...on being crutchless

I recently listened to a radio interview of a prominent atheist (in Seattle, it's not easy to be a prominent atheist). As with so many modern atheists, this one was intent on stirring up controversy by depicting religionists, and especially Christians, as naive, misguided sheep. Such is the fashion of the day.

But this atheist, who spoke in calm, self-assured tones, went a step further. He took several occasions to accuse believers of being immoral, and gave several examples. He also underhandedly complemented the interviewer (a practicing Christian) on "rising above the crutch of religion to a more humanistic morality."

What struck me was that this man rejected God, the Bible and theistic religion, but insisted on maintaining the the notion of morality--of right and wrong. And he clearly relished holding the moral high ground via what he called secular humanism.

So I looked up humanism to get a high level understanding of what makes it such an enlightened path. Turns out that humanism is a "life stance" that is deeply concerned with truth, ethics and morality. Sounds a lot like religion. Except that religion is bad and humanism is good.

A basic tenant of humanism holds that, "right and wrong must be based on the individual and common good." Which begs the question, which is it? Does the individual determine what's right or does the group? The answer to this question, no matter what it is, begs many, many more questions.

If the individual is the source of truth, then we've got a mammoth problem on our hands, because individuals inevitably have opinions that contrast with the opinions and ideas of other individuals. Get a few billion individuals together on a planet and you've got one, two three, four......well, a lot of versions of the truth. So who's right and who's wrong?

This, I'm guessing, is where group morality enters the picture. But is the common good ever really common (much less good)? It's not hard to find a group of individuals who share common views, but driving global consent is a bit like herding cats. Billions of cats. In all of mortality, there will never be unanimous consent when it comes to right or wrong. That's my opinion. And if you disagree, you're proving my point. Besides, I've got all of history on my side.

So what happens next? Does morality become democratic? Do we leave it to the majority to decide right and wrong? If so, then right and wrong are bound to change, then change again.

The problem with all this is that there is not, nor indeed can there be, an absolute in the equation without a God. Atheists will recoil at this suggestion, but I defy them to show otherwise. The only alternative is that right and wrong, moral and immoral are purely relative. Such a notion gives way to nihilism and chaos.

One might declare that murder is wrong.
To which I would ask, why?
Because everybody knows it is.
Everybody?
Well, most people.
So right and wrong is determined by majority rule?
No.
Well then, what determines it? Why is murder wrong?
Because murder is contrary to the common good, that's why.
And who decides what is commonly good?
The people. The community.
All of the people, or just a majority?
Look, not killing people helps preserve society.
So it's a simple matter of preservation? In that case, is it wrong to kill murderers?

The slippery slope is obvious. Almost embarrassingly obvious. With secular humanism, right and wrong are forever subjective. There is no anchor holding the ship in place, only a lively debate on deck as to the proper course. And even if an unlikely consensus is reached that the ship ought to travel north, everyone's compass is pointing a slightly different direction, making north impossible to identify.

Does organized religion have a similar problem? Yes, with so many religions, doctrines and denominations, it's impossible to argue that all who believe in God also understand and follow His doctrine. And yet, there are some common principals and ideals, foremost of which is the idea of one God with one set of objective, immutable truths.

To the believer, this is the anchor. God is the basis of right and wrong, moral and immoral, ethical and unethical. And to the non-believer, the idea of God must be recognized for what it (at the very least) is: The best and only chance to rise above the shifting sands of philosophy and find truth.