that a deity is the moral standard gets us to objective morality. Sure, it's beyond the human realm, but it is still the pronouncement of one "mind" or "consciousness" or whatever the heck the deity is presumed to be. It is still that deity's subjective opinion. We would first need a demonstration this deity existed and then something to show that the morality is not just the fancy of the being but a real objective standard. I'm not sure how this could be done, but it is not just enough to assert that it is true because you "feel" it.

Really, though, the appeal to a deity for some kind of objective morality feels like a thought stopper or a conversation stopper. How can you argue with a perfect deity that supposedly is all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful? How can we as humans discuss what the action is, assess it, judge it, and make any pronouncement on it?

I am reminded of a story a friend told me about going to Israel to a kibbutz where a discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian issue came up. One man said that god had promised the Jewish people that land, so there was no compromise that should be offered. And that is a problem. If Jews think the land is promised to them and Muslims think the land is promised to them, how can you decide which it actually is? How can you argue with a divine promise? And if the promise is on both, how do you split it down the middle?

In terms of the Abrahamic religions, the supposed objective morality from this god does not seem to promote what I would call human flourishing and it doesn't seem concerned with human or animal suffering. It doesn't matter which text you read, there are dietary laws, laws about sexuality, menstruation, and marriage, and regulation of slavery (not abolition thereof). Many of those laws seem at best neutral and at worst stifling. Further, the god promotes war and genocide, smites people for minor offenses, like touching the ark of the covenant or taunting an old man, and demands animal sacrifices. He had some of his best people remain childless till old age and then let them reproduce! This does not seem loving to me. When we die, if we didn't do whatever the god wanted while we were alive we will be tortured forever. Some people shrug this off as if it were a jail sentence for a crime. But a convicted criminal has a finite sentence. Hell is forever. One offense is simply not believing in god. Burn forever for just not accepting something on faith? Is that moral?

The Bible also punishes thought crimes. Don't think lustfully of a woman or you have committed adultery. Don't covet. I would admit you don't want bad thoughts becoming obsessions, but it is beyond ridiculous to think that a thought should carry the same weight as an action. The former hurts no one. The latter bears consequences.

And if that weren't enough, people in the same religion can't even agree on what their god wants. How many denominations of protestantism are there? Christians can shop for a form of their religion that appeals to what they want to believe.

And they get the bonus of thinking they have the objective morality.

It is my notion that real morality is human-centered. It is action with human flourishing at its center (which could extend to how we treat other animals and our planet). The problem is that you have to have the hard discussion. We have to come together, find agreement, and weigh actions. It is not as simple as snapping a chalk line on the ground with actions falling to one side or another. When people appeal to their deity, the discussion stops, and the harm might begin.