An argument that I hear consistently from the faithful when it comes to convincing everyone of the existence of God is known as the “argument from morality.” This argument originates from the ‘Summum Bonum‘ scrawling of Immanuel Kant who believed that humans desired to reach perfect happiness and virtue, and this was only possible if there was an existence of an “afterlife.” Modern Christian apologist CS Lewis argued in his book ‘Mere Christianity‘ the point that the very existence of the human moral compass (ie. the conscience) could not exist without God. To summarise what the “moral argument” entails, it basically suggests that humanity cannot attain a higher form of morality without the existence of God, and since we see morality within humans: therefore God exists.
There are several extremely fucked implications with the moral argument here. First of all, Immanuel Kant’s ‘Summum Bonum‘ argument basically implies that it is not possible for a human to do a good deed without being bribed with the idea of an ‘afterlife’. While I realise that Kant contributed a lot to critical thinking and philosophy, this particular idea is just fucken stupid. Put lightly, Kant’s “Summum Bonum” argues that humans will not move forward in a moral way until a carrot is dangled in front of their face. CS Lewis’ argument is potentially even more fucked. He argues that the human moral compass is completely directed by God, and this basically implies that God is responsible for all the “good” in human behavior. Put another way, many modern Christians attribute credit for good deeds to God, while they attribute evil deeds to the person ‘turning away from God’ or Satan’s influence. Lewis is basically suggesting that humans can never take credit for a good deed as these choices were not made autonomously.
I have a serious bone to pick with Lewis’ idea of the “moral” argument. The CS Lewis claim that ‘the moral compass is governed by God’ negates some degree (if not all) of human responsibility. If humans are preprogrammed with a “moral compass,” then what is the explanation for those who do not seem to display a great deal of “moral” direction? Was the program that God put in place faulty? Was the moral compass simply not loud enough for the person to hear it? Does the moral compass exist, but lay dormant until such a time exists where the person remains purely evil until God arouses goodness out of them? What accountability can we give to human beings if they are constantly influenced and manipulated by the divine into doing different “good” behaviors? Is the all-powerful just being a lazy fucker when he/she/it doesn’t manage to motivate evil people to do “good”? If God, being “all powerful,” could not find a way to inspire immoral humans to act in a moral way, is it then fair to call him “all powerful”? I feel that this argument from CS Lewis really does remove human accountability from the equation and places a great deal of onus on God. Afterall, if the person commits an evil act, can we really say that the “moral compass” was doing an adequate job?
Perhaps it’s due to sentiment’s such as the one expressed by CS Lewis that leave many of us feeling as though the Christian idea of morality and “freewill” is a complete mind-fuck. You cannot claim to have “freewill,” nor can you claim to be completely accountable for your actions, when supernatural agency is manipulating your every move. How can you objectively judge another human if their morality is guided by a compass that was not decided by the individual? How can you judge the deeds of another human when their very actions are not completely their own, but are also predicated by a fucken program left by a supreme deity? Freewill doesn’t exist if we are constantly being manipulated by forces that we have absolutely no fucken control over. The other complete mind-fuck from the Christian “moral” argument is the idea that having a celestial dictator to please along with the promise of an afterlife are the ONLY reasons that humans commit good deeds. This idea shows an absolutely low regard for humanity, and presupposes that all of us are inauthentic cunts that will only behave nicely if are bribed or punished by a god.
As an anthitheist, I am regarded as the immoral one because I enjoy having a lifestyle that may not be approved by the faithful. As an anti-theist, I drink, curse like a fucken sailor, and enjoy a good old-fashioned violent movie. I am regarded as immoral for thinking for myself, and not believing in all the bullshit that is thrown at me without evidence. I am regarded as immoral for supporting homosexual rights, for standing against traditional ideas that oppress others, and for standing up for ideological freedom for EVERYONE (not just the fucken established religion of <insert country here>). In fact, I am regarded as immoral for supporting the rights of anyone so long as they are not harming others. I am regarded as immoral, because heaven disapproves of my ideas and choices. I am regarded as immoral, as the conservative religious continue to find ways to: justify gender oppression, commit genital mutilation, ask for special places in schools where their ideas cannot be questioned, commit terrorist attacks, spread hatred towards minority groups, bully those who oppose them into silence, scare other adherents into lock-step compliance via the use of phrases such as “this is God’s will,” and other such repugnant bullshit. I am regarded as immoral for being outspoken and not agreeing with ideas, while these cunts consider themselves moral for wanting to bully, legislate, and force others into their world view. Yeah? Fuck off! Just fuck off! Enough of this nonsense.
So what is the alternative to this dogmatic bullshit? First thing to bare in mind, if any deity wishes to judge humanity, then to be truly “just” they must judge humans for the deeds they commit WITHOUT influences from supernatural forces that persuade and change their behaviors. Otherwise, humanity is not completely accountable for its’ behaviors. Secondly, humans have an ability to empathise with each other. Empathy is where true morality comes from. No, empathy it is not objective; and yes, it is partly instinctual and partly learned. Empathy is the true “moral compass” of a decent human being, not the pitchfork of Satan, and not the rewards of Jesus, muhammad, or whatever the fuck else rewards their followers with desirable dog-shit.
If you want to judge how “moral” something is, then why not take into account how certain behaviors effect the people around you instead of whether it is in line with a specific set of dogmatic rules. Morality based on observed consequence (both good and bad) makes a lot of sense, whereas morality based on ambiguous precepts handed down from ancient societies does not.