Everyone's heard the old "atheists don't have morals" argument. I've had it presented to me on a number of occasions, and have seen other atheists respond to it.
I'm afraid that a lot of the times the counter-arguments were not completely adequate. A lot of the times the response goes something along the lines of "I do good because it makes me feel good". Unfortunately, that still leaves the theist with the "god put morals in your heart" argument.
To explain why doing good makes us feel good, and why we deem something as "good" we need to contemplate our evolutionary history (yeah I know, some people don't believe evolution happens, but you can't really argue with those ).
Humans are a social animal, which means that we need to work together to survive. When it comes to social animals, the main evolutionary advantage is working well together. That means: no killing of the members of your own tribe, no causing of disagreements (e.g. stealing) and usually some kind of obedience to authority.
Another trait that helps a group function better is empathy - empathy is putting yourself in the shoes of another and feeling as they feel. It is also an important source of our moral sense. This is why psychopaths don't have a problem killing or harming another person.
Now remember, these rules only apply within your "tribe", and that is why we see people killing other people so much - as horrible as it sounds, people have less of a problem killing a person they don't consider to be a part of their "tribe". Fortunately, as society develops, the "tribe" expands to a larger part of humanity, and ideally, to the whole of humanity.
We can see examples of what people consider their "tribe" in criminal organizations - people that are a part of a gang won't have much trouble killing a member of a rival gang. On the other part of the spectrum, we have animal rights activists - they expand the "tribe" to animals, usually mammals. I would guess what contributes to that is a stronger sense of empathy, while in the case of criminal organizations, some sort of suppression of empathy would have to play a role.
When it comes to the more complex morals, like "homosexuality is wrong", it usually comes down to obedience to authority - for example, a priest.
I have explained my position in debates with theists before, and haven't heard much of a counter-argument. Those same people didn't stop citing morality as evidence for a god. I guess it's an important part of their arsenal
Any thought, ideas and criticism are more than welcome.
Reply
