Atheism and Morality

I don't think you quite understand whats being said here Hawkeye. They aren't saying For an Atheist to behave morally, he/she has to behave outside our God beliefs but quite the opposite. In order for atheist to make use of morality they would have to operate outside their own beliefs. With your last statment about morality being a personal decision, you've only proved them right.

"the atheistic understanding of morality comes ... from ... the Judeo-Christian ethic". Somewhat true, but where did the Judeo-Christian ethic come from? A human refinement of delusions about God. Ergo, it's partial delusion and partially human-centred. Us atheists just dispense with the delusion and we're left with the liberating (and admittedly scary) prospect of human ethics based on the only recognised source of human motivation: desire/emotion/feelings. So, us atheists will do a deal with the religious: we'll admit that creating a humanism based on emotion is scary, so long as you can admit the Judea-Christian ethnic has never been a solid thing but has been a continual refinement by humans (and hence is heavy with implied humanism).

Maybe it did come from God? That might explain why it was only the Jews who followed those tenets while no other group did. Only later adopted by Europe in the forming of the Catholic church. The problem with doing away with the divinity of the laws is that makes them subjective and therefore expendable.

If human ethics are founded solely on "desire/emotion/feelings then I would agree that that combination is not only "admittedly scary" but a totally hopeless basis for morality. In the end there is no good reason why your desires, emotions or feelings should be of any more or less worth than mine. Maybe atheism should continue the search for a proper moral grounding for ethics if, admittedly, the one based on feelings is "scary" and the one based on religion is delusional. To buy into an illusion and "do a deal" may be just one way of saying game over. Not that's scary!

I'm not an atheist, but I don't see any reason an atheist can't know the difference between right and wrong.

But they know the difference between right and wrong as defined by Judeo-Christian beliefs, which are built in to our current legal system. If they are trying to do away with those beliefs then they will eventually come up against that and decide to do whatever it is they want at any given moment; or live on some delusional set of ethical codes that they themselves live by for who knows what reason. The end result is anarchy, as it was in the times before Noah and which is why God commanded Noah to set up courts and laws.

Why should there be things like morality and amorality.. when its basic logic that one doesn't kill another as part of an unwritten contract ie. "if you don't kill me, then I won't kill you" that could apply to all scales of society, from discrimination and racism to letting people through the door before you as a sign of politeness. And why should atheists be regarded as "making convictions". They live by logic, not by morals.. morals are derived from this logic.. but are not always logical. And therefore people who believe in morals only follow, and do not think. That's my conviction.

Your assumption is that most people will live by societys unwritten contract out of self preservation. If this were true we wouldnt have a exploding prison population in the world. Excuse me but I really think you are very naive about the nature of mankind. I would go back to leaning on science and leave morality to religion and philosophy. Atheism cannot explain morality.

We have an exploding prison population because of ridiculous drug laws.

That doesn't explain the increase in violent crime, most of the African Americans in prison are there for violent crimes, a recent study showed that African Americans use drugs and alcohol less than any other racial group in America. There is another rule "Kill him before he kills me." Trust me, in a society where this rule starts dominating you won't have the trust to wait to find out if the other guy doesn't plan on killing you. Haven't you seen The Road? Humans believe in self-preservation, but they also believe in self advancement and if I can kill you for what you have, then why shouldn't I? Except for the simple reason that God commanded me not to. That, or the system is so set up that I am reasonably sure I won't benefit from such actions. As soon as the system is out of the way nothing is stopping me.

Who inscribed the unwritten contract where and when? An atheistic standpoint implies I'm not responsible to anybody. I'm here by accident so I can remove by incident_ you are in my way. That's logical. But alas! I can't

The Bible was written for those who actually read it, those who claim to live by it, the religious, the ultra orthodox people of the world. These are the ones who need moral instruction, and even this moral guidance for many falls short. The atheist on the other hand do not read the Bible and yet they are moral enough to refrain from flying planes in to buildings, rioting in the streets of Jerusalem or blowing up buses with innocent women and childern. God knows where to write what for those who need to read it.

The atheists of the world have brought you Naziism, Stalinism and the Chinese Cultural Revolution, jointly responsible for the death of over 150,000,000 people within the span of about 50 years in the 20th century. There actions occur unter the guise of moraltiy and improving mankind as determined by their manmade standards. Certainly, religious motives are misused for selfish purposes, but it remains the source of a morality that is higher than man. Keep you eye on what has been the most destructive force in history.

The Bible was written for dose who actually read it, dose who claim to live by it, the religious, the ultra orthodox people of the world. These are the ones who need moral instruction, and even this moral guidance for many falls short. The atheist on the other hand do not read the Bible and yet they are moral enough to refrain from flying planes in to buildings, rioting in the streets of Jerusalem or blowing up buses with innocent women and childern. God knows where to write what for those who need to read it.

THIS HAS TO BE READ AT LEAST TWOCE TO FULLY APPRECIATE ITS VALUE.

Why are so many atheists on Aish.com?

Because cults are dangerous.

The book "The Selfish Gene" is not about genes making us literally selfish. And what does the author mean by "Neo-Darwinism" (a term from 1895) or "Darwinism"? I'm not sure the author knows what evolution, or science, actually is. On the other hand, many atheists DO have some or even a large understanding about religion, religious texts, and current and past religious affairs. I think there are very many points the author either doesn't understand or neglects to bring up regarding morality and atheism. This kind of article I expect to see from ignorant Christians trying to desperately protect themselves from a surrounding world they don't understand. It saddens me to see this kind of misleading ignorance being used to reassure those of the status quo rather than letting them consider the world-view and opinion of others with open eyes and mind. Believe what you like, as long as you know a good deal of information about the context in which you and others believe.

As a former atheist and a physics student, I can say there is a place for morality. The reason is that everyone knows there is a great mystery beyond the powers of the human mind. For this, the atheist does not believe in a G-d but can still look in awe at the universe and be compelled to treat it with respect. Think about it.

It may be amazing, but it would still be utterly pointless. So emotionally you would feel that yes, treat it with respect but logically, why should i treat it with respect? it technically is utterly pointless.

Anyone can stand before a crown and spout off. I don't find much purpose in Harris or others who walk a stage and talk with their hands to motivate or to challenge mens beliefs. Likewise, anyone can debate facts that are scientific or abstract, but to what good purpose? He used one illustration --- if there are two extremes, then somewhere in the middle is acceptable moderation. Using his logic, an ultra-Orthodox Rabbi would be one extreme, and a non-observant assimilated Jew would be another extreme. So...do we use Reform/Conservative as an acceptable moderation? Surely even he can't think of that as being correct. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ There are many categories of self-described atheists, as are there categories of self-described religious people, and as many self-described comedians and great thinkers. Why debate the meaning behind someone calling themselves atheist? If they don't murder their neighbor and don't rob their parents, they are living under the laws of G-d. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Likewise, there are many gods. How does anyone know which of these gods cause wars, famines, and disease? We are said to have free will, so perhaps our collective immoral or unethical actions are the conduit that brings these events to the world. A few times G-d has intervened and hardened hearts. I think that is what has happened throughout time since the beginning.

You accept that morality without God is baseless,then it follows that God is the basis of morality.If God is the basis for morality then morality must flow from God.It can not be merely arbitrary because that would mean that God is not moral but just bossy.The nature of God is all goodness therefore he can not do what would detract from His goodness,doing so would mean He is not God.Therefore the morality that comes from God must be good and in turn good for his creation.Reality is not naturally moral because if reality was naturally moral ,we would not know what immorality was.Reality without mankind would be amoral because the creatures do not live by reason or ethics.Morality in fact can not exist without God because without God there would be no way of measuring what is right or wrong moral or immoral.These things would be be purely subjective with no one system better than another.People do not live by instinct because people are rational beings able to over-ride their basic instincts and do acts which are not necessarily in their own interest..They are complying with a concept of moralty from outside of themselves If we lived by instinct we would lose our humanity and be living like beasts ,relying purely on strength and selfishness;civilisation would disintegrate.Morality can not begin in an environment that requires ruthlessness and self interest to survive .it' must exist before it can be acted upon or any idea of it understood.When we say "it's not fair",by what standard isn't it fair?If there is no indisputable concept of fairness then"not fair" has no meaning,the same as "it's not right",or "this is wrong"In all cases we are appealing to an in fallible judge of morality not just every one's owm idea of it.

GOODBYE G-D? One day a group of agnostic scientists decided humans had come a long way and no longer needed to "buy into" God. So they chose one to visit heaven and deliver the message. The scientist walked up to the One (pretended maybe) to be God and said, "We've decided that we no longer need you. We're at the point where we can clone people and do many miraculous things, so , hey, whether you're really You or not, we can take over from here." God listened patiently until the scientist finished talking. "Very well. But first, let us have a human-making contest." “Fine,” the scientist replied. Ah, God added, "We shall do this as I did back in the old days with Adam." "Of course," said the scientist, grabbing a handful of heavenly sand to fire up his lab. God gently took the sand from the scientist. "Nothing doing, my son. FIRST, YOU MUST FIND YOUR OWN."

First of all, there is no sense in which human flourishing is "utterly subjective." If it can be determined, it will be determined through an intersubjective exploration of reality, not pure introspection. It may be ill-defined, and Harris freely admits this; "health" is also ill-defined, but that doesn't mean that the work of physicians is meaningless. I think ethics can probably be reduced to a particular type of pragmatism that takes human well-being as its object. This is surely something we can study. By looking at the ways that our various policies affect people, we will be able to limit those that cause suffering and promote the ones that further the cause of flourishing. Obviously, to say that we "should" do these things implicitly assumes a value; namely, well-being. This shouldn't be surprising. No endeavor is ultimately self-justifying, and all require that we assume certain values. You would not say to a physicist, "You only say these things because you value truth, and since that value is subjective, nothing you say has meaning." Instead, I find it illuminating to think of ethics as precisely that science which takes well-being as its primary value. Which brings me to my last point: What theism offers is no kind of ethics at all. Divine command ethics (Which I contend is the only thing generally regarded as "ethics" that theists can appeal to and atheists cannot) is, rather, a form of feudalism. God is the sovereign lord, and we are bound to his will. If you insist that that's ethics, you insist that ethics need have nothing to do with human flourishing. If that is the case, then my only possible response will be as if you told a physicist that gravity has nothing to do with mass: an incredulous stare.

I enjoyed this post and it gave me a lot to think about. I have some disagreements, however. Firstly, refuting Dawkins & Hitchens does not refute Atheism. They are just 2 atheist voices of the estimated 155,000,000 in the world. The one thing atheists have in common is that they don't believe in an almighty deity (or any deity for that matter), after that they can believe in any number of things while still being atheists. Among these things are concepts like love, the innate power of the individual, and/or human rights. Secondly, I don't think the moral proclamations coming from the mouths of atheists should be any cause for alarm or confusion. Much of the great moral philosophy since the Enlightenment has put forth concepts of morality based upon reason alone. Kant and Mill are great examples of this. Even if they weren't atheists, they put forth moral tenets derived from reason rather than scripture. Indeed, I don't think that much of what they wrote would offend many non-atheists, but are rather in line with much of religious morality. And so when it comes to the things in life that matter, I'd say that the moral compasses of atheists and non-atheists are more in-line than not. It's a good question that's raised on this point, however: does atheistic thinking simply derive from a judeo-christian ethic? Perhaps there are people who take the morality from their upbringing but not the religion and grow up calling themselves atheists. But I don't think this makes their atheism, nor the morality they transplanted onto it, any less legitimate. In fact, you could just as easily say that religion is a means to codify morality, and is not its genesis. For example, while every religion has the golden rule, the golden rule doesn't require a higher power for its validity. Both Kant and Mills have shown this. Two more points: later atheists philosophers, like Schopenhauer and Nietzsche were very clear on the existence of the will. Thank you for the thoughtful discussion.

Some points: 1 - Sam Harris does define what thriving is; consider reading his book. 2 - Darwinism certainly does not suggest that certain groups are "better" than other groups (at which point the Rabbi jumps to racism). The Theory of Evolution demonstrates that when variations to a organism occurs, the one with traits more advantageous to survival in their environment will have a better chance of reproducing. 3 - Atheists in general live by the Golden Rule which you will find to be the foundation for many philosophies and religions. One does not need God(s) to live by the Golden Rule. It is conducive to the good of society so that is no doubt why the Golden Rule is so durable and pervasive. My experience (both as an atheist myself and of other atheists) is that treating others with love and respect becomes even more authentic, more generous and more meaningful when we aren't doing it because of some egocentric promise of an afterlife, or being scared of a God authority. I simply do not understand why some religious think we don't know the difference between right and wrong. Or worse, that we do not care! Sheesh. Please do not be so simplistic. May I ask what the Rabbi thinks are the "logical conclusions" of atheism? What I would like people to know is that atheists have usually all grown up under some kind of religious influence. We are post-religious. And amongst us, we have different views about a lot of things including free will. The one thing we do have in common is that we use our own reason and logic to come to our own conclusions and if evidence points somewhere else, we are willing to review and make adaptions to our thought process. Sorry to barge into your website but I am saddened by this article. If you want to attack us because we reject deities, that's fine. Argue with us on the point of the existence of God. But you really need to do better than this simplistic writing about sociopaths and racism.

I was born and raised in Judaism and am now an atheist. I've never heard ANY atheist say that free will is illusory or that there is no objective right and wrong. We just don't believe in the supernatural. We see right and wrong as being determined by society and as humans, atheists are also a part of society. Rabbi Jacobs has set-up several straw men to knock down here, nothing more.

...As Dr. Will Provine has said, "[as an atheist] you give up hope that there is an imminent morality ... you can't hope for there being any free will... [and there is] no ultimate foundation for ethics."

Free will is illusory and there is no objective right and wrong. That doesn't mean all atheists understand this reality. Nonetheless, it is reality. Try to understand it. Reality doesn't conform to one's intuitions, one's intuitions must conform to reality. Unless you're religious...then you can just make up what you want.

There is an enormous body of (secular!) philosophical work dealing with exactly these problems. All you've done is make an assertion that free will is illusory and there is no objective right and wrong, without making an argument for either. See, for reference, work on compatibilism in free will, and moral realism in meta-ethics. Or at least make some kind of argument before you dismiss these possibilities.

There is little hope for a true dialog between believers and non-believers if one side takes so little effort to understand the other's position. Rabbi Jacobs starts out with the baseless assumption that most atheists have no foundations for morals and ethics. It boggles his mind how someone with my worldview even bothers to get up in the morning only to suffer through another bleak and meaningless day. Hello Rabbi! Something is obviously wrong with your train of thought because I (and most atheists) are happy people who live a fulfilling life. We start the day with the knowledge that we can make a better world without being subjected by constant judgment and surveillance by a often bad-tempered God. The ultimate insult is the rabbi's assertion that any morals we atheist have come from his wonderful imaginary friend in the sky. You know, that same benevolent God who, in his wisdom mass-murdered innocent first borns in Egypt (as that 'funny' new video at this site's home page reminds us). I strongly suggests that the good Rabbi reads up on books like Sam Harris' "the Moral Landscape" before making further baseless judgements. Even reading David Wolpe's books could give him some more insights,

Anyone can stand before a crown and spout off. I don't find much purpose in Harris or others who walk a stage and talk to motivate or to challenge mens beliefs. Likewise anyone can debate facts that are scientific or abstract, but to what good purpose? He used one illustration that if there are two extremes, then somewhere in the middle is acceptable moderation. Using his logic, an ultra-Orthodox Rabbi would be one extreme, and a non-observant assimilated Jew would be another extreme. So...do we use Reform/Conservative as an acceptable moderation? Surely even he can't think of that as being correct. There are many gods. How does anyone know which of these gods cause wars, famines, disease? We are said to have free will, so perhaps our immoral or unethical actions are the conduit that brings these events to the world. I think that is what has happened throughout since the beginning. Through our actions, we call on other gods and these things occur. The God of Abraham doesn't interfere because of our free will. He intervenes only when the Jews are threatened with anniliation because of his covenant with them. This seems to be so from what I've learned and read about so far.

As a graduate student who majored in evolutionary psychology in college, I really appreciate this essay. I was always an agnostic growing up, and I had strong moral beliefs. Like the author said however, I had these beliefs mainly because I never really carried my philosophy through to its logical conclusion. As I learned more in college, I did, and it left me horribly depressed. I still struggle with the two philosophies in my mind- that of atheistic or agnostic evolutionary determinism, and the philosophy of my background in Judaism. I cannot condemn those that believe in determinism, because at least to my mind there is a lot of evidence for it. However, I cannot stand those like Dawkins who either through cowardice or stupidity cannot carry the logic through to the end and admit that if their assertions are true, life is meaningless and utterly devoid of objective morality or free will. I once watched an interview with Dawkins when someone asked him about the implications of his philosophy on free will and he got angry and simply refused to answer the question. Like I said, in my mind the determinists may very well be correct about the nature of life. I hope they are not, but I certainly have no direct evidence to say otherwise. I really wish however, that they would have the courage to end their hypocrisy and admit what their philosophy really implies.

What I'm confused about is that we tend to classify mitzvot as "chukim" and "mishpatim" - usually understood as chukim = laws that seem to have no rational basis, and mishpatim = laws that we do understand based on rationality. Often these are explained as ones we would have "figured out" on our own, even if God had not explicitly commanded us about them (don't kill, don't steal, etc.) This here seems to be suggesting that there are no such things as mishpatim - every mitzvah is 100% irrational and incomprehensible and there's absolutely no way we would ever have thought of these things if God had not said them. This seems to be a big chiddush to me!

Marvelous logic! Thank you!

Atheists cannot grasp, or will not grasp, that God has created them in His own image in the sense that the discernment of right from wrong, or good from evil, is within inextricably in them whether they like it or not. They cannot escape it though they fancy they can. I always love the scene in "The Big Labowski" when the self-described nihilists yell "that's not fair" and Dude has to remind them their nihilists. I am beginning to believe that there are indeed very few atheists, but simply atheist "wanna be's." The rules are clear: If there are no rules, there are no rule-breakers, and as a corrollary, no complaining about rule-breakers. Period. I would argue atheists who believe in right vs. wrong are either 1) too self-centered to yield to God's will and/or 2) Don't much care for the way God set up the world and will therefore refuse to bend to God's will. I was guilty of both and perhaps to some degree I still am. However, I do maintain I will answer to God one way or the other and I would prefer to do so as an "on-the-record believer" than as a declared opponent.

Prove that Allah or Zeus or Baal creted me in their own image...otherwise I morally claim that you are wrong. Whether you like it or not.

Therefore it explains a reality that the arrogant/bitter atheist will not want to see. 98% of all that defines humanity cannot be seen and is not subject to but transcends the laws of material nature. Love, thinking, understanding, knowing, hating, believing, unbelief, even communication define human existence but are unseen and utterly non materialistic. Scientific logic therefore concludes that to be our “parent species” or foundation. Atheism has no objective logic just demands without reward. It is pseudo-atheistic fantasies (communism, fascism, Marxist, Maoism..etc) that has killed better than 200 million people in a span of just under a century through random genocide- of course in the name of “utopia”. Cause and effect are the perfect science..."love your neighbor and torah consciousness (HaShem’s laws) save...atheism (humankinds myths) kills. Life (also unseen) itself mocks atheism…But of course, the greatest cabals of failures know better than the 95% of all people multiple billons born and especially the greatest benefactors (none of which were atheist) they steal credit from. "Wisdom" is confirmed (or denied) by its effect…

Correction: like morality and science, it was "do as thou wilt" atheism that drove planes into towers and throws bombs into shopping malls. There are many ways to disguise the imbecilic view of irrelevant existence (aka atheism). Religion is simply another vehicle. True theists take orders from Someone else...atheism demands one to be its own "god". The fact that tiny flakes of dust (with incomprehensible design and complication) think they have the mind (an unseen intangible reality) to define ALL the potential beings of the universe amounts to a ridiculous claim of “godhood”. It could only take G-d to make such a conclusive dictum and demand others to wrap their worldview around it. So hypocrisy (as well as self worshipping ego) is another foundation of atheistic mythology. Science, higher education, western freedom, medical, technical progress, etc was developed by Judaic, Christian and theistic thinkers while atheism has created Pol pot, Hitler (man worshipper i.e. atheist) and Stalinism, so its funny that Sharon whines about genocide. The 9/11 murders are those who say one thing (like “moral” atheism) but are really in fact no less atheistic (G-d denying) as Mao, Sanger, other architects of genocide and other members of the atheistic “hall of fame”. Saying you believe in G-d is not doing whatever you please, being an atheist is EXACTLY doing what you please. So are those that say ‘in the name of G-d” and then act as if there is no moral reality – or live by their own amorality with a pious excuse. Law without a law giver is theory. Nature which is structured and full of "do's and don'ts" (laws) is not and life survival depends on understanding those laws....continued...

Not sure that the average atheist denies the existence of free will. In fact, free will and the love of independence seems to be the cornerstone of most atheistic moral thought. By establishing early on that atheists reject free will, you can easily question why they would care about the actions of others, but you're essentially only tearing down the strawman you set up yourself.

I am the evolutionary psychology major posted above. Of course there is no free will if there is no spiritual dimension to life. If this is true, then everything is the result of cause and effect (physics) going back to the big bang. The physics of the universe resulted in life on this planet as well as a mechanism of biological change called natural selection. Your genes evolved through the eons to produce a genetic blueprint that determines the computer hardware (brain) that you carry today. Your environment is the software that interacts with the hardware to produce behavioral responses. What you see, hear or feel is the beginning of a complex chain reaction of action potentials in the neurons and axons of your brain which eventually culminate in behavioral output. Your actions are no different than a protozoan gyrating its cilia to move toward light or food in response to chemical or thermal cues. The only difference is in complexity. Where does free will come into play? Are the molecules and cells in your brain not subject to the same physical laws of cause and effect that govern everything else? To put it another way, if there is no spiritual aspect to the universe, than from the big bang forward every single event happens because that is the only way it CAN happen. Theoretically, if you could know all the conditions at the time of the big bang, than you could predict every subsequent happening in the universe by applying the physical laws of the universe to those conditions over time. This applies to the movement of galaxies, the lifespan of each star, and even the words I am typing now. Free will has no place in human behavior any more than it does in particle physics unless there is a spiritual component of our being that transcends physical law. If you believe in free will without spirituality, than you don't understand the basic foundations of the scientific worldview.

"The average atheist makes certain basic assumptions about reality: that we all exist as a result of blind and purposeless happenstance, that free will is illusory, that there is no conscious "self" and that there is no objective right or wrong" Maybe Mr.Jacobs needs to go back and re-read or re-listen to Sam Harris' lectures and books on the evolution of morality. Atheists do not follow a comon dogma like religious do, but its not a common belief that there is no morality or right and wrong. Harris is very clear on this matter, he says that there is right and wrong, and we get a sense of morality and conscience not from some powerful deity, but through our upbringing and evolutionary biology. I've yet to hear a prominent and widely-read atheist claim that there is no right and wrong or that we are here without any purpose. This is nonsense. Grossly uninformed article.

1 out of 4 aint bad. The only thing an atheist must believe is that there is no god. My life has purpose, I've made that purpose for myself. I get up in the morning for the same reason you do. To live life. I have a family, friends, and enjoyable things to do. Life, though short, is glorious, even without a god. Perhaps more so. My life may have no meaning in the vast history of the universe, but do you expect me to just lie down and say "whats the point"? I will tell you now I have far more will to live than a man who believes in the afterlife. Ahem, btw. "quite unlike the theistic approach which would suggest that people have intrinsic value due to their creation". What are you on man?! Christianity was the biggest supporter of slavery in the new world! IT WAS THE REASON! You are making the assumption that ethnicities are the same as races, they aren't. We as HUMANS will evolve.

"Two things fill me with constantly increasing admiration and awe, the longer and more earnestly I reflect on them: the starry heavens without and the moral law within. " Immanuel Kant Where does this moral law come from if not from that which put the universe into motion. And if this force can judge, is it not conscious, which is to say God? If morality comes from God it is not arbitrary for God is not arbitrary. The Laws are for good because God, by definition, is good. If God were evil, then all our laws would be for evil but they would still not be arbitrary. If the Moral Law within us is the product of evolution, then certainly the first human to cheat would have an advantage over his peers and be favored by evolution. But we do not see this, not so much because moral society puts down the cheat, but because the behaviors of the cheat is not inherited by their offspring. In fact, their behaviors are malleable: taught and learnt, but still somehow within ourselves? A material atheist explanation of the Moral Law does not explain the phenomenon (and needs to resort to absurdities to explain it). The simplest, most functional explanation (as noted by Kant) is that the Moral Law comes from God.

1. Morality without God might be baseless, but morality based purely on God is empty. If moral things are only moral because God said so, then they're arbitrary, and that's unsatisfying. If they're moral because reality just is that way, then God is irrelevant to their being moral whether or not He commanded them; morality would do just as well without Him. And saying reality is that way because God said so doesn't solve the arbitrariness problem. 2. Most people don't fully accept the moral systems their belief systems logically imply. Normal people have strong (and heavily culturally influenced) instincts about what's right and wrong. When push comes to shove, they mostly follow those instincts even when they conflict with intellectual beliefs. (This has been shown empirically -- psychologists have famously done studies in which they presented people with tough moral choices where rational analysis and our gut reactions differ, a division which shows up as primitive and higher-cognition processing areas lighting up in brain scans. The overwhelming majority of people follow their gut.) The ones who prefer religion to instinct terrify the rest of us and are considered pathological -- they are the jihadists, Neturei Kartas, and Inquisitors of the world. 3. Amorality would not the be only alternative to theism even if theism did imply morality. Rebecca Goldstein has done a pretty good job of articulating this view in "36 Arguments for the Existence of God." I would add that our sense that our moral inclinations are objective could be just as well chalked up to evolved instinct as to true objectivity. We have evolved to live peaceably in societies, so we evolved instincts that make slaughtering each other repugnant and so on. This can actually be turned into an objective moral standard: moral behavior is that which encourages survival of the human race; our evolved moral instincts mostly qualify. But that's a subject for another comment.

Telling the creator of the universe that his morality is unsatisfying may be brave, but it may not go over so well when your dossier is read aloud in His prescence. I've considered the evolution argument, but how does feeding the poor or clothing the poor benefit me? It just doesn't add up. Or why do people who commit murder and get away with it confess many years later because they can't live with themselves? Lotsa luck with the no God thing.

"how does feeding the poor or clothing the poor benefit me" Before human populations were so large, we were in smaller, tight-knit group or either family or friends. Any inclination in your genes or culturally given to you is shared by the members of your family. If you have the cultural and genetic inclination to feed others or save them when they are drowning, you are saving a part of your culture and gene pool, and the reward you have is a community who is willing to feed you when you, in turn, become hungry or are drowning. As such, these cultural urges and altruistic genes continue through the ages as those communities can survive and grow larger, even at the occasional demise of those that are charitable. Books like The Moral Animal and The Selfish Gene ("selfish" because the gene leads to its own survival in the genepool at the expense of the individual, and not because it makes us thieving Alzheimer-patient robbing monsters) can better explain how genes and morality have a place in evolution.

(1) How could morality based on God be empty and arbitrary? I consider it comforting and fulfilling. If reality dictates what is moral because God created it that way, then I would say that God is relevant. (2) I agree that most people rely on their own gut feelings of morality. People, however, are quite malleable and their moral compass can be easily readjusted. How else could 6 million Jews be murdered in a scientifically advanced modern country like Germany? Atheistic ideologies, such as Communism, has led to the death of tens of millions of people in the 20th century. Do you find this less terrifying than the Neturei Kartas? The purpose of Torah is to elevate ourselves above our gut animal instinct. (3) I disagree that, when left to our own devices, our sense of morality is objective. Society's sense of morality has shifted considerably in the US over the last 100 years and varies from geographical region to geographical region. I would agree, however, that our animalistic instincts can be better quantified. To sum it up, I would say that the ones who prefer instinct to God are the ones who terrify me, rather than the other way around.

For your first argument that since G-d said these things are immoral/moral therefore they are arbitrary because G-d could have chosen other things is based on the misunderstanding that morality comes from what G-d tells us is immoral/moral. But that is not exactly true. What is moral is not based on what G-d says but what G-d is and does. We believe that G-d is all good, therefore evething he does and everything He is is good. For example, G-d visits the sick (as when Abraham had his Brit Milah) therefore since G-d is all good and everything He does is good it must be Good to visit the sick. The verse in the Torah is "Walk in his ways" meaning do what G-d does. For other commandments that don't necessarily have to do with morality like shabbos the like then it is following what G-d says but for moral/immoral actions that is dependant on what G-d does or would do in that situation not what He arbitrarily decided. (How and why G-d is all good is another discussion) For the second issue that we follow our Gut that maybe true but that doesn't necessarily means it's right. We only follow our Gut because we don't havge enough confidence in our belief system. If one does than one would subject his own Gut with his belief system. Finally I would add that the importance of a belief system for moral is because if it was based soley on our Gut or intuition then there is no backbone to keep to our Gut. If our desires to fulfill an immoral act are too strong for our Gut and our moral evolution then what good is the moral system. If there is a G-d to back it up and stand by it then we have a higher power insuring that the moral desicion is made. As Abraham tells the people of Gerar that he was afraid they would kill him for his wife because there"is no fear of Heaven in this place" They would kill him because they desire for his beautiful wife woudl overpower their "moral" compass" but a real G-d fearing world that would not happen.

The atheist reminds me of the proud gardner who boasts that his vegetables are free from pests without any treatment or intervention. No need to pick those pesky potato beetles or spray the tomato mites. Well , the atheist 's garden is often surrounded by other plots, full of plants that are carefully tended and constantly treated for infertations and deseases by their owners. Should those gardners fail, the "pest-free" plot will soon be full of any kind of plant-eating disease. Such are the lives of the atheists; they thrive and live happy lives surrounded by the honest God-respecting people who tolerate and even cherish these individuals. Should the moral believers turn atheist, our happy non-believers would be the first to run for the hills and hide from society in which "anything goes". Let them dream their dreams of moral ambivalence. Who cares. We will continue to tend to our gardens in the way that pleases God and ensures the moral standards of our society.

A great deal of harm has been done by your "honest God-respecting people." Atheisists didn't give us the Inquisition or fly planes into the World Trade Center. I am far more afraid of what people will do to please their god than what atheists will do.

are you really more afraid of the religionist than the atheist, or are you just currenlty living in a garden surrounded by good gardeners?

I am currently living in a garden tended by atheists and it is quite good. It's the reiligionists who are destroying the garden. Yes, there are evil people who happen to be atheists. But none of them are evil in the name of atheists. The same cannot be said of evil religionists.

If the atheist is like the proud gardener, than the theist is like the proud provider of manure.

And then the atheist is left saying " how amazing photosynthesis here in my garden is and we are so scientifically advanced, yet still can't reproduce it. Hmmm, maybe I'm wrong about the whole issue of whether there is a transcendent power that created this". Just sayin....

Science *has* reproduced photosynthesis! They've known the theory for a long time, and the first real practical example was just announced a couple of days ago; it is 10 times as efficient as natural photosynthesis. You can see the announcement at: http://portal.acs.org/portal/acs/corg/content?_nfpb=true&_pageLabel=PP_ARTICLEMAIN&node_id=222&content_id=CNBP_026944&use_sec=true&sec_url_var=region1&__uuid=cb926958-56be-49fc-9948-1728debd5db6

Just because we can't do something, means nothing more. It doesn't mean Allah and Zeus exist. We couldn't build nuclear reactors....until we could. Just sayin.....

The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. Corrupt are they, and have done abominable iniquity: there is none that doeth good.

You've made judgments about how the atheists you are referring to think. Your Jeffrey Dahmer example was great, because after rejecting any sense of morality for atheists, the moment you find one individual who said something that validated you viewpoint, you latched onto him. He is correct. But ignoring the confirmation bias at work there, you made a common mistake. The simplest answer is that you do not desire it. Desire being the primary agent of your statement. If the contents of the Alzheimer victim's purse mean nothing, why are you taking them? What purpose will they serve? Why have the affair when you know it means nothing? There is no set of preferred actions that comes from your imagined lack of purpose. You are infusing a negative purpose and negative values onto people you say have no reason to believe in either.

'The simplest answer is that you do not desire it'. Exactly. You do not desire to have an affair or steal from someone's purse. But you desire a Ferrari right?No? I will bet there's something an atheist will desire, though he will not employ ethically wrong means to obtain it, because of moral standards he very much believes in, but knows not of its origin. A 'moral' atheist would probably not steal or cheat even if he had the perfect opportunity to do so, simply because he 'feels it is wrong'. The point is, without a G'd you have no logical reason to do what's right and avoid the wrong things. There will always be something he desires, but refrains from doing it, because he believes in something extraneous to his rationale.

I am always amazed at individuals who do not believe in G_d, yet they provide him with characteristics, attitudes, personality and behaviors which only a person who believes in a G_d would attribute to that G_d. If one does not believe in a universal G_d that establishes a unitary moral code, then it is meaningless to state that it is possible to have morality without religion. Anything is possible, the question is how do we get mankind, as a whole, to agree on what behavior is moral and what behavior is not. In short, can we agree on what the definition of "is" is? If one is a moral relativist, the answer is no, we cannot agree and anarchy is the result. Some of the readers of this column are so busy attempting to debuke the consept of G_d, they do not bother to understand the argument for G_d's existence or the proper relationship between mankind and our creator.

Rabbi Jacobs: Proverbs 26 says: 4 "Do not answer a fool according to his folly, or you yourself will be just like him. 5 Answer a fool according to his folly, or he will be wise in his own eyes. How are we supposed to know which verse we should be following in this case?

A decent starting point for a response is Sam Harris's own recent book on the topic, The Moral Landscape. There is, of course, a huge corpus of secular metaethics (both agreeing and disagreeing with Jacobs's essential point) for anyone with access to university journals and the will to do some serious investigation. My own take: attacks on secular ethics do not explain how a god could serve as the basis of morality, as though, when one contemplates the rape and murder of a child, one is supposed to say "The only thing wrong that truly is objectionable about this is that it goes contrary to what God wills." One must ask Jacobs, would he really have no objection to anything, if he lost his faith in God? Would he just shrug if someone wanted to murder his wife and children, because there is no god, and presumably no transcendent moral standards, or would he still be convinced, god or no god, that the lives of the people he loves are worth fighting and sacrificing for? In that answer, you will find a sufficient basis for moral proclamations in an atheistic universe.

Morality comes from within us. I explored the question of the existence of a God when I had time to pursue the question upon my retirement. From my exploration of the question, I found much evidence to refute the existence of a God, by any name or composition. To go into the evidence here would require that I write a book. I have no problem with anyone believing in anything as long as it does no harm to them or others. That is morality. Because I do not believe in a God does not make me without a moral position. On the other hand, much harm has been done for over two thousand years in the name of God, whether that God is the Jewish God, the Christian definition of God, or the God of Islam as interpreted my Mohammad.

Because most religionists, since the start oif their respective faiths have been so immoral. Most of the evils of tis world are caused by the inability of different faiths to live morally with one another. Wjy is it that no animal creature, that profess no religion, do not have the problem humans with religion have? Yes I am an Athiest and believe the human is the lowest form of all animal life, the only specie that is totslly dependent.

As an atheist, I don't believe in absolute morality. This is because I don't see a valid moral standard established. The reason atheists are not amoral is because they are often critical thinkers, and thus find agreement with some religious moral teachings; and sometimes they do not. If one is religious, they are obliged to believe in some established moral standard.

and a-women.

The issue is not the theological or moral arguments by rabbis or other theologians. It is that according to the U.N., every day 28,000 young innocent children die of preventable causes based in malnutrition. What kind of God would write them into the book of life or death on Yom Kippur? And these children don't die quickly and easily; they suffer in pain and anguish for a long time as they die by inches. And since we all know that there is no greater pain than to lose a child, we can only imagine the suffering of their parents. How can there be a "God" who allows this to go on? I'd like to receive Rabbi Adam Jacob's reply.

Unfortunately, the answer will be “only God knows the plan.” I struggle with these same issues. Every horrible act is attributed to free will of humans, and every positive act is a work of God. Very hard to understand.

I, too, suffered in my youth, and I still do. On this account, I used to flit between atheism and agnosticism. But Rabbi Jacob cannot answer your question as to "why". Neither can I. If I had God's judgment, I would know which team will win the World Series or NBA Championships this year - because I would know which team's win is better for this world. David, look at America (or any democratic country). Here in the U.S., there are liberals and conservatives. Not counting the power-hungriness of politicians, both groups want what is truly good for the country. But each group has a radically different, even opposite, view of justice. The same with us humans. Our view (not shared by the medieval Church and by the Taliban, etc.) is one thing. Maybe God's is another? Did you build the universe? Read some books, like I did. The one that brought me back to the God of Israel was Michael Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" (interestingly written by a Catholic). For you it might be another. When you are convinced that there actually IS a Creator, then you may question the apparent incongruity. Until then, you're just babbling. In fact, why don't you read some ANCIENT nonbelievers, rather than "The God Delusion" garbage there is. And I don't believe in God. I KNOW that God exists. Now read some Behe, Kelemen, Maimonides, Plato, etc. If you wish, I'll let Aish.com give you my e-mail address.

So YOU establish rules for what we may or may not question? Learn from your "god": you need a huge dose of humility.

How can you question something you don't believe exists?

Why does a baby die of "crib death", or cancer, or in an accident, or raped and mutilated by its killer? Or better, why a 3 month old baby was decapitated in her crib by a monster? Did it occur to you to ask this specific question? How about a young mother with her 3 children and pregnant being killed by terrorists? How about the Holocaust? Your question is simplistic and petulant, there are many things a human being doesn't understand and any other human can't solve, but you can learn the wisdom of the Torah and know that there is a G-d who has plans and we are only a very small piece of the puzzle called life. Atheism will never answer your questions, but studying Torah, will.

has "plans"? you worship a god whose "plans" make hitler seem beatific in contrast? I spit on those "plans".

A more significant question is: why do people who profess to believe, as the source of morality, in a god who has ordered genocide and wars of conquest and despoilation, who supports slavery, who visits disease on most humans and kills us all, constantly make moral pronouncements? And the same question for you christians who accumulate wealth despite your "savior"'s admonition to divest yourselves of your possessions and give them to the poor, and who, throughout history, have committed genocide.

It has been shown that evolution consists of a series of major forms of information, i.e., stages of geologic and chemical (that is entropic),stages of structural and complexity (what we call organic evolution), stages of communication and techhnology (what we are presently in). Each of these involved major altering of the properties and abilities of what came before. The mpst recent transition was the emergence of humanity and human processing of information. In particular the overwhelming success of civilization can and, perthaps must, include a quality we call morality, that didn't exist before. Just asl the other stages didn't involve or rquiew a god this didn't inherently didn't either. The human propensity to understand and explain its own success produced, in its early stages, a supposed God. Now we m;ust ask "'Why?" and to question our early suppositions. That our prsent evolultionary stage inherently includes morality doesn't mean that all moral outcomes are the same nor need they be reconcilable; The rise of an inner need for "a morality" seems to be all that evolution has produced. For a more detailed discussion of this appeoach to evolution see the booh: "The Evolutionary Trajectory," available from Amazon.com.

Morality cannot come by chance. And even if it did, it just becomes someone or a group's opinion of good and bad.

Loved the article! I'd love to see Dawkins, HItchens, Harris or any of them respond to this. Or for that matter any of the arguments proving proving Judaism/Trashing Atheism that so many contemporary rabbis and Jewish scholars have been writing (ie this, R' Averick, Prof. Schroeder, etc.) It's not like their works are in Yiddish! Why can't they back up their faith? Oh right, it's not the truth. Secularism is a disease, and we have the vaccine...shouldn't we inject everyone with it? They think that the world shows "no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.", and we show them that they are wrong, that in fact it shows unimaginable purpose (Anything by Schroeder, "Beyond a Reasonable Doubt" by R' Waldman, etc.)...why can't they refute our challenges? They're just conmen, plain and simple. Just one point, sorry to be picky, but, in the 4th paragraph from the bottom, "...intrinsic value do to their creation..." do should be due. Much Hatzlacha, I hope the world sees this!

If we are to believe that there was a creator we must also believe that the creator washed his hands of us immediately following the creation. If you believe otherwise you must question why you pray to such a cruel, unfeeling, uncaring god. If you suggest that the cruelity of the world can be laid at the feet of mankind you are subscribing to the doctrine of "free will". Free will is the greatest cop out perpetrated by "religion". If a tragic event or a devastating sickness occurs it is the result of free will. All happy events, an unlikely recovery or rescue is termed a miricle. I would suggest that you can't have it both ways. Either your god is responsible for everything or for nothing. No religion can offer a shred of evidence (except in myth) of the existence of a supreme being or god. Religion is a successful superstition as opposed to the cults and sects that fell by the wayside. Religion is an outgrowth of the fears and wonder of the natural world and the attempt of our Paliolithic ancestors to address their questions. To sum up ; it is possible to have morality without religion.

If there is no free will, then we are just puppets and life has no meaning.

Why is it that atheists, who in their arrogance try too hard to refute the irrefutable, always refer to rabbis who write these articles as "the good rabbi" ??

It is the mark of a blinkered clerical education to ignore that a lot of anti - clericalism, a phenomenon that goes back to the Middle Ages well before the Protestant Reformation is openly based on complaints about the abuse of clerical office by the clergy and by the monarchies who also misused them. As Coleridge put it: "The moral Christian and his laws, Are the cause of the atheist and his saws. " The study and teaching of morality like the core of science and much else can stand on its own two feet without, "benefit of clergy" starting with medicine, law, the military, maths and music, even grammar. All these had escaped from clerical doctrine before Copernicus and when the Papacy burnt Giordano Bruno and tried to silence Galileo - technically for disobedience - it all backfired and did formal traditional religion no good at all. I doubt if any US rabbi or any other category of American Jew would wish the reverse of the Constitutional separation of religion and government. It follows that atheists are entitled as any to discuss morality as it is a social phenomenon. Last point the US - and French - separation of government and religion is a separation of their administrations and does not extend tot he fact that they co-exist in each person's mind and behaviour.

Good article, Dear Rabbi , pray for my husband, we are married for 42 years and he is still an atheist. He does not stop me from practicing my faith. Love and Prayers Jeannette

"The average atheist makes certain basic assumptions about reality: that we all exist as a result of blind and purposeless happenstance, that free will is illusory, that there is no conscious "self" and that there is no objective right or wrong." Isn't it possible that one could be a humanist and believe that right and wrong may be objectively defined as those beliefs or actions which promote the welfare of humans? Or that free will exists precisely because all is not controlled by an omnipotent creator? This article is just a series of (bad) "straw man" arguments. How would you react to an atheist who insisted that all believers are morally bankrupt because they accept slavery, stoning and genocide, because the Bible calls for those things? You can't argue with atheists by mischaracterizing their opinions-- and that's all you've done here. By all means-- have the debate, but be honest about it.

I must disagree, moral imperative can arise from our biological gregariousness. We are social animals and some principles are manifestly better than others. For example "moral people do not abuse others or allow themselves to be abused" "an eye for an eye" are examples. The proof of "biological morality" their existence is the fact that almost all religions adopt identical basic principles "stealing is bad" "it is bad to kill" etc. The principles that are codified into an epistemology in support of these morals are where religions diverge. I think history is rife with examples of short-sighted and self-serving principles being adopted by religions. Like any large organization the power of the organization is incessantly the target of opportunists. Yet the epistemology gives people a road map of how to spend their lives better, happier and more securely. Supernatural reward and retribution are great tools to insure compliance by the flock, but I question whether it is absolutely necessary and what if it is to inject a great lie into the epistemology?

Epistemology is slippery at best. It is comprised of scientific and societal beliefs and 'knowledge"; norms and values - and they're always changing. Torah, on the other hand, reflects the unchanging and True moral code of the Divine. One moral code.

Actually I don't see how these two conflict. It seems that the basic problem many atheists have with God, is that the world is filled with hate, that over centuries many religions have propagated hate, as in,The Inquisition, and that there is reason to doubt, according to atheism, and a morality does also create doubt because of what has been done in the name of. PERSONALLY, I can say I KNOW there is a G_d and have NO DOUBT. But I can understand that perspective, and I will go so far as to say that G_d created atheists. Because we are here to doubt, to question in all spheres of life, morality itself, and what constitutes the ethical life, even G_d? We talk about the hidden face of the Divine. Well it could be, very well, that we are here to create and re create that Divine Fire, through the rub, the ancient way fire was actually created. And so I say, we live lives of paradox, and in discussing all this, we do have that passion in discovery of what it really means, to be ethical. As to free will, we already know, as Jews, that this is truly not the whole enchildada, as all over Aish itself are stories of being visibly moved by a Divine Hand, and also those who did not know they were being, moved. Rabbi Blech recently wrote such a storty, of Purim and his life. How quickly we forget the lessons in these very pages!

This is such a distortion of reality as to be immoral. Why do bees work together to make a hive? For the same reason wolves hunt it packs. The species is better off if it works together (being moral). Same with humans....we're better off as a species if we figure out how to maximize morality. Everyone's moral view is subjective if they don't think about it. But morality of society changes because some people do think about it.

Are we better off as a species if we observe moral behavior? I presume from reading previous posts of yours that you mean better in a material, physical way... so I would think that, as a species, genetic diversity would increase if we were to abstain from moral behavior within relationships. Why be monogamous if we are all just apes with bigger brains? What does it gain us as a species when we sustain babies with Down's Syndrome, for instance? This is done out of reverence for G-d's creation, not increasing fitness of our species.

Wrong again. Better off as a species means our genes have a better chance to survive environmental conditions so they are more likely to be passed on to the next generation. You don't understand biology.

Everything in the basis of a functioning society is based on Jewish ethics--the 10 commandments would come to mind... No wonder that atheists kill their babies when they discover they have a "defective" fetus, just like Sparta who killed the newborn who were not strong enough, just like the Nazis who killed thousand of mentally impaired.

You know, you would be much more fun to argue with if you would cease and desist from the insulting remarks. And just because you don't understand my comment doesn't mean it's not correct. "Better off as a species" encompasses a whole realm of criterion, for example: surviving the environment, as you say, once required keeping one's genes (offspring) safe from predatory animals and successful hunting of prey, which favors large, agressive males, and possibly even females. So if man had not been given a moral nature by G-d, and had only done whatever benefitted himself and his own, our society would look a lot different than it does today. Man has an awareness of what is and is not moral... and this has no explanation in evolution. It is not selected for in population genetics. The fact that there are people in every culture who are small or weak or simple testifies to humans acting upon their moral nature and defending and protecting and providing for others when it did not benefit themselves. Otherwise, those genes would have disappeared by now. This is how we know that this is a G-d given trait. "Works together" (your words) is not the same thing as morality. Immoral choices can be made while "working together", happens all the time.

Why would they want to?Why would they care?They have no concept of what they are or why they live or anything else,they wouldn't even know they are alive.

I think that you are being unfair in making the basic assumption that atheism equals a belief in chaos. I see no reason at all that a person who does not believe in God cannot be a moral person, and cannot set for himself moral standards to live by. Let's suppose that I do believe that the world is random and maybe also purposeless - that does not mean that I am not capable of inventing a purpose, of inventing rules and guidelines to live by.

Islamist extremists fancy themselves highly moral. So using your logic, they are capable of inventing a purpose and guidelines (like blow up Israeli civilians r"l because the imam or Allah says to do so). Good and moral Germans from the 1920s/30s/40s invented a purpose and guidelines to rid the world of non-Aryan human rubbish. Their plan did not work out out so well for our people. Jim Crow Law-abiding white Americans espoused a "separate but equal" purpose and set of guidelines for about 90 years. You, too, may think yourself capable of inventing a moral purpose with rules guidelines because you are intelligent, and probably a really nice guy, not some racist murderer. Just let me invite you to investigate a moral code devised by Someone even more intelligent and "nicer." Find yourself a genuine rabbi -- a scholar of the Talmud -- and ask him (even challenge him!) about the Torah's moral stance on any societal topic you can imagine. G-d is way ahead of us on every possible outcome of every dilemma, and the clarity any of us seek is there. The Torah. A Rav can help show the way. B'hatzlacha!

When you have something totally made up by human beings, with absolutely no evidence to support it then things are just messed up. That is how amorality and morality BOTH work well in one mind... Just like when you look at the New Testament you see in one place the lineage of J.C. and on another page ANOTHER different lineage for him - how can it be??? it cannot - it's human error in a book written by humans - no connection whatsoever to G-D and the truth

There is plenty of evidence. I see evidence every day. All you have to do is open your eyes and your mind.

I opened my eyes: and I saw much scenery. I opened my eyes further: and saw that the world was full of people telling others to open their eyes and see the pretty scenery, while they themselves were staring at marvelous scenes painted by the amazing hands of other men.