I recently saw an argument presented by a group of self-proclaimed atheists indicating persuading citizens to decry the practices of some political representatives to argue about the laws of God, and that they should instead embrace "reason."
The effort to separate God from good is not a new effort. Evaluating ethics by asking whether something is good because God commands it, or was it already good with its goodness providing the reason for God's command is a frequent technique used to promote the idea that it is possible to be good without believing in God.
Atheist or agnostic persons can do good. Some individuals in these categories would even argue that atheistic moral philosophy is superior to religious philosophy because it can be questioned and examined more openly, whereas, a religious individual cannot or should not question God.
It is also easy to look at violent historic conflicts between subscribers of differing religious philosophies and conclude that these systems of ethics proved to be unethical entirely. In modern times, though witchcraft is not exactly mainstream, the Salem witch trials famously demonstrated how even well-meaning religious individuals may be mislead by faith-based moral judgement. Refuge from violence between Catholics and Protestants or Protestants and other Protestants represented the cause of many individuals that colonized the American continent.
Unfortunately, taking God out of ethical questions does not resolve them. Removing religion does not expose a universal law for making moral choices. Those that argue for reason proceed to argue about the conclusions derived from their use of reason.
There have been many attempts to create universal and general systems for making moral choices. A common rule that is found in many religions is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. This rule, or derivations of it, exist in a large number of religions. Christ himself taught "therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them." (Matthew 7:12)
The problem with trusting only in the law has been highlighted by several philosophers. One weakness is the inconsistency of desires between individuals. If one individual enjoys a particular act, and another person finds the act unpleasant, then an unpleasant act can be forced on one is moral by the Golden Rule. Inversely, the pleasant act withheld from the other is moral by the same rule. This is similar to the generalization philosophy. This philosophy takes an act and then hypothetically asks if all individuals were able to do the act to all persons, including the person considering the act, and then assesses if the result would be desirable. The problem is that there is never a unanimous agreement on what is desirable.
Another weakness in the Golden Rule can be found in administering justice. For example, imagine a criminal duly convicted of crime is sentenced to imprisonment. The criminal then appeals to the judge using the Golden Rule asking if he would want someone else to imprison him. If there are exceptions to the Golden Rule, such as the punishment of criminals who have violated it, by what rule are punishments determined to be moral or immoral?
Other individuals base their actions on happiness. They try and do things that generate happiness. Another way of stating this philosophy is that there is no reason for life except the purpose we give it.
The flaw with this philosophy is the same flaw that atheists find in religion. "Happiness" is not a measurable or representative of empirical evidence. Consider the happiness that a middle-class individual might feel from obtaining one hundred dollars. Consider the unhappiness of a wealthy individual that has millions of dollars when they lose one hundred dollars. In theory, the happiness of the individual that obtains the money would be greater than the unhappiness of the wealthy individual, therefore, stealing is a moral decision in this scenario.
More complicated ethical situations arise when society is forced to "measure" happiness from individuals that make choices that are commonly viewed as immoral. What if the amount of happiness that a serial killer gets from murdering someone exceeds the unhappiness of the victim and their family... does the choice become moral? Has any attempt been made to measure the happiness of serial killers or child molesters or other violent criminals? If we examine the levels of dopamine released during particular acts, does that decide what is right and wrong?
In the end, there is only one philosophy that provides moral guidance without God: cultural relativism. The idea that society decides what is right and wrong to suit its needs and provide for the general welfare of its members cannot be attacked by individual examples, because a society could always redefine right and wrong. The flaw in this philosophy is the lack of consistency. For example, in the 1700s and early 1800s, slavery was an acceptable practice in society. Because the culture embraced it, according to cultural relativism, it was moral behavior. Only after slavery was abolished did the practice become immoral for honest subscribers of this philosophy.
Ultimately, while saying that God follows a law that determines what is good or moral may appear to allow those that reject God to be moral, it does not reveal the law. People still argue about a variety of practices as to whether they are good or evil.
The advantage of having an all-knowing God that identifies what is right and what is wrong should be clear. "God says so" suddenly becomes a valid reason. With a law that no philosopher has ever been able to define guiding right and wrong, pursuing the will of a perfect being that is able to define it makes sense. Even if the will of God is bound by law, understanding the law requires access to God.
The emphasis of many atheists with whom I have spoken is rarely on moral philosophy however. In my experience, preference is given to scientific evidence that highlights evolution and an expanding universe. Ideas presented in the Bible that point to a seven-day creation, or a planet-wide flood that destroyed all land-based animal life that was not preserved in a single ark with Noah seem particularly vulnerable to those that only embrace secular guidance.
Viewing mankind as no more than an advanced form of animal life makes sense in a biology class, but has serious and frequently under-examined ethical repercussions. Survival of the fittest is the only real guide in the natural world. Anything that increases fitness or even decreases the fitness of competitors is desirable without ethical consideration. In this train of thought, right and wrong are not as relevant as getting caught. A person that murders another, but is not detected or not convicted has not acted immorally in the survival of the fittest mindset. If there is no life after this where justice will be administered to the sinful, there is no real reason to avoid practices that are considered sinful, particularly if some form of personal fitness or satisfaction is obtained from these practices.
Embracing God means embracing a universal right and wrong. It is an expression of confidence that choices in this life have consequences in the next life. It gives purpose to concepts that everyone deep in their hearts know to be truly valuable such as benevolence, virtue, honesty, loyalty, and mercy. It gives reason to avoid vices such as pride, envy, wrath, lust, sloth, greed, or gluttony, as these sins may have permanent negative consequences.
More than just defining it, God represents the ability to become good. In the end, there is no person, entity, force, or philosophy that has the power to make bad men good and good men better like God.
While there are those that have done awful things in the name of religion or serving God, I believe that the quest to find the truth about God will in the end lead men to the same place. Ultimately, everyone will have an opportunity to find that strait and narrow path that leads to God, and they will see that choices made in this life have consequences that extend into the next. Good and evil are not abstract concepts, they are universal and general. Separating God from goodness is not necessary since in the end good will triumph over evil because of God.
