Reaction - Answering an Atheist's Questions

Reacting to questions from this video:

[AnotherViewer]

As an atheist and a secular humanist, I will respond to your answers to the questions:

1. Are Morals Objective?

You assert that morals are objective because they are based on God's law. However, morality can still be objective without relying on divine authority. Objective moral principles can be derived from human well-being, reason, and the understanding of harm. Philosophers like Immanuel Kant and John Stuart Mill have laid out moral systems—such as deontological ethics and utilitarianism—that provide objective standards based on reason and human flourishing, without the need for a supernatural being.

For example, the secular concept of "do no harm" is an objective moral standard grounded in empathy, cooperation, and societal stability. Just because something isn't divinely commanded doesn't mean it can't be objectively right or wrong. In fact, grounding morality in human experience can lead to more practical, compassionate ethics.

2. Objective Moral Duties

The idea that there are objective moral duties only if commanded by God is not convincing. I could argue that moral duties arise from the understanding that our actions affect others. Duties to care for the vulnerable, to tell the truth, or to act with compassion can be understood through empathy, rationality, and the recognition of shared humanity. You don’t need divine command to understand that hurting others is wrong—it's something we recognize through our capacity to suffer and experience happiness.

3. Is It Immoral Not to Do an Objective Moral Duty?

Here you argue that failure to observe divine commandments is immoral. I on the other hand, would frame morality in terms of the consequences of actions. It’s immoral to fail in your moral duties if doing so causes harm or undermines well-being, regardless of divine command. For instance, ignoring the needs of a drowning child is wrong, not because God commands us to act, but because we recognize the inherent value of life and the ethical duty to help others in need.

4. Does God Follow Objective Moral Duties?

This argument claims that God is beyond moral duties because morality is a reflection of His character. This asnwer is problematic. If moral duties are arbitrary and depend on God's nature, then they aren't truly objective—they're subject to the whims of divine command. The Euthyphro dilemma asks: "Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good?" If God could hypothetically command something evil, then morality becomes subjective to God's will, which contradicts the claim of objective morality.

Furthermore, it should be noted that morality should be evaluated based on its effects on human beings, not based on the presumed nature of a deity.

5. The Drowning Child Example

Your answer here insists that saving a drowning child is a moral obligation under Christian law, and suggests atheists have no reason to save the child. This is simply untrue. Secular humanism emphasizes empathy, compassion, and the understanding of shared human experiences. The desire to prevent harm and preserve life is a fundamental human instinct, grounded in social cooperation and empathy—not religious command. Most atheists and secular humanists recognize the importance of acting to prevent harm, and they often do so out of an intrinsic sense of responsibility and care for others.

Moreover, the argument that atheists are pro-abortion and therefore less concerned with life is misleading and a red herring fallacy. Pro-choice advocates don’t support the “slaughter” of children, but rather the right for individuals to make personal medical decisions. Many atheists, like many religious people, value life and believe in policies that promote the well-being of individuals in a complex and nuanced ethical framework.

6. Greater Good and Evil

The argument that God doesn't need to intervene to save children because humans are sinful and God’s plan transcends human understanding is problematic from a humanistic viewpoint. This defense of suffering—especially the suffering of children—suggests that God’s actions are inscrutable and justified by a larger, unknowable purpose. I can reject this reasoning, arguing that allowing unnecessary suffering is unethical, regardless of the supposed greater plan. If humans are held to the standard of intervening to prevent harm, then it seems contradictory for an omnipotent, benevolent God to be exempt from that standard.

7. Punishing Innocent Children for the Sins of Others

Here you do agree that punishing innocent children for the sins of their parents is wrong, according to biblical law. Yet, many religious teachings—particularly the concept of original sin—suggest that children bear the consequences of the actions of others. Secular humanists would reject this idea entirely, as it is unjust to hold anyone responsible for actions they did not commit. Humanism emphasizes individual responsibility and fairness, which is why collective punishment, particularly of innocents, is morally indefensible.

8. Stopping an Assault

Now you claim that Christians have an objective reason to stop harm (such as an assault), while atheists don’t. This is a common misunderstanding and a straw man fallacy. Atheists and secular humanists often act morally not because of religious commandments but because they recognize the intrinsic value of human life and the importance of reducing suffering. Many moral systems, from secular ethics to evolutionary biology, explain why humans are driven to protect others, often at great personal cost.

9. The Poison Fruit and Con Artist (The Garden of Eden Analogy)

The analogy of a parent placing their child in a dangerous situation, knowing they will be tempted to fail, is a clear reference to the Garden of Eden story. Secular humanists would argue that this situation reflects poor ethical reasoning: putting someone in harm’s way and blaming them for inevitable failure is unjust. The story of the Fall raises questions about free will, responsibility, and justice. A secular viewpoint would suggest that a truly loving and ethical parent—or deity—would not create such a scenario in the first place.

[Shoomer]

Question 1. Are Morals Objective? You say yes because they are a god's law. The god is the subject, so they're subjective.

[macmac]

If morals do not change and god does not change and morals are objective and what god tells us, is it moral to beat your slave with a rod as long as they are ok in a day or 2?