Review of "Good without gods" by QualiaSoup

This is a review of the YouTube video "Good without gods", posted by QualiaSoup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T7xt5LtgsxQ

This video is an attempt to demonstrate why god/religion is not required for morality. Instead, the author asserts that morality can be derived and defended on purely scientific means. How successful is he? Let's take a look at his assertions:

First of all, he defines what morality is "not" based on. He states that morality cannot be based on:

• Power -- power often turns on the weak
• Majority Preference -- the majority can be wrong
• Tradition -- because it's always been done that way doesn't make it right
• Law -- laws can be wrong

The author and I agree on all of these points, so we'll move on.

From here, the author posits six different thought experiments. He describes six different societies, each with a unique moral anomaly. From these, he attempts to glean some type of moral insight.

In Society 1 (Soc1), all children are thought to be witches. These infernal kids are blamed for natural disasters and other evils that plague the society. They are punished, and some are perhaps even killed by their parents because of this belief.

Obviously, this belief is not correct, and so, claims the author, we see that bad morals can be the result of a false view of nature. When the society learns that natural disasters are caused by purely physical processes, then there is no need to inappropriately punish the children for being witches. In this view, moral responsibility is the difference between education and ignorance.

The author explicitly states, "Education, especially in science is crucial to moral progress." One has to wonder how he came to this view, as his statement is not scientifically defensible! Furthermore, education implies a teacher--the statement contains an implicit appeal to authority (something the author will later deny is an acceptable means of deriving moral principles).

The author then claims that his example is analogous to homosexuality. Homosexuality, he says, is not a moral issue because it results in no intrinsic harm.

Let's pause right here to take issue with this last statement. A simple internet search quickly led to an article where a group of homosexual activists admit that there are many different health consequences directly connected to their lifestyle. (http://www.drwalt.com/blog/?p=597) These consequences range from an decrease in lifespan of about 20 years, a suicide rate 2 to 14 times that of the general population, higher rates of anal cancer for homosexual and bisexual men, and increased breast cancer rates for lesbians.

Some articles revealed by the search attributed the increased negative consequences to societal attitudes toward homosexuals; however, of the issues listed above, only the increase in suicide rates can be linked in any way to the attitudes of others. So the claim  that homosexual behavior results in no intrinsic harm is debatable at best, and blatantly false at worst. And therefore, by the author's own standard, homosexual behavior would be an immoral activity. In his own words, "knowing better leaves us no excuse for not doing better."

The author quite rightfully slams those who profess to be Christians while using hateful rhetoric against homosexuals. Jesus never used scorn against sinners--except for the self-righteous religious leaders of the day. He was quite acid-tongued with them!

Now it's quite possible that the author might disagree with me; he might even find another study which counters the claims above. As Christian Apologist Frank Turek is fond of saying, "science doesn't say anything... scientists do!" It is certainly possible for different scientists, given the same data, to arrive at differing conclusions, based on their own experience, preconceptions, and opinions.

We are then left with a dilemma... whom do we trust? At this point, both sides are using an appeal to authority. It seems that we are left at an impasse. Each of us can give reasons (although our author does not do so) to support our position. Each of us have access to scientific facts and authorities. How then shall we decide what the "moral" position is?

The author seems not to realize that the fundamental question that morality seeks to answer is "what ought men to do?"  Science cannot provide this answer. It can tell us how the universe works, but not how it ought to work. How does one arrive at an "ought" from a discipline that tells us what "is"?

The author correctly states that "dehumanizing people erodes sympathy" and reduces the guilt felt by those who abuse others. He uses as an example the Nazi's view of the Jews as "vermin" or the view of religious people of the non-religious as "degenerate hell-fodder". (Now while it may be true that some "religious" people view the non-religious in this way, I have yet to meet one who truly follows Christ that sees them without empathy. Before meeting Jesus, we were in the same condition as they. This at its core is either a misunderstanding of true Christianity, or a straw-man argument.)

But the author is correct in his premise; dehumanizing people results in dire consequences. However, he has neglected to provide any way in which science or atheism establishes the value of human beings, or a basis for the guilt an abuser should feel. According to naturalistic Darwinism, mankind is nothing more than a collection of animated matter; our mind, including our hopes, dreams, emotions, etc. are just an extended biochemical reaction happening in our brains. How then has a man any more value than a volcano? Science has no answer. Therefore on atheism, his premise has no foundation. To define "dehumanizing", one must first define the value of being "human", and explain why that value should inspire sympathy or empathy. It is science, separated from God, that truly removes value from humans.

Now this is not the intent of science. Science is a simply a search for knowledge. However, by reducing humanity to nothing more than atoms and biochemical processes, the author triggers the Law of Unintended Consequences and destroys the basis for human value.

To further establish the relationship of knowledge and morality, the author (again correctly) states that children who don't understand that it's improper to write on walls are not morally deficient when they do so. Then he continues with the absurd analogy of a cat that doesn't understand that it's improper to eat mice.

What is a cat supposed to eat... lettuce?? It's a cat's nature to eat mice!

In Society 2 (Soc2), the author posits a single authority figure who establishes the following two laws:

1. All who harm others will be punished.
2. You will not be punished for harming others.

Obviously, these two laws are contradictory, resulting in a set of laws that cannot be rationally enforced. According to the author, this disproves an egocentric basis of morality. It is therefore rationally consistent to have basic prohibitions against causing needless harm to others.

But one must ask, who is this posited authority figure? The author never explicitly identifies them . If the authority is another person, then the laws are indeed inconsistent, but how does this disprove an egocentric system, which by definition concerns the self, not an external authority? If the authority is one's self, then the laws are perfectly consistent. It is perfectly understandable that one would want both to be free from punishment for their own actions while wanting others to be punished for harming oneself! One does not enjoy being harmed, nor does one enjoy punishment. It is reasonable to desire exemption from both.

Society 3 (Soc3) permits literacy only for males. Females are arbitrarily forbidden from reading and writing. This law exists without any valid justification; it's only purpose is to keep females subservient to males. As previously discussed, lack of education increases one's vulnerability to abuse.

The author claims that this policy is unjust, even if most women agree to the policy. Their lack of literacy and education reduces their capacity for informed consent. This leads one to question whether informed consent to an immoral act renders the act moral!

We will have more to say about this society later.

In Society 4 (Soc4) all criminals are executed, even for petty crimes such as jaywalking. Such a policy is flawed because it rewards the jaywalker for killing those who witness their crime.

By positing this universe, the author affirms the Law of Unintended Consequences. It seems that Soc4 desires to create a perfect society; however, their ultra-draconian policies actually has the potential to result in an increase in murder.

The author's conclusions of the end result of such a policy are correct. This is not a society in which you would want to live. And so, we agree that punishment should fit the crime.

Smiling on Tuesday is forbidden by law in Society 5 (Soc5). The law is totally arbitrary, and can be changed by the authority in power on a whim. These conditions are becoming more and more familiar, as the United States enacts laws, and then immediately grants immunity from those laws to select groups of people.

We have agreed with the author that law is an insufficient basis for morality; indeed, morality is the basis for law. No harm is caused by being friendly on a specific day of the week, so there is no harm caused by this "crime". And so we see, reiterates the author, that an appeal to authority is no basis for morality.

In his words, "We don't base morality on revelation from authority, that would render us merely obedient. Moral behavior is doing what's right, not what we're told, unless doing what we're told is also what's right."

But the question then becomes, "how does one know what is right?"  In the author's opinion, it seems that one can learn how one ought to live by science and logic. If I disagree with him, then by what authority shall he convince me? He is certainly entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine. If I believe that morality is best learned by scripture, or by astrology, or by the luck of the draw, how shall he convince me that his ideas are better than mine? By using logic? Science? Then he is begging the question.

Implicit in his statement is the assumption that "right" and "wrong" exist as moral categories. I happen to agree with him; however a professing atheist with whom I am acquainted denies the existence of such categories, at least in an objective sense. As a theist, I believe that some actions are more right than others, and that there is an objective standard by which all actions may be judged; namely the character of God. An action is right that aligns with what God would do in a given situation, and wrong if it does not. The author of our video does not define explicitly what makes an action "right" or "wrong", but simply says that we can learn morality through science and reason.... a position that we both hold. In the end, however, one is left wondering how the author justifies the existence of such concepts.

And so we have three different views of morality from three different people. And it's quite possible, that you, the reader, disagree with all of us! And so it seems that humans are certainly disqualified as moral authorities... we can't even agree on whether morality even exists!

The author then extrapolates from this example to say that an appeal to scripture is an insufficient basis for morality, because that constitutes an appeal to an authority.

Now it's clear that if the authority is arbitrarily selected, then this is true. I know nothing about the inner workings of the space shuttle; it would be most foolhardy to consider me an authority on such a topic. And so, the author uses different evidence, and still concludes what we have just shown; that men are not sufficiently knowledgeable of morality to be an appropriate authority!

Morality deals with "oughts"... what ought men to do... what ought men not to do. In fact, the entire video is one man's opinion. This entire blog post is also one man's opinion. In many ways, our opinions are diametrically opposed to each other, but we do agree on one thing--all men are created... or evolved... as equals. Whose standard shall we choose?

But what if there is an an appropriate authority? If you want to know something about the Star Wars universe, you would be perfectly justified to ask George Lucas. If you want to know how far Spiderman can shoot a web, it would be appropriate to ask Stan Lee. Why? Because they created their respective universes!

Likewise, if there is a creator of our own universe, (and more importantly, of us), it is most appropriate to consult that creator on how men should behave.

The author claims that when we have "valid reasons" for morality, then holy books and gods are not necessary. But from where would such valid reasons come? From science? Science can tell us the operating principles of a handgun, the ballistic characteristics of it ammunition, and what will happen if you were to shoot someone at a distance of 15 yards. It is utterly incapable of telling you whether you should do so!

What about logic? Is it moral to carry a weapon for protection? Some people refuse to carry a gun, even when stepping into a situation known to be dangerous. Others practically refuse to leave their home unless armed. Both would use logic to defend their positions. Clearly, logic alone is insufficient to tell us what we should do.

Because morality deals with people and relationships, it seems reasonable that only a person is capable of making a moral judgement. Inanimate objects do not care about morality. Rocks do not care if they are used to build a hospital wall, or to stone someone to death. Ropes do not care if they are used by a search and rescue team to save a drowning swimmer or by a lynch mob to hang their victim. Similarly, neither science nor logic are persons; what do they have then to tell us about right and wrong?

To be clear, science and logic have their place in discovering what is right and what is wrong, but they are an insufficient basis for morality. There must be something more.

And so, we have established, in agreement with the author, that humans are an insufficient basis for morality. But in opposition to the author, I contend as well that science and logic are insufficient because they are not persons. But if morality must be grounded in a person, but cannot be grounded in a human, what person is left, but God?

In Society 6 (Soc6), feeding chocolate to others, or using green paint is forbidden. This seems to fall under the conditions of Soc5, until you learn that the members of this society are intolerant to chocolate, which is fatal to them, and green paint can only be made with a rare substance that is also used to make a life-saving medicine.

From this, the author asserts that morality can be based on different circumstances. In our society, both of these actions are perfectly acceptable, but here, they are rightfully restricted.

So what are we to make of this? He reminds us that branding children as witches is "categorically wrong", because that's due to bad education, and should not be respected a cultural truth. But, he claims:

moral awareness takes some time to develop in individuals and in societies. Both individuals and societies develop at different rates. Some cultures believe in magic, homophobia, animal cruelty, sexism, racism. Others outgrow magic, but still believe in the others. Some have outgrown all of these, and now focus on "bigger issues" such as population issues, pollution reduction, sustainable energy, etc.

As a side note, notice how he equates racism and sexism, which deal with prejudice due to a persons unalterable physical traits, to the poorly and inaccurately named homophobia, which deals with disapproval of a person's actions. I've never understood why these two should be associated together!

So what is the point of Soc6? The author seems to claim that morality can be different between cultures because of different environments, or different levels of "moral awareness".

But is this really the case? In our society, chocolate is a treat. But what is it in Soc6? It's a poison! In our own society, we frown on people feeding arsenic to others. I've heard that anti-freeze is sweet to the taste, but I'm not going to give it to my child as a beverage! Perhaps they're not so different from us after all!

And if a person is "less morally advanced", then does that make them subject to a different morality, or are they subject to a moral principal that they have not yet discovered? If Culture A does not view animal cruelty as wrong, but Culture B (that, according to the author, is more morally aware) views it as a heinous crime, then is the action wrong for a person in the first culture but right for a person in the second? If a person from the second went to live in the first society, would it, or would it not be moral to beat animals for fun?

It seems that moral awareness should not equate to moral responsibility. If it is wrong to be cruel to animals, should it not be wrong for all persons everywhere, regardless of their unawareness of the immorality of such cruelty? While unawareness may lessen the person's punishment, their action seems to point out a need for education, not a lack of a moral law governing their behavior.

This implies again that morality is something that is discovered, not something that is devised or developed.

The author then sums up his findings. He states that there is nothing arbitrary about:

• Improving Education
• Graduating punishment
• Prohibiting needless harm
• Recognizing differences
• and Cultivating attitudes of cooperation and compromise (despite competing interest)

Which results in coexistence with minimal suffering.

All of these things sound good, and are honorable goals, but these things show us how to discover moral law; they do not explain why such a law exists in the first place.

He claims that the "worry that without religion or gods, we've no basis on which to discuss morality is without foundation." but is this the case? In his view where does morality originate?

It can't be in men; we've both ruled out humans as a valid basis for morality using two different arguments. Science and logic, although useful to discover moral laws, seem a poor candidate to be the origin of moral law.


So are moral laws simply abstract objects, such as numbers? If so, then they exist necessarily... their existence is not contingent on the existence of any other being or object. But if that's true, then it seems that the universe was expecting rational creatures who could discover such moral laws. But atheistic, materialistic Darwinism claims that evolution could have produced beings vastly different from ourselves, or (what is more likely) no beings at all! Why would these abstract moral laws exist if the odds were staggeringly high against any creature arising who could discover them?

What's left then? From where then can such a standard originate?


We've seen that neither man, matter or abstract moral laws cannot explain why morality exists. To explain the why behind morality, you have to assume a moral authority; someone who is capable of explaining why the universe works the way it works (just like you need George Lucas to explain Star Wars). Someone who is a qualified authority to whom we can appeal. God, as the creator of the universe, fits this criteria nicely.

The standard must be a person, because morality deals with behavior; what men ought to do or ought not to do. Only a person has the capacity to care about matters like this! Again, God is a qualified candidate.

You have to have someone transcendent to man. Man cannot be the basis of morality, because one man's opinion or interpretation of scientific data is as valid as that of another man. (That is not to say that either of them are true. However, to say that one is true and one is not, is to say that there is an external standard of truth by which the opinions and interpretations of both men may be judged. This external standard is then the transcendent someone to which we refer.) God is again the only candidate uniquely qualified for this criterion.

The author says that moral judgment depends on reason and information. The better we understand how the universe works, the conditions under which life thrives, where responsibility lies, and the consequences of our actions, the better our moral judgment becomes. However, this again shows how one can discover morality, not why morality exists!

Furthermore, he is assuming reason exists without giving a basis for its existence. He simply expects us to believe that a bunch of hydrogen atoms bumping around at random eventually coalesced into larger atoms, these became soil and chemicals on a little, far-flung planet in a dusty corner of the Milky Way, and through some lucky accident, formed into a structure capable of replicating itself. Then somehow, with no directed guidance, no benefit of a designer, this odd little structure became capable not only of replicating, but of understanding the universe around it.

Now we all take reason for granted! Indeed, you can't even argue against reason, because you must use reason to do so, and the minute you open your mouth, you lose the debate! So reason obviously exists; that however is not my point. I'm questioning why reason exists! With astronomical odds against a self-replicating structure (life) ever forming in the first place, the odds against that structure becoming capable of reason without a designer to guide its development is unfathomable! Once again, it seems we need God (who was mind and reason before matter came into being in the big bang) to instill reason in his creation.

According to the video, moral choices are required for moral progress. In making these choices, religion needs science, but science doesn't need religion. So why involve religion in moral choices, when it has nothing to offer?

But as we've seen, science and reason may help you discover morality, but they are powerless to explain why morality exists! And if God created the universe, including humanity, and has expectations of how men should behave, and designed us to operate a certain way inside of this universe he created, then it seems logical that we should be interested in what he has to say on the matter. It is logical that science should be capable of revealing some of this moral law, because it would be woven into the very fabric of space-time that makes up our universe! But what science should not be able to tell you is why it is there; and we see that this exactly the case!

The author slams religion for attempting to control people by threats, fear, and irrationality, and that the goal of morality is to ease the challenges of coexistence. Unfortunately, he is partially correct regarding the behavior of the church; the church has often sought for earthly power, even though Jesus said that his kingdom was not of this world. But what he fails to point out is that this is a folly common to humans, not just Christians and followers of other religions.

Instead, he claims, a more "appropriate and principled function for morality" is to "ease the challenges of coexistence." Interestingly, the author claims that we have transcended our (in his view) creator! Darwinism is not built on easing the challenges of coexistence, but on the survival of the fittest.

While is is true that the most "fit" organism is necessarily the stronger, the best fighter, or the most ruthless, it is also true that Darwinism makes no moral judgement against stronger organisms preying on the weaker. Indeed, if this is what makes an organism more fit, then it is to the benefit of the species that such things be left undisturbed.

The author states at the end of the video, "Our collective moral progress depends on the extent to which we are able and -crucially- WILLING to examine our behaviour and most cherished beliefs." Once again, I agree. I'm certain that, just as I cherish my belief in Christianity, the author enjoys his atheism, and is convinced that he believes the truth. As a Christian, I have done the hard work to examine my beliefs. I've considered whether other religions such as Islam or Buddhism might be the true religion, or whether there is any God or gods at all. In all of my search, Theism in general, and Christianity in particular have emerged as being the most consistent with the world I live in.

I had a college professor who said, "If you don't know where you're going, how will you know when you get there?", and "If you aim at nothing, you're sure to hit it!"  I would ask the author, to what exactly are we collectively progressing toward? Who determined what the goal was? How did they come to such a determination? Why do we want to get there?

Christianity doesn't answer the question "to what?"  Instead, it answers the question "to whom"? In Jesus Christ, we find the embodiment of love and moral perfection. As the unique incarnation of God in human flesh, he is the only person qualified to be the moral lawgiver. He is the standard, and He is our goal. He doesn't offer a rule book, but a relationship--an endless eternity getting to know an infinite God. We didn't choose the goal, He did. He designed us for this, and we demonstrate that need for relationship in our everyday lives with our own families and friends.

And so there you have the true function of morality... it's not just to ease coexistence... it's something much higher, and harder, than that. True morality demands that we love... not only our neighbors, but our enemies as well! It's a higher goal than mankind can attain! And so Jesus came to Earth, and demonstrated by living here as a human exactly what that kind of life looks like. And it's not always what you might think! Sometimes, it means you get angry, as he did in the temple at the moneychangers who were preying on the poor. Sometimes it means you speak plainly as he did to the pharisees. And sometimes, it means that you show compassion, as he did to those sick and needy.

This video is very well done, and the author's arguments are well presented, but any "morality" presented here is a pale imitation of the real thing.