“godless” by Dan Barker (Part 9): The Basis of Morality: A Heavenly Book or Nature Itself?

As we make our way through Dan Barker’s book, godless: How an Evangelical Preacher Became One of America’s Leading Atheists, we now come to his chapter 12: “For Goodness Sake.” The focus of this chapter is specifically the issue of morality and the question, “What is the basis for morality?” Truth be told, it is an interesting chapter that actually has some discussion-worthy elements in it, unlike much of the silliness in chapter 10. Nevertheless, Barker’s take on morality—both his Fundamentalist misunderstanding of what Christianity says about morality, and his argument regarding what is, in fact, the basis for morality—is sorely problematic and misinformed. In short, it is a tremendously faulty argument.

The Fundamentalist Caricature

Not to sound like a broken record, but the bulk of Barker’s comments about both the Bible and morality itself stem from a deeply flawed Fundamentalist mindset, namely, the assumption that the Bible is nothing more than some kind of universal moral rule book that essentially dropped out of heaven that God demands people obey if they want to avoid burning forever in hell. We can see this Fundamentalist mindset in countless comments by Baker. Consider these two:

“Some might argue that no matter how the Ten Commandments are translated, we still need them as a basis for law and order. But do we really? If Moses had not existed would it have never occurred to us that murder is immoral?” (206)

“Believers claim that without an external code that is absolute, there is no ethical imperative. Why be good if there is no punishment, not reward, no all-knowing police officer to enforce the rules? The fear of punishment and the loss of parental approval provide the necessary moral imperative.” (209)

First of all, let’s get one thing straight. No one is claiming people didn’t have any idea murder was wrong before the Torah. No one believes that when the Hebrews got to Sinai, they all said, “What??? You mean we can’t just straight up murder people???” What is unique about the laws in the Torah isn’t that they were completely new, never even considered before in human history. We have a number of ancient law codes and we know that in many ways the Torah is very similar in content.

What is unique about the laws in the Torah, though, is the fact they are set within the context of YHWH’s covenant with Israel. The laws were rooted in the twin convictions that human beings are made in God’s image, and therefore have inherent dignity and worth, and that God had chosen Israel to be the people through whom He was going to bless all nations and redeem all of creation.

An easy example to show this is the similarities and differences with the Levitical sacrificial laws. Simply put, in the pagan world, the reason you offered sacrifices to the gods wasn’t because you loved them. Rather, it was because you were terrified of them—they were petty, vicious, and dangerous. Therefore, offering them sacrifices was the equivalent of paying off a mob boss. You wanted to placate them and keep them off your back. By contrast, the Israelite sacrificial system, although on the surface looking very similar to paganism, had a completely different aim and purpose. Sacrifices were offered as a means of acknowledging one’s sins, accepting God’s forgiveness, and then celebrating the restored covenantal relationship with God.

And this leads us to the second point that runs contrary to Barker’s second comment: the Torah was simply not seen as a list of rules one had to follow “just to avoid punishment.” The Torah outlined what a more godly and just society would look like, given the historical context of the ancient Near East. Again, it wasn’t some sort of external, absolute code for all time. And built within that Torah was a sacrificial system by which Jews who failed to live as a light to the Gentiles could be forgiven and restored so that they could do better next time.

In fact, after the golden calf incident in Exodus 32, after YHWH forgave them, even though they broke the covenant right out of the gate, when He gives Moses the two new tablets, He essentially adds a preface in 34:6-7 that stresses He is a God of compassion, mercy, and covenant faithfulness. The very reason why they are given a second chance is because He is not the kind of vicious God that Barker claims He is. As for the curses outlined in Deuteronomy if Israel should break the covenant once in the Promised Land, one needs to see them as the inevitable consequences that would happen to anyone who persisted in living a wicked and immoral life. In that context, the curses basically said this to Israel: If you persist in worshipping foreign gods and cultivating an evil, oppressive, and immoral society, you will become like the things you worship, and you will in turn be oppressed by those very gods and cultures that you emulate. If you insist on not living as the people of YHWH, YHWH is going to eventually leave you to your own devices, and you will no longer be the people of YHWH.

That is far different than the Fundamentalist caricature that Barker puts out there.

What is the Basis for Morality?

Since Barker rejects the Bible as an adequate moral rule book (never mind that is a faulty assumption to begin with), he proceeds to try to argue for what is the basis for morality. He writes, “Human values are not absolutes—they are relative to human needs. The humanistic answer to morality, if the question is properly understood, is that the basis for values lies in nature. Since we are a part of nature, and since there is nothing ‘beyond’ nature, it is necessary to assign value to actions in the context of nature itself” (210). And later, he writes, “If there is a Higher Power, shouldn’t we be all the more suspicious of its motives and actions? A Higher Power can create a Higher Crime. Perhaps we would all benefit from revering the Lower Powers of the universe and would improve morality if we were to get back in touch with the fact that we are animals living in a natural environment, and that we are truly part of nature, not something separate or above” (212).

So there you have it: for Barker, we should take our moral cues from nature and the animal kingdom. He further says that all we need is to use our own minds, our own individual reason, to act as “the rudder” by which we navigate the moral waters. By using our minds to study the natural world, we can decide what is moral.

By appealing to the mind, though, Barker wants to make clear one thing: “Morality is in the mind—and reason is in the mind. …I am using the word ‘mind’ as a function of the brain, just as digestion is a function of the stomach or circulation is a function of the heart. I do not mean to concede that the natural brain/mind of a human is any way comparable to the intangible, ‘spiritual’ mind of a deity—whatever that might mean—that believers imagine existing somewhere outside of nature” (211).” And again, “The word ‘morality’ is just a label for a concept, and concepts exist only in minds. If no minds existed, no morality would exist” (214).

Needless to say, I think there are numerous problems with Barker’s proposal. First off, despite what he says, the cold hard fact is that for human beings, “the basis for values” does NOT “lie in nature.” Barker claims that human beings are nothing more than animals and human values are based in nature and the animal kingdom. That is simply not true, and we all know it. We don’t call a lion a “murderer” when he kills hippo. When a whale swallows an entire school of fish for a snack, we do not accuse that whale of genocide. By contrast, we do call men like Ted Bundy mass murderers, we do punish people when they act like animals and assault other people, and we do accuse Adolf Hitler and Joseph Stalin of genocide.

This point really isn’t even up for debate. There is no way Barker actually believes what he says here. In fact, the greatest human atrocities in human history happened in the 20^th century by Socialist regimes  (either Communism or National Socialism) that were atheistic to their core, that viewed human beings as nothing more that animals, and that taught that the only way to bring about their desired utopia was to breed human beings the same way one breeds dogs—do whatever is necessary for the health and well-being of the species.

In addition, there a huge philosophical problem when Barker claims that “mind” is just a function of the brain, no different than digestion is a function of the stomach or circulation is a function of the heart. When I read that, I couldn’t help but think of that infamous saying, “The brain secretes thought, as the kidneys secrete urine, or as the liver secretes bile.” I say “infamous” for a reason. For if that truly is the case, if our thoughts and sense of morality is ultimately just materialistic secretions, then that means that there really is no rational basis for morality in the first place. Barker confidently asserts that human morality is a product of the mind, that human beings are nothing more than animals, and that we take our moral cues from nature. And then he confidently declares he knows what is moral. He writes, “Morality implies avoiding or minimizing harm” (210).

Really? Why? What if other human beings/animals use their minds as moral rudders and decide they don’t agree with Barker? What if Stalin deems it moral to kill Orthodox Christians because he is convinced that religion is the opiate of the people? What if Hitler deems it moral to gas the Jews because he is convinced that they threaten the survival of the species? What if the Marques de Sade concludes that since nature has naturally made men stronger than women, that men have the natural right to rape and torture women to their own delight?

Now, to be sure, these are extreme examples. Yes, most people do not commit mass murder or are sadomasochistic rapists. But my point is that Barker’s fundamental claim that human beings take their moral cues from nature is provably false. We don’t. Whenever a person does something truly horrific, we don’t say, “Well, that’s just nature!” No—we say such an action is inhumane.

Now, I am not arguing here, “Therefore the basis for morality is the Bible!” As I said before, such a view of the Bible is hopelessly simplistic and hopelessly Fundamentalist. All I am pointing out is that Barker’s attempt to root human morality in nature and the animal kingdom fails at every level. He cannot claim that human beings are nothing more than animals and that the basis of morality is nature, then turn around and discuss human morality in a way that is wholly unlike anything we ever see in nature and the animal kingdom.

Simply put, the very fact that we even talk about “morality” and “ethics” shows that human beings, although certainly biologically connected to the rest of nature and the animal kingdom, are nevertheless wholly unique. It is undeniable:there is something about human beings that is different than anything else we see in nature. If there was nothing unique about human beings, then we wouldn’t have any sense of morality, and we certainly wouldn’t be talking about ethics or punishing people who “act naturally” just like animals. As soon as you even begin to talk about “human morality and ethics,” you are putting human beings in a different category than anything else in nature. You are, in fact, saying, “There is one area at least where human beings are wholly unlike the rest of the animal kingdom—we are moral creatures.”

So if the basis for morality isn’t a universal rule book, and if it isn’t to be found in nature, where does our sense of morality come from? That is a topic for a later post. I still need one more post, though, to finish discussing the rest of Barker’s chapter 12.