Does atheism’s concept of morality have a Biblical basis?

Today, Tom Gilson reviews a couple of books that make the argument that the concept of morality that we have today, which is shared by Christians and non-Christians alike, including atheists, originates from teachings found in the Bible.

If you’ve paid any attention at all to the writings (and speakings) of people like Richard Dawkins and Sam Harris, you’re probably aware of their claims that morality has its source—as does everything—in the natural world. Harris’ latest book specifically argues for a naturalistic/scientific basis for morality.  They, and other of the so-called “new atheists” go further and claim that religion—and often Christianity in particular— is actually a source of evil. While many Christians know right off the bat that this is mere foolishness, and believe theologically that morality originates with God, most of us are unequipped to respond intelligently to the atheists’ [often unintelligent] claims. Hopefully these books will help to remedy that.

Gilson writes:

To grant full humanity: what Mangalwadi called the West’s greatest discovery. It was not to be found in Plato or Aristotle, not even in the Stoics. It came from the One who died for all equally, declaring all equally worthy of life, all equally significant, all fully human. Some complain (for example) that Christianity denigrates the status of women, but the charge is both historically and geo-culturally laughable, for it is only Christianity that has brought a real sensitivity to women into world culture. A great many other claims of Christianity’s faults are in the same category. Not all of them, to be sure: both of these authors acknowledge the human error that has always afflicted the Church. Still, as Hart has pointed out, the conscience by which we name those errors is a uniquely Christian conscience.

As we all know, the mere fact that there is a Judeo-Christian moral standard doesn’t mean that all Jews and Christians can live up to it. In fact, as we know, the gospel reveals that we can’t—that’s the point of the gospel. And, of course, neither can the atheists live up to any standard they set, even the broadly-interpreted “Do no harm.” “Harm” is, of course, open to interpretation. From a Christian perspective, any promotion of atheism or naturalism is doing harm in a spiritual sense.

I don’t know that I will run out and buy either of these books soon; my stack of unread books is already too high (including one really poor excuse for a book that I’m supposed to have reviewed already). But, I tend to have a soft spot when it comes to these kinds of topics… Now that I’ve blogged about them, if I find myself wanting to read more on this topic, I at least know where to find them.

This entry was posted in Faith, Science & Doubt, Philosophy. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to Does atheism’s concept of morality have a Biblical basis?

  1. me says:

    You forget, Genesis begins “in the beginning,” telling the origins of human society. The “Judeo-Christian” ethic didn’t just appear in 2000 BC. Christianity was, in fact, rather unique in its appreciation of women (although conceivably there were small pockets of matriarchal societies here and there).

    You ignore the point made about “the human error that has always afflicted the Church.” That doesn’t negate the point being made.

    I would bet that these books are well-blinkered by authors’ presuppositions.

    Show me one that isn’t.

    Bottom line, all you’ve done is a bit of hand-waving. That’s not being a good skeptic. 😉

  2. I think it is funny to think that with humans having been forming societies thousands of years before there was a “Judeo Christianity” to create morals. It is also laughable to say that only Christianity is the only source of respect for women in the world, especially considering how strong the forces in Christianity are still fighting to prevent women’s autonomy in the matters of birth control.

    I would bet that these books are well-blinkered by authors’ presuppositions.

    Gilson broadcasts his own presuppositions as if they were on shortwave radio.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *