Can morality exist independent of God?A refutation of the atheist claim

A Psychology Today article asserts in the subtitle: "Morality is within us independently of God." I will use this article as an outline to address atheistic claims currently prevalent on this subject. The author is atheist Gad Saad, professor of marketing and holder of the Concordia University Research Chair in Evolutionary Behavioral Sciences and Darwinian Consumption. I intend to show that the arguments in the article, although common in modern atheistic circles, do not withstand scrutiny. Toward the end of this blog post, I will critique several other atheist professors and scientists.

In the attempt to demonstrate that "morality is within us independently of God," the article includes 3 main arguments:

• Not all religions have an identical view on all moral questions
• Many atheists have done moral things in the past
• Scientists have written books explaining the evolution of morality

Let's review these 3 assertions to see if they support the claim: "Morality is within us independently of God."

"CONTRADICTORY POSITIONS TAKEN BY RELIGIONS"

The first assertion states there are:

extraordinarily contradictory positions taken by religions on every imaginable issue of human import, let alone the fact that there are thousands of religions and Gods. Which God/religion should one use to guide his/her moral system? ... [There is a] conundrum of religious contradictions...

This is followed by a list of moral views by different historical religions that aren't in agreement.

There are many problems with this line of thinking. First, moral truth's validity is not dependent on the absence of competing claims to the truth. A moral truth is true whether there are one or ten thousand false assertions surrounding it. It is true even if it is a "conundrum" to identify it. From the Catholic perspective, deviations in moral claims are explicable in a number of ways, such as the principle of Original Sin, that man sometimes acts contrary to reason, or develops his conscience and understanding of natural law over time.

Dismissing the possibility of a reliable religious tradition on account of it being a "conundrum" to discover it is the fallacy of personal incredulity. This is to run from a problem by claiming it's too tough to solve.

Second, remember, the article opens with the subhead "Morality is within us independently of God." But not all atheists, secularists, scientists, pagans, nor whomever else, have an identical view on every moral issue. One atheist believes abortion is the taking of a life and another doesn't. One secularist believes homosexuals should marry and another doesn't. We could imitate the article's hyperbole and just as validly claim there are contradictory positions taken by the non-religious on "every imaginable issue."

The article dismisses religion as unreliable because diverse moral views exist in religions. But, by the end, the article depends on non-religion as reliable despite diverse moral views existing among the non-religious.

Using Saad's definition of "conundrum," the atheist abandoning religion in favor of "non-religion" is just trading one conundrum for another. But, if "morality is within us independently of God," why is that hypothesis not held to the same standard of producing uniformity as is demanded of "religion"? If morality is in us independent of God, and man is just misidentifying that inner voice by producing a variety of non-religious morals, why couldn't human error also explain man's various misinterpretations of God? The atheist argument here is not consistent. If we are to believe we don't "need" God because non-religious traditions can produce contradictions too, then you could also say following a religious tradition is just as good as being non-religious.

But all this avoids the issue. Is God the source of morality? Are man's moral sensibilities only conceivable in relation to God? Does science reveal moral truths? Pointing to this or that group's contradictory teaching doesn't address those kinds of questions. The "contradictory positions" argument is a straw man that can neither categorically discredit nor credit religious nor non-religious traditions.

Third, why are the similarities in moral teaching across religion not credited to God as their source?
The idea in the article that religions contradict on "every imaginable issue" is an obvious exaggeration, considering the overwhelming unity in religious history on many issues such as murder, honesty, robbery, or that due worship should be given to supernatural authority.

The article only cites deviations in moral teachings as evidence against religion's moral reliability. For example, it asks whether we should employ Kosher slaughter rituals as in Judaism or Halal slaughter rituals as in Islam. But, although there are differences in the specifics of these tenets, there are also similarities. For example, there is a larger moral obligation behind both of these religious teachings that beg a different question: Why do both religions believe human action is required in regard to a supernatural deity in the first place? One would be hard pressed to find a religious tradition lacking a similar teaching.

That Saad is even able to cognitively categorize religions as associated with "God" is an unwitting admission that they are overwhelmingly in agreement that some form of other worldly power exists. If all religions are unreliable on account of them having some differing moral precepts, then isn't it fair to say all religions are reliable in areas where they agree? At least that is what the atheist should conclude if he seeks to discredit all religion on account of them having some moral variation.

Saad concludes this section:

Incidentally, I have never received a reply from a religious person as to how to resolve this conundrum of religious contradictions other than to state: “Well, the other 9,999 religions are false. I know this to be true because my religion is the correct one. It states so in my holy book.”

It is not uncommon to hear atheists to mock Christians (or other religions) as having no concept of moral truth beyond "the book says so." But, an atheist who has "never" heard a religious argument "other than" "it states so in my holy book" is grossly unfit to speak on this topic.¹

There is an abundance of material, certainly in Catholicism and Orthodoxy, that delve much deeper into moral concepts rooted in natural law, philosophy of the human person, and other arguments not merely dependent on "my book said so."  Many names come to mind like Albert, Aquinas, Chesterton, Newman, Kreeft, Ratzinger, Sheen, Sheed, Augustine, Chrysostom, and apologists like those at Catholic Answers or EWTN, just to name a minuscule few. And many of them build on philosophies of the human person such as Socratic or Aristotelian thought foundations.

Such study of religions would serve well in solving the "conundrum," by actually scrutinizing their most revered teachers and apologists, instead of throwing one's hands up and saying "Well, they don't agree, how can I tell if one is right! On to atheism!"²


"ENDLESS INSTANTIATIONS OF MORAL...ACTS...COMMITTED BY ATHEISTS"

There are endless instantiations of moral, compassionate, and kind acts that are committed by atheists. How are such non-believers able to engage in such acts without a belief in any supernatural deity?

From the Catholic point of view, this argument attacks a straw man. Catholics don't deny that atheists can commit good acts. Consider the following magisterial, scriptural, and theological quotations:

Man participates in the wisdom and goodness of the Creator who gives him mastery over his acts and the ability to govern himself with a view to the true and the good. The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie. ... The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties. ... The natural law is a participation in God's wisdom and goodness by man formed in the image of his Creator. It expresses the dignity of the human person and forms the basis of his fundamental rights and duties.(CCC#1954,1956, 1978)

St. John Paul II wrote similarly:

The conscience is "the voice of God," even when man recognizes in it nothing more than the principle of the moral order which it is not humanly possible to doubt, even without any direct reference to the Creator. (Dominum et Vivificantem, 43a, 1986)

[T]he moral order, as established by the natural law, is in principle accessible to human reason. (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, 74b, 1993)  

Paul, writing of the Gentiles before they heard the gospel, teaches similarly:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts. (Rom. 2:14-15)

In Genesis, Cain is held accountable for murder by God despite the murder occurring prior to the issuance of the Ten Commandments.

Venerable Fulton J. Sheen expounds on this very matter in regards to natural virtue in all persons:

As for natural truths, there may be considerable resemblance (between Christians and pagans), because natural truths may be known to anyone endowed with reason. God has illumined every man coming into the world. The first principle of the practical reason and the first principle of the speculative reason are the foundation upon which every man may build the rational edifice of art and science, morality and philosophy. Human minds, whether pagan or Christian, unlettered or learned, have a natural curiosity that inquires into the why and the wherefore of existence, as well as the origin and purpose of all their inspirations and yearnings. The uniformity of elementary doctrines, general liturgical themes, and rudimentary practices reveal the fundamental identity of human nature in all places and at all times.  

Pagans have natural virtues, for they have, as St. Paul tells us, the law of God graven on their hearts. Man can, without faith or grace, know the difference between good and evil, immortality, supreme happiness, and at least in a vague way, sanction and retribution, all of which are elements of religion as such, and hence common to all humanity. 

(Fulton J. Sheen, Philosophy of Religion, p. 215-216, 1948) 

A Catholic should have no problem recognizing anyone's capacity to identify a natural good because he is created in the image of God. So, when Saad asks what he thinks is a strike against religion with the rhetorical comment: "Would we all engage in nihilistic crime sprees of unimaginable depravity lest we were guided by religion?" I might answer: No, just look at multiple millennia of Church teaching.

If a person who lacks formal belief in God commits a moral act, this hardly suggests there is no God. I would even submit that atheists calling for morality is evidence of morality inscribed in man's heart by an Inscriptor. Modern atheists claim morals are derived from science or evolution, but we will see later how this claim collapses under scrutiny.

The matter of moral obligations
Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger (now Pope Emeritus Benedict XVI) posits:

The recognition of morality is the real substance of human dignity; but one cannot recognize this without simultaneously experiencing it as an obligation of freedom. Morality is not man's prison but rather the divine element in him... [T]here are not only natural laws in the sense of physical functions: the specific natural law itself is a moral law. Creation itself teaches us how we can be human in the right way. (Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, A Turning Point for Europe, 1994)³

Both the Church and the atheist might agree, in a basic sense, that natural truths, such as morality, are discernible through natural reason. One studying such things may seek to determine whether the Church's or atheist's or anyone else's claims are consistent with sound reason. Let the following two assertions suffice for the purpose of this section: one, as we see in the above quotes, the Catholic understanding of man and morality is consistent with atheists committing naturally good acts; and, two, neither science nor atheism can reveal moral truth.

What many modern atheists call morality, as we will especially see in the next section, is not a moral code but a tool for evolutionary advantage. One of the attributes that disqualifies atheistic "morality" as authentic morality is its lack of moral obligation.

Catholic apologist Karlo Broussard describes atheism and moral obligation thusly:

There are many atheists and agnostics whom we theists could look to and lock arms with in the pursuit of a just and peaceful society. However, only the theist would be consistent in saying that just and peaceful behaviors are morally obligatory. One can get away with personal moral codes without God, but not moral obligation. (Broussard, Can Atheists Be Good Without Belief in God?, 2015)

Moral theologian Dietrich von Hildebrand identifies a problem among religions that lack conception of a personal God. His statement would also apply to the moralizing atheist. Von Hildebrand writes:

[W]herever no conception of a personal God is to be found, the notion of an authentic moral obligation, of moral responsibility as well as a call directed to our conscience, seems missing. The formal character of morality is hardly grasped. That does not mean that no concrete moral prescriptions are known. Far from it, for many prescriptions which are, objectively, moral commandments (not to lie or not to kill) are honored, but without a real understanding of their specific moral character. (Dietrich von Hildebrand, Graven Images: Substitutes for True Morality, p 179, 1957)

This is similar to the atheist's dilemma. In a hypothetical atheistic universe, what does it matter if one fails to act in a way the atheist calls moral? What obligation is there to act morally? So what if society isn't "nice?" So what if man obliterates himself? What does it matter if mankind persists in existence at all? At best the atheist call to morality is to achieve some temporal desire. But there is no atheistic basis upon which the atheist can even call a human desire morally "good." Certainly "moral goodness" is not observable scientifically under a microscope.

There is no atheistic basis that answers why joy or prosperity is "good." In order to declare these things, the atheist must first attribute a dignified value to human life that makes him a moral creature: both in acting toward others and to be acted toward. Such value in human beings is not shown by science and is arbitrarily assumed by modern atheists. They are not wrong to recognize human dignity and morality, but they would be wrong to think these things are revealed by something like science.

Many atheists are also materialists. To claim that humans have special moral character in a materialist universe is likewise arbitrary. It is to say the cluster of atoms that comprise humans have moral character whereas a cluster of atoms that comprise, say, deep sea marine algae or a tumbleweed in the wind have no moral character. But a microscope doesn't reveal why one cluster should have moral character versus another. As we also saw in a prior blog post about science and morality, the moralizing atheist merely presupposes morality in mankind. And, ironically, the atheist presupposition that morality in man even exists supports the Church's notion that God's law is written on man's heart.

The atheist appeal to morality to achieve some end, such as people behaving "nice," makes morality a tool that could be set aside if not needed to achieve the same desire. (We saw this suggested by atheist Sam Harris when he fantasized about some future medicinal "cure for human evil.") In this purview, morality is not obligatory, nor ontological, but a tool of man to achieve a biological or evolutionary goal. And, without obligation, any reasonable definition of morality isn't even met. The obligation to act morally is absent in an atheistic universe.

Dr. Stephen M. Barr, professor in the Physics and Astronomy Department at the University of Delaware, likewise identifies the meaningless of atheistic "morality" in a First Things article:

It is quite meaningless to ask, for example, whether one “should” build a dam that will cause the snail darter to become extinct. We can only ask whether building it would be conducive to human survival, or to snail darter survival, or to some other arbitrarily chosen end. People may, of course, have feelings of moral obligation; but only the feelings are real, not the obligations. (Stephen M. Barr, The Devil's Chaplain, Aug. 2004)

You see Dr. Barr cover here what we have reviewed: that human survival is only arbitrary called "good" without a prior establishment of man's dignity. This dignity is logically absent in the atheist worldview.

As we will see later, the atheist will claim to desire morality to attain a "nice" society where people "reciprocate" niceness. But, again, if we use only an atheistic purview, what does it matter if people are nice or hostile, survive or don't survive? Animals live and die all the time. Molecules assemble and disassemble all the time. So what if a combination of molecular activity that matches what we call "death" or "suffering" occurs? Certainly, atheists feel a sense that survival is "good," but they cannot draw that conclusion using only science or atheistic epistemology.

Peter S. Williams, assistant professor in communication and worldviews at Gimlekollen School of Journalism and Communication in Norway, addresses this very point:

The question is not: Must we believe in God in order to live moral lives? There is no reason to think that atheists and theists alike may not live what we normally characterize as good and decent lives. Similarly, the question is not: Can we formulate a system of ethics without reference to God? If the non-theist grants that human beings do have objective value, then there is no reason to think that he cannot work out a system of ethics with which the theist would largely agree. ... [A]lthough the non-theist can do the right thing because they know what the objectively right thing to do is, their worldview can’t cogently provide an adequate ontological account of the objective moral values they know and obey. (Peter S. Williams, Can Moral Objectivism Do Without God? Theofilos, 2012)

In other words, atheists often behave as if man is made in the image of God Who is eternal goodness itself, toward Whom man turns during acts of moral goodness, toward Whom man finds his eschatological end.⁴ But there is no atheistic praxis that can substitute for God and moral goodness in this way.

As we have said, the atheist can commit a good act. But in failing to have a firm ground upon which morals are built, the atheist's call to morality is brittle and collapses under scrutiny. Let's examine further in the next section.

"SCIENTISTS ... HAVE OFFERED VERY COMPELLING SCIENTIFIC-BASED ARGUMENTS TO EXPLAIN THE EVOLUTION OF MORALITY."

Saad states:

Countless philosophers and scientists (including no lesser a man than Charles Darwin) have offered very compelling scientific-based arguments to explain the evolution of morality (especially in the context of social species). Hence, to repeatedly utter the banal canard that morality is outside the purview of science is astonishingly false. Innumerable books and scientific articles have been written to explain the evolution of morality, empathy, kindness, cooperation, altruism, parental love, romantic love, love for one's friends, and numerous other emotions that constitute integral elements of our moral fortitude.

Remember, the article's premise is: "Morality is within us independently of God." Does what the article describes as scientific studies about the "evolution of morality" reveal that conclusion? As we are about to examine in detail—no.

Certainly, one could conduct a scientific study of what cultures taught what moral beliefs. Or one could study what "evolutionary" benefit various "moral" beliefs in certain cultures had for that culture's perpetuation. However, this dodges the question. The science doesn't tell us whether or not some act in any of those cultures is "moral." It only can show "this act had this result." Science doesn't reveal that any act or belief was morally "good" or "bad." Moral arguments cannot be "scientific-based" because science never can reveal the prerequisite dignity in man in order for morality to even be considered. Let's examine several scientists and professors asserting some form of the claim that morality is within the purview of science (particularly evolutionary science).

Dawkins
The topic of evolution and morality has been addressed by pop atheist Richard Dawkins, himself an evolutionary biologist. Dawkins begins his book The Selfish Gene with the following caveat:

This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution.* I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave. ... My own feeling is that a human society based simply on the gene's law of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty society in which to live. But unfortunately, however much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being true. This book is mainly intended to be interesting, but if you would extract a moral from it, read it as a warning. Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a society in which individuals cooperate generously and unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little help from biological nature. (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 2-3)

Dawkins here admits he does not advocate for morality "based on evolution" and that "biological nature" is no guide either. The reason he says this is because he believes humans are characterized by "universal ruthless selfishness" that results in a "very nasty society." His scientific studies showed him how various cultures behaved in history. From there, it is Dawkins' own beliefs as to what constitutes "nasty" that is added to the scientific observation. This isn't to say there is no basis to call, say, the Aztec sacrifices of slaves to fictional gods an objective evil, but rather that raw science offers no qualitative interpretation other than what can be observed. It is the observer who then identifies "evil" in the action. Without a conscious or subconscious recognition of man's inherent dignity, Dawkins cannot declare biological phenomenon in any form as moral or immoral.

You'll also notice the asterisk in Dawkins' quote. It refers to an endnote which also belies science as a basis of morality. In the endnote, Dawkins expounds:

Others, perhaps because they read the book by title only or never made it past the first two pages, have thought that I was saying that, whether we like it or not, selfishness and other nasty ways are an inescapable part of our nature. This error is easy to fall into if you think, as many people unaccountably seem to, that genetic 'determination' is for keeps—absolute and irreversible. In fact genes 'determine' behavior only in a statistical way... A good analogy is the widely conceded generalization that 'A red sky at night is the shepherd's delight'. It may be a statistical fact that a good, red sunset portends a fine day on the morrow, but we would not bet a large sum on it. (Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, p. 267)

The sunset analogy in this endnote is Dawkins' way of saying genetics determine behavior, but it's not a foolproof barometer. Consider the consequences of that sentiment. It means, even Dawkins does not believe raw biology should govern behavior, even if scientific observation shows those behaviors to arise through the scientific laws of biology. Simply because a society behaves a certain way because of their inherited genes, it doesn't equate to those behaviors being morally good, according to Dawkins. But this is just another evidence of the atheist deriving his principles of morality from somewhere other than science.

That being said, the question continues to loom: on what basis does Dawkins say that any action receives the moral quality of "nasty"? According to his own caveat, the source is neither "based on evolution" nor "biological nature." Remember, Saad said the idea that morality is outside science's purview is "astonishingly false."

During a 2006 talk by Dawkins, an audience member asked the following question:

Question: [Y]ou accuse people, I suppose Christians, of saying that we get our morality from the Scriptures. But clearly this cannot be the case because humanity from every civilization throughout time has a sense of morality, and clearly most of them have had not have not had access to the Bible. So I'm curious then what you think is the origin of this morality. If someone comes in here with a gun and began shooting all of us we would call that bad. Why? Why is that bad? 

You can hear Dawkins' full response in the above link. Keep in mind the two questions asked here: What is the origin of morality? and What makes something bad? You will notice that Dawkins does not answer either question.

Now if you're asking me where we get our morality from I think that's an extremely complicated question and one that I'm very interested in. I've got a whole chapter on it in the book which I didn't have time to read from. I think that a sort of bedrock of it probably comes from our Darwinian heritage as a kind of misfiring byproduct of our Darwinian past, when we lived in small villages or small roving bands, which meant that we were surrounded by close kin and that, as you no doubt know, is one good prerequisite for the evolution of altruism under Darwinian rules. And also in those small villages or roving bands we would have been surrounded by people who we are likely to meet again and again throughout our life which provides the basis for the other main Darwinian reason to be moral or altruistic—that, I think is the Darwinian origin and I suspect that, although we no longer live in small bands, the same rule of thumb, rules of thumb, which were honed in our Darwinian past are playing themselves out under the alien conditions of modern urban society. 

The rule of thumb used to be—be nice to everyone you meet. Because everyone you meet is likely to be either a cousin and/or somebody you're going to meet again and again, and therefore in a position to reciprocate. Darwinism doesn't forecast, doesn't suggest, that we should be all wise and do what is actually going to be best for our selfish genes. Instead it says that it builds into our brains rules of thumb which worked in our ancestral past. That rule of thumb—be nice to everybody—is still in our brains. It is a lust which is rather similar to sexual lust which is still in our brains even though we may use contraception and therefore are not actually using copulation to reproduce. 

Dawkins' answer does not address whether evolutionary science can demonstrate moral origins. Dawkins does say that our brains were conditioned in our ancestry to be nice to others we'll run into later because they might "reciprocate" niceness. That explanation of morality's origin, assuming hypothetically it was true, does nothing to reveal whether any given act is moral or even whether morality exists. All Dawkins is able to assert is that man in history did things to get something he liked in return. The origin of the moral values Dawkins assigns to those behaviors are not given an explanation.

The questioner had also asked, "Why is that bad" if someone came in and shot everyone? Dawkins did not address the why. He instead diverted to ancient tribes being nice to get nice things in return—a non-confrontation of the real question. If Dawkins' is implying a shooter is "wrong" to kill on the basis that he will not be shot in return, his answer still fails to address why any human merits not to be shot in the first place. 

Dawkins seems to know the inadequacy of his answer. Despite his theory about tribes and reciprocal niceness he is still left baffled as to morality's origin. During a later part of the Q and A, Dawkins states:

I think it is actually fairly baffling where our morality comes from and why we're in fact as nice as we are. ... If I ask myself why I don't steal, why I pay my taxes, why I do that all the things that keep society going, I suppose it's a slightly irrational feeling that I wouldn't wish to live in the kind of society where people behaved in the sort of ways that I wouldn't wish them to behave in.

While Saad claims "scientific articles have been written to explain the evolution of morality," Dawkins—an evolutionary biologist atheist—says it's "fairly baffling where our morality comes from." Dawkins proceeds to explain that his own reasons for being moral are "irrational." One could certainly interpret these two atheists as disagreeing on whether morality is explicable by science. This would also be a strike against non-religion as a source of morality on account of their disagreement—at least it would be a strike according to Saad's article.

In another book, Dawkins candidly asserts: "Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical." (Dawkins, The Devil's Chaplain, p 34, 2003) He goes on to argue that science reveals various biological data, but that it's up to "individuals and society" to make ethical determinations, not science. Of course, this leaves Dawkins in the position of his other quote: "I think it is actually fairly baffling where our morality comes from...", perhaps because he does not recognize man's inherent dignity in the image of God.

Darwin
Earlier, we saw Dawkins attempt on the fly to explain morality in light of "our Darwinian heritage." Saad similarly declares morality has been scientifically claimed by scientists including "no lesser a man than Charles Darwin." Thus, it is worth looking at how Darwin was able to excuse some of the "blackest" behaviors in the animal kingdom because it contributed to the species' survival:

It is often difficult to judge whether animals have any feelings for each other's sufferings. Who can say what cows feel, when they surround and stare intently on a dying or dead companion? That animals sometimes are far from feeling any sympathy is too certain; for they will expel a wounded animal from the herd, or gore or worry it to death. This is almost the blackest fact in natural history, unless indeed the explanation which has been suggested is true, that their instinct or reason leads them to expel an injured companion, lest beasts of prey, including man, should be tempted to follow the troop. In this case, their conduct is not much worse than that of the North American Indians who leave their feeble comrades to perish in the plains or the Feegeans, who, when their parents get old or fall ill, bury them alive. (Darwin, The Descent of Man, p.77, 1871)

Later, Darwin attributes morality in man not as an obligatory attribute but a tool for the perpetuation of a tribe:

It must not be forgotten that although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to each individual man and his children over the other men of the same tribe, yet that an advancement in the standard of morality and an increase in the number of well-endowed men will certainly give an immense advantage to one tribe over another. There can be no doubt that [such tribes] ...were always ready to give aid to each other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. At all times throughout the world tribes have supplanted other tribes; and as morality is one element in their success, the standard of morality and the number of well-endowed men will thus everywhere tend to rise and increase. (Darwin, The Descent of Man, p. 166, 1871)

In this Darwinian—evolutionary—explanation of "morality," we see no consideration of moral objectivity. Nor is there anything resembling moral obligation. Rather, "morality" is simply "one element" a tribe uses for survival success. Remember, atheists who appeal to these "evolutionary" explanations of morality are imposing onto the scientific observation the notion that man's survival is morally "good." They seem to hallucinate, in a sense, that they have observed "morality" in scientific observation, when they have not. As well, to interpret "morality" as a tool for the fittest group's survival is to strip its worthiness of the word morality. It's a nonsensical use of the term "morality."

Worthy observations are made by Theologian Dr. Scott Hahn and Ethicist Dr. Benjamin Wiker speaking of Darwin's specious use of the term "moral":

Note that neither the evolutionary process nor the results are themselves moral. Natural selection itself is pre-moral and the result (some particular "moral" trait) is not itself moral according to an objective, eternal, or immutable standard any more than a particular shape of a bird's beak is good or evil. A particular shape for a bird's beak is good for this kind of bird, under these conditions, pertaining at this historical time. But a duck's bill, while good for the duck, is not good for the eagle. And even for the duck, if conditions change, that particular shape may actually prove detrimental or not as fit as some modification. The same is true for every kind of trait, including those that we would call "moral." So, when we say "good for" or "bad for" in regard to evolution we must remember that these are not moral terms. For this reason, there cannot be intrinsically evil actions among animals, and human beings are one more kind of animal. (Dr. Scott Hahn and Dr. Benjamin Wiker, Answering the New Atheism, p. 104, 2008)

This point about natural selection being "pre-moral" is important. Atheists pointing to evolution as some kind of barometer of morality commit, perhaps unwittingly, a bait and switch. The listener is primed to see a scientific demonstration of morality, but the content is then switched to evolutionary advantage while still calling it "morality."

By appealing to evolution as a barometer for morality, the atheist also falls into moral conundrums such as the evolutionary advancement of one tribe that obliterates another, enforced euthanization of any weak members of a clan, the enslavement of rivals, etc. In any occasion where such perpetrators consistently avoid detrimental retaliation, their actions can only be considered moral according to the Darwinian principle of defining morality as "one element in their success."

And, once again, all this presupposes the perpetuation of any species, especially humans, is morally "good." The atheist really has no basis to assume natural tendencies in the animal kingdom are necessarily "morally good." This is why it is said natural selection is "pre-moral."

Regardless of the original article's histrionic claim that the existence of morality outside science is "astonishingly false," morality is not revealed by "science." It's an untenable position once scrutinized.

Churchland
Patricia S. Churchland, Professor of Philosophy at the University of California and adjunct faculty member at the Salk Institute for Biological Studies, is another atheist who argues for the evolution of neurobiology as the platform of morality. In her article The neurobiological platform for moral values, she sets up her case for "morality" thusly:

Values are not in the world in the way that seasons or the tides are in the world. This has sometimes provoked the idea that moral values come from the supernatural world. A more appealing hypothesis is that moral values are not other-worldly; rather they are social-worldly. They reflect facts about how we feel and think about certain kinds of social behavior. Those processes are drivers of behavior.  

The values of self-survival and self-maintenance are not in the world either. But we are not surprised that they shape the behavior of every animal. No one suggests self-survival values are other-worldly. Instead, it is easy to see how the biological world came to be organized around such values.

Notice from the onset, Churchland admits that "values" are not an empirical phenomenon in contrast to seasons or tides. She then attempts to tie morality back into science by presupposing that moral values are connected to "survival" in the "biological world." Keep in mind, the Catholic can fully agree with the goodness of various cures or ministries. Catholics themselves have contributed much to the sciences, hospitals, and more over the centuries. However, the Catholic sees the human tendency to survive as the inherent recognition of the value of human life because it has dignity in the image of God, the numinous eternal goodness. But, as we just discussed, natural selection is pre-moral. Using a strictly scientific perspective, what animals or man have done throughout the millennia is just neutral data. Using a strictly scientific perspective, that animals or man tended in history to behave certain ways or tend toward survival tells us nothing about the moral value of those behaviors.

Churchland continues:

The evolution of the mammalian brain marks the emergence of social values of the kind we associate with morality... The evolution of the mammalian brain saw the emergence of a brand new strategy for having babies: the young grow inside the warm, nourishing womb of the female. When mammalian offspring are born, they depend for survival on the mother. So the mammalian brain has to be organized to do something completely new: take care of others in much the way she take cares of herself.

Churchland then attempts to explain maternal love as a chemical phenomenon:

Why do mammalian mothers typically go to great lengths to feed and care for their babies? After all, such care can be demanding, it interferes with feeding, and it can be dangerous. Two central characters in the neurobiological explanation of mammalian other-care are the simple nonapeptides, oxytocin and vasopressin. The hypothalamus regulates many basic life-functions, including feeding, drinking, and sexual behavior. In mammals, the hypothalamus secretes oxytocin, which triggers a cascade of events with the end result that the mother is powerfully attached to her offspring; she wants to have the offspring close and warm and fed. The hypothalamus also secretes vasopressin, which triggers a different cascade of events so that the mother protects offspring, defending them against predators, for example (Keverne, 2007; Porges & Carter, 2007; Cheng et al., 2010).

In the conclusion to her essay, she goes so far as to say:

The capacity for moral behavior...in mammals depends on nonapeptides oxytocin and vasopressin, as well as on elaborated cortical structures that interface with the more ancient structures mediating motivation, reward, and emotion.

For the moment, let's accept that euphoric rewards associated with biological chemicals are the "central" reasons why mothers care for their young. But it is a disconnected conclusion to observe a body's chemical phenomena and then apply the term "moral." Why should the label "moral" be associated with release of oxytocin but not sweat or adrenaline? Higher levels of oxytocin in meerkats has been observed to increase the meerkats' willingness to share food. Is the meerkat more moral if it let's another cat eat more food? Some studies show oxytocin to magnify a person's current mood, including magnifying bad memories. What should that mean for morality if oxytocin is a platform for morality?

Rather, there is something more to the mother's action toward the child versus the hand wiping the brow. There is something not revealed by neuroscience that even the scientist subconsciously cites when claiming morality in the mother's love versus someone sweating in the sun, an athlete on adrenaline, or a feline's dining habits.

Additionally, to accept the conclusion that man's "capacity for moral behavior" "depends" on "oxycontin" explanation isn't to explain morality but to show cause for why morality doesn't exist. In this scenario, the mother is not acting out of love, unless love is redefined as her enslavement to bodily chemicals developed in the course of human evolution. This is not morality any more than is a sunflower turning its head toward the sun to absorb the rays.

While the Catholic can recognize a properly functioning body as morally helpful to survival in accord with man's dignity in the image of God,⁵ the strictly scientific atheist observes how biology acts in nature and then adds to the science by declaring that natural phenomenon "morally good."

Churchland later attempts to explain other moral actions "such as telling the truth, respecting the goods of others, and keeping promises". She describes "advantages of cooperation":

Men working together can raise a barn in one day. Women working together feed all the men and the children. Singing in a group with parts makes beautiful music. Pitching a tent is easier with two people, and hiking together provides safety.

In her explanation, Churchland again does not describe morality, but rather the utility of cooperative behaviors. This is no more an explanation for morality than the symbiotic relationship of sea anemones and hermit crabs.  This line of thinking also presupposes the goodness of erecting a barn, feeding a family, making music, or pitching a tent. If the barn is not built and the humans don't have shelter and live shorter lives, what does it matter? Science has nothing to say about this. Evolution has no capacity to place a value on this. Some molecular arrangements are in the universe are "alive" and some are "dead." Science is unable to observe "moral" value in one atomic phenomenon versus another.

Later, Churchland states:

Truth-telling and promisekeeping are socially desirable in all cultures, and hence exhibit less dramatic variability than customs at weddings. Is there a gene for these behaviors? Though that hypothesis cannot be ruled out, there is so far no evidence for a truth-telling or a promise-keeping gene. More likely, practices for truthtelling and promise-keeping developed in much the same way as practices for boat building. They reflected the local ecology and are a fairly obvious solution to a common social problem.

Here, Churchland admits there is no physical gene generating truth-telling and promise-keeping qualities across "all cultures." Instead, she hypothesizes that these traits are simply utilitarian in the same way cooperating to build a boat would be. Her thesis attempts and fails to elevate evolutionary science as revelatory of morality. Not once is "moral goodness" observed scientifically. Scientific phenomenon is merely interpreted in light of a presupposed dignity in man to arrive at a moral position. The scientific skeptic is not necessarily wrong to hold this presupposition, however, it is wrong to presume that human dignity and associated moral values even exist in a strictly material universe.

Harris
Very briefly, I will mention another pop atheist who claims morality is in the purview of science—neuroscientist Sam Harris, who devoted a TED talk to the claim. I won't repeat all his errors here, but in brief, Harris arbitrarily adds moral values to scientific observation and to a universe he claims is devoid of voluntary action. His arguments are refuted in the prior blog articles Why science cannot answer moral questions and Critiquing Sam Harris on Free Will.

Ruse
I wanted to also briefly include one more atheist I studied in research of this blog post: Michael Ruse, professor of philosophy and zoology at Florida State University. Dawkins and other atheists apparently view Ruse as some sort of detriment to atheism. Ruse opens his article on morality with the words:

God is dead, so why should I be good? The answer is that there are no grounds whatsoever for being good. There is no celestial headmaster who is going to give you six (or six billion, billion, billion) of the best if you are bad. Morality is flimflam. ... 

It is something forged in the struggle for existence and reproduction, something fashioned by natural selection. It is as much a natural human adaptation as our ears or noses or teeth or penises or vaginas. It works and it has no meaning over and above this. ...  

Morality is just a matter of emotions, like liking ice cream and sex and hating toothache and marking student papers. But it is, and has to be, a funny kind of emotion. It has to pretend that it is not that at all! If we thought that morality was no more than liking or not liking spinach, then pretty quickly it would break down. ...  

Now you know that morality is an illusion put in place by your genes to make you a social cooperator, what's to stop you behaving like an ancient Roman? Well, nothing in an objective sense.

Ruse's opening words resemble what we have said about morality existing only in the purview of God. (Ruse's larger argument is that even though morality doesn't exist, man will still be moral because his "psychology will make sure you go on living in a normal, happy manner.") Ruse is an atheist who believes "God is dead," thus "Morality is flimflam."

By the end of his article, Ruse admits that what is called "morality" is just a tool like teeth, "fashioned by natural selection," one of many "emotions," but ultimately "an illusion." His description of morality follows the atheists we have studied above, but he departs with them by admitting they are not actually observing morality in their sciences. Ruse stays true to atheistic epistemology and articulates its logical conclusion that morality is an "illusion."

CATHOLIC CONSIDERATIONS
We have seen the flaws in the atheist claim that science reveals morality through study of evolution.  Although the greater point of this blog post is to show the fallacy in thinking morality exists in man independent of God, I'll review a brief primer on the soundness of Catholic doctrine on morality.

The Garden of Eden by Erastus Salisbury Field, ca 1860
Acquired from Wikimedia Commons.

As we have seen, the atheist appeals to something like evolutionary survival to determine moral behavior. Granted, as we have seen, the atheist has no scientific nor atheistic basis for declaring this measurement of morality. But, for the purposes of comparison, the atheist claims morality is founded on a result of an act, i.e. survival or something like evolutionary progress.

The Catholic foundation for morality begins with the object of the act itself, prior to measurement of result. Pope Pius XII explains:

The moral value of human action depends in the first place on its object. If this is immoral the action is also immoral; it is of no use to invoke the motive behind it or the aim pursued. If the object is indifferent to good, one can then question the motives or the end which confer new moral values on the action. But however noble a motive may be, it can never render an evil action good. (Pope Pius XII, Applied Psychology, II.3, 1958)

This is further developed by St. John Paul II in Veritatis Splendor. The key paragraph reads:

The morality of the human act depends primarily and fundamentally on the "object" rationally chosen by the deliberate will, as is borne out by the insightful analysis, still valid today, made by Saint Thomas. In order to be able to grasp the object of an act which specifies that act morally, it is therefore necessary to place oneself in the perspective of the acting person. The object of the act of willing is in fact a freely chosen kind of behavior. To the extent that it is in conformity with the order of reason, it is the cause of the goodness of the will; it perfects us morally, and disposes us to recognize our ultimate end in the perfect good, primordial love. By the object of a given moral act, then, one cannot mean a process or an event of the merely physical order, to be assessed on the basis of its ability to bring about a given state of affairs in the outside world. Rather, that object is the proximate end of a deliberate decision which determines the act of willing on the part of the acting person. Consequently, as the Catechism of the Catholic Church teaches, "there are certain specific kinds of behavior that are always wrong to choose, because choosing them involves a disorder of the will, that is, a moral evil". And Saint Thomas observes that "it often happens that man acts with a good intention, but without spiritual gain, because he lacks a good will. Let us say that someone robs in order to feed the poor: in this case, even though the intention is good, the uprightness of the will is lacking. Consequently, no evil done with a good intention can be excused. 'There are those who say: And why not do evil that good may come? Their condemnation is just' (Rom 3:8)". 

The reason why a good intention is not itself sufficient, but a correct choice of actions is also needed, is that the human act depends on its object, whether that object is capable or not of being ordered to God, to the One who "alone is good", and thus brings about the perfection of the person. An act is therefore good if its object is in conformity with the good of the person with respect for the goods morally relevant for him. Christian ethics, which pays particular attention to the moral object, does not refuse to consider the inner "teleology" of acting, inasmuch as it is directed to promoting the true good of the person; but it recognizes that it is really pursued only when the essential elements of human nature are respected. (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, #78, 1986)

If these moral qualities indeed are present in the human person in relation to God, it would explain the atheist's presupposition that man's survival is something "good," even if the atheist never confronts or identifies the origin of this presupposition.

Finally, morality must be considered in the scope of man's eternal destiny:

Acting is morally good when the choices of freedom are in conformity with man's true good and thus express the voluntary ordering of the person towards his ultimate end: God himself, the supreme good in whom man finds his full and perfect happiness. The first question in the young man's conversation with Jesus: "What good must I do to have eternal life? " (Mt 19:6) immediately brings out the essential connection between the moral value of an act and man's final end. Jesus, in his reply, confirms the young man's conviction: the performance of good acts, commanded by the One who "alone is good", constitutes the indispensable condition of and path to eternal blessedness: "If you wish to enter into life, keep the commandments" (Mt 19:17). (John Paul II, Veritatis Splendor, #72, 1986)

You see that in Catholic teaching the goodness of an act relates to it being proper to the human condition—including in relation to man's final destiny with God. There is a divine pedigree behind all moral acts in that man is made in the image of God, Who is eternal goodness, and thus merits moral treatment and is obligated to treat others morally as well.

You notice also the them of "order" in these Magisterial quotes. This is language of the Natural Law, which is associated with the proper order of the human life. I discussed Natural Law with many Church citations in a prior blog post.

Ultimately, morality can only exist if man has inherent dignity in the image of God, which both obligates him to love his neighbor, and merits him love from neighbor.

---

¹It is worth noting that former atheists, once also having made arguments such as "Which one is true!", have converted as a result of experiences, scrutiny of Church claims, examining apologetic works, reading source material, etc. For instance, see Why Atheists Change Their Mind: 8 Common Factors at Bishop Barron's Word on Fire apostolate.

²I recognize that there is an argument to be made that atheism and other perspectives apart from classical religious traditions can be said to be religious in themselves. The argument would say in order to be "religious," one doesn't necessarily require a formal belief in a traditional concept of God. Many atheists are dogmatic, hold unempirical beliefs (eg. their beliefs that morals exist, that certain things are "good" or "bad," that love exists, etc.), and accept numerous tenets by way of belief. In light of this argument, by choosing atheism, the atheist isn't really choosing non-religion, but merely a different religion. In this argument, the atheist isn't escaping one "conundrum" for another, but rather staying in the same "conundrum" and simply choosing atheism among the claimants of what is moral truth.

³We also see in this Ratzinger quote that morality is an "obligation of freedom." This supports the notion that freedom is a necessary ingredient when considering the morality of an act. This is one reason why it is nonsensical to claim morality exists in the universe of freedomless automatons espoused by atheist Sam Harris. See previous blog post here.

⁴See, for example, Aquinas' Five Ways for a proof of God's goodness.

⁵In 4 ways pre-marital sex is harmful, I specifically addressed how the release of oxytocin and vasopressin during sexual activity tends toward monogamy as their addictiveness tends toward attachment (as opposed to attempting detachment by promiscuity). Churchland acknowledges a similar result between mother and baby when she later writes: "[O]xytocin facilitates attachment of mother to baby. And of baby to mother." The Catholic needn't deny "meaning" in the body because a body in proper order is consistent with the whole person in proper order. (St. John Paul II spoke on a related topic about the "nuptial meaning" of the body in Theology of the Body.) The mother's love is in accord with her proper dignity in the image of God. The body's positive chemical response is simply consistent with the divine moral foundation of the act, without which it cannot be called moral. 

Why science cannot answer moral questions

This blog post is a critique of a modern "TED talk" titled: "Science can answer moral questions." (Click these links to watch the video or read the transcript.)

TED is a well-known international nonprofit dedicated to providing a platform for "powerful talks" and promotion of the "power of ideas to change attitudes, lives and, ultimately, the world. ...from the world's most inspired thinkers."

The speaker of this particular TED talk in 2010 was Sam Harris, a doctor in neuroscience, also known for challenging traditional proofs for the existence of God.

MAKE NO ASSUMPTIONS
In order to identify the inherent flaw that lines his entire speech, I invite the reader to lay down all presuppositions on what he/she already believe about the morality of any issue. That is a distraction from the matter at hand. This blog post is solely intended to confront the assertion of the TED talk as to whether science can answer moral questions. Therefore, in this post, I will only examine Harris' assertions on morality based on that premise.

THE ARGUMENT
For Harris, whether or not something is beneficial to human well-being/flourishing is intertwined with whether or not something is moral. His closing remarks include the statement:

[W]e can no more respect and tolerate vast differences in notions of human well-being than we can respect or tolerate vast differences in the notions about how disease spreads, or in the safety standards of buildings and airplanes.

According to Harris, something like physical health, which can be measured by science in the form of facts, reveal that which is moral or not. Granted, he admits science cannot answer every moral dilemma, but this is nonetheless the gist of his speech. Feel free to click the links at top to hear his speech in context. Using his own terminology, his argument in visible form looks like this:

Harris' basic argument for how science reveals morality
Do scientific facts reveal X to lead to human "well-being/flourishing" (e.g. physical health)?	–?–	The matter is moral.
Do scientific facts reveal X to lead to human "non-well-being/non-flourishing" (e.g. sickness, injury)?	–?–	The matter is immoral

As a general principle for morality, the conclusions in this table aren't necessarily wrong. But remember our question. Is science what is providing the moral answers?  I ask the reader to follow carefully. Remember what I requested earlier. Lay down all presuppositions of what you consider moral. Let science do what Harris says it will do. Approach science with a blank slate in order to permit it to reveal to you what is moral. Can science tell us whether or not something is moral.

In Harris' argument, he actually makes an illogical leap that goes like this, for example: Science reveals that X causes death. Therefore, X is morally evil. But what's missing from his logic? I'll ask it in the form of a question: What makes death a moral evil? Science says nothing about the moral quality of any molecular reaction. Science only reveals what happens when these molecules interact with these molecules.

Think of it this way. Science reveals that an injection of 5g of sodium thiopental is effective in causing death in humans. Some states use this barbiturate to administer lethal injections to criminals. Therefore, if a man acquired this barbiturate, and injected it into a stranger on the street, the stranger would die. What does science reveal about the morality of this act? Absolutely nothing. All science "answered" was that X would result in Y.  All science "answered" was that these molecules have this reaction with these other molecules. But it takes an interpretation of the facts to discern which reactions have what moral quality.

SECRETLY APPEALING TO HUMAN DIGNITY
When Harris says he is appealing to science to answer a moral question, what he is actually doing is appealing to the inherent dignity of a human being versus, say, an inanimate object. In the above table, I marked where Harris is missing an intermediate logical step in the second column. It is in this step where one would establish a human being merits good health because of their inherent dignity. Harris skips this point in his analysis. It is a blind spot of sorts in his entire discourse. He presupposes human dignity. He acts as though science has revealed this dignity when it cannot.

At one point, Harris admits that his belief in moral answers aligns him with religious "demagogues," yet claims his answers come from "intelligent analysis" and theirs come from "a whirlwind." He says:

Now the irony, from my perspective, is that the only people who seem to generally agree with me and who think that there are right and wrong answers to moral questions are religious demagogues of one form or another. And of course they think they have right answers to moral questions because they got these answers from a voice in a whirlwind, not because they made an intelligent analysis of the causes and condition of human and animal well-being.

At least Harris admits here that his moral determinations come from "analysis" of the science and not from the science itself. In that sense, he has already debunked the title of his talk. But as I also mentioned, his analysis contains the presupposition of the dignity of the human person. Ironically, it is Harris who appeals to a "whirlwind." He avoids analysis of why humans have dignity at all or are even capable of moral actions.

CONCLUSIONS
The Catholic would agree that it is immoral to harm another's physical well-being because "The dignity of the human person is rooted in his creation in the image and likeness of God" (CCC#1700) Smashing a rock does not have the same moral quality even though the act can likewise be measured scientifically. The "natural moral law" is reasoned based on the principle of what "properly belongs to human nature" (CCC#1955). (See related post on Natural Law here.) This dignity is of such value, God Himself assumed the human nature in the Incarnation. But I won't go on a long apologetic for the dignity of the human person from a Catholic perspective because the purpose of this post is to show science cannot answer moral questions.

Consideration of the dignity of the human person is indispensable in answering moral questions. And the dignity of the human person is not revealed by science. Dignity cannot be empirically observed in a laboratory. Thus, because human dignity is an essential component of moral inquiry, science cannot "answer" moral questions. It can only show what effects certain things will have in the empirical world, but not the moral quality of any effect.

EDIT 12/31/2018 to add: A 2017 interview with clinical psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson (queue 1:13:02-1:15:28) echoes the above sentiments with regard to Harris' claim to derive morality from science, or what Peterson calls the realm of "facts."

7 21st century reasons to consider the Church

Edit 11/9/2015 to add:
Listen to my interview about this blog post on The Don Johnson Radio Show from 11/6/2015 at MP3 archive here. My segment begins at 35:30, but I encourage anyone to listen to the whole episode or any other archive of Don's show.

The centuries have seen manifold ways by which converts, reverts, and lifelong Catholics experience a spark of faith ignited into a fiery love story. This post is intended as a thought exercise with regard to some reasons that may compel the ponderer to consider Catholicism. These are by no means all the reasons someone might be moved to consider Catholicism. Theses are by no means even necessarily the best. Also, these are in no particular order. These are merely reasons perhaps pertinent to 21st century themes and attitudes.

1.  The Church is pro-science
The current talk of water on Mars reminds us how much scientific discussions are prevalent today. Despite what stereotype you may have heard, the Church has been overwhelmingly an advocate of science throughout the centuries. Hundreds Catholic scientists are listed here, and those are just the clergy. Many don't know even the Big Bang theory was spearheaded by a Catholic priest (here he is hanging with Einstein). I've profiled a few others on this blog.

The Galileo affair seems to be a totem of sorts, used by those who seek to paint the Church as anti-science. But not only would that, if true, be among the exceptions of the Church's pro-scientific history, but it's not quite true. The Church didn't reject Galileo's view simply because it was scientific. Many articles have been written to clarify the subject (e.g. Catholic.com or even by atheist writer Tim O'Neil who details where Galileo's proofs fell short).

Nevertheless, our focus here is on modern times. Are you a believer in, say, biological evolution, but afraid you might have to forfeit that view if you joined the Church? Worry not. Pope Benedict XVI said, "there is much scientific proof in favor of evolution, which appears as a reality that we must see and which enriches our understanding of life and being as such." Pope Francis, who has a degree in chemistry, has likewise acknowledged no opposition between faith and science. Prior Popes have made similar sentiments.

As discussed in prior posts, the Church avails herself to science when scrutinizing claims of miracles. Priests with scientific backgrounds even operate the Vatican Observatory. Recourse to science is not an exception for the Church, but the norm.

2. No "hashtag" theology
Have you ever found yourself yearning to understand someone's view, but the best you can get is some hashtag or bumper sticker slogan in response? Maybe the extent of your colleague's view is nothing deeper than changing their social media photo to some symbol. You want to know how your colleague's view accounts for a fair question or two. But if you challenge that view, you get either the slogan repeated, or perhaps you are called a bad name. And you wonder to yourself, if my colleague's view can't account for any scrutiny, how baseless must it be?

Yet, often, the Church is accused of offering a faith without evidence. Not so. If you've ever taken the time to pick up an encyclical or document of a Church council, you can expect depth of reason. Even in the Catechism, which is more of a summary of doctrines, the paragraphs build upon one another. A great doctrinal thesis like St. Thomas Aquinas' Summa Theologica, written in the 13th century, is fraught with opponents' arguments against any doctrine. It's very structure confronts multiple "objections" at every turn.

The Council of Trent in the 16th century was largely a response to clarify and fortify doctrines in the face of Protestant objections. So, for instance, when the Church was accused of worshipping saints or icons, the Council assured objectors: "not that any divinity, or virtue, is believed to be in [the saints], on account of which they are to be worshipped..." Or when the Church was accused of abusive sale of indulgences, the Council confronted the scrutiny and conceded:  

And being desirous that the abuses which have crept therein, and by occasion of which this honourable name of Indulgences is blasphemed by heretics, be amended and corrected, [the Council] ordains generally by this decree, that all evil gains for the obtaining thereof, whence a most prolific cause of abuses amongst the Christian people has been derived, be wholly abolished.

Reason and consideration of objections is nothing uncommon in the Church. Even at the first Council in Jerusalem (Acts 15:1-35), Peter and James elaborated on circumcision, the relationship with Gentiles, and salvation with much reason and recourse to Scripture.

Perhaps one considering the Church's position on this or that doctrine still disagrees. But one could not accuse the Church of offering an explanation with the mere depth of a hashtag. Nor could one accuse the Church of turning a blind eye to objections. Wouldn't it be characteristic of a Church that brokers in truth to have no fear of objections, nor fear of delving deeply into those truths?

3. No "yes-man" mentality
It's election season. And if you're old enough to remember any election, you can probably think of a politician's promise that somehow never made it to the table. Maybe you can think of a lot. Or perhaps you've been with a date who just affirmed everything you did or said, having no perceptions of his/her own. Or if you're a boss and you have one of those "yes-men" underlings, who are only interested in making you feel good about yourself, even if the truth would otherwise help you.

It's no secret the Church is willing to say things many people don't want to hear. Don't think it's just about hot-button issues like "gay marriage," toward which the Church is perceived to take an "unpopular" view. There are plenty of other people who don't like hearing the Church's stance on fornication, masturbation, confessing sins to a priest, or even the existence of hell. Perhaps you don't like those views yourself. You're still invited to study, scrutinize, and give an honest examination of the Church's views on any moral or faith-based doctrine. If the Church was into mere membership numbers, all of these teachings might go out the window. But the point here in reason #3 is that you can expect answers from the Church not founded on coddling or patronizing you. Does that kind of directness sound refreshing?

4. Consistency
Tying into reason #3, you will get consistency from the Church on matters of faith and morals. There has never been a single defined teaching on such a matter that was ever reversed. The Church has studied the Scriptures and the Apostolic deposit of faith for centuries, deriving truths from that single "wellspring." So, for instance, the Church never has said God is not Trinity after defining God as Trinity at the Council of Nicea in 325 A.D. We're celebrating the 1690th anniversary of that dogma this year. Divinity of Christ? Articulated at the Council of Ephesus in 431 A.D. Happy 1584th anniversary to that dogma. Many other teachings have been taught consistently throughout the centuries or through other councils and documents.

In the early days of the "gay marriage" debate, Slate, which is not by any stretch a champion of all things Church, published a harsh critique of those who do not support "gay marriage." Of those critiqued, the author conceded, "Only the Catholic Church has maintained logical consistency" with regard to sexual teaching. The author refers to the Church's view that the proper context of a sexual act is within marriage and open to life. Thus, for centuries, the Church has taught as disordered not only something like a "gay marriage," but fornication, masturbation, adultery, contraception, etc. Not every supporter of "traditional" marriage bears this consistency.

So the Church doesn't change faith or moral dogmas. Perhaps a flippant skeptic would simply accuse the Church of stubbornness. On the other hand, if the Church claims to posit sacred truths, one of the characteristics we should observe is consistency. Water is not H2O on Monday and something else on Tuesday while still called water. The purpose of this particular post is not to give a thorough defense of this or that dogma, but to invite souls to consider what the Church is proposing. Isn't consistency something you seek in a truth?

5. Don't worry about hypocrite Christians
We've heard it before. Someone tells you they reject Catholicism on account of this or that scandal by this or that priest, friend, or whomever. They don't want to be part of the Church of which that person is a part. Christian hypocrites misbehaving on Saturday but back in church on Sunday were actually used by Anton Lavey as a reason for founding of his brand of Satanism. The Hindu leader Ghandi is known for stating some version of the quote: "I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ." Even the well-known Catholic convert and theologian, Dr. Peter Kreeft, when asked what is orthodox Christianity's greatest obstacle, replied, "Our own sins."

First, I'd like to note there are many holy persons in the Church, practicing the faith heroically in charity and persistence. The skeptic should grant these souls due consideration as well. In fact, these souls are those about whom Dr. Kreeft says, "Only saints can save the world." If you think you can be one, please consider the Church! We can use more saints!

But let's return to the notion of sinful Christians. The bad news is, there are Christian hypocrites. The good news is, our faith is not founded on the sins of the Church's members. Our faith is founded on Jesus Christ. There is no other. As Scripture states, "For no other foundation can any one lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ." (1 Cor. 3:11)

As well, there is no institution free of sinners. To reject the Church on account of sinful members is to embrace some other sinful body, including the self-governed irreligious individual. Thus, rejecting the Church on account of sinful members cannot be a deal breaker.

It's also worth clarifying what "hypocrisy" actually is. A person who sins and is Christian is not automatically a hypocrite. I think some critics make this mistake. Consider this analogy. A father addicted to cigarettes is not a hypocrite if he tells his son not to smoke while confessing the harm of his own smoking. Rather, he would be a hypocrite if he tells his son not to smoke while justifying his own smoking.

But wait, says the skeptic, the Bible also says, "you will know them by their fruits." (Matt. 7:20). So that's proof the Church is bad! But is the sinner practicing Catholic teaching? No. But wait again, says the skeptic. You're just saying Christians who sin aren't acting Christian. That's the "No true Scotsman fallacy!" Not so. Catholicism has identifiable moral doctrines. One can read summaries of these in the Catechism. (See the Catechism index here for an alphabetical topic list.) It is Catholic teaching that stealing is sinful. If a Catholic steals, he's not practicing Catholicism, even if he is a baptized Catholic. The Scotsman fallacy refers to making up false or arbitrary criteria after the fact in order to protect the original claim.

Let's consider another example. This is fitting, because the Church often refers to herself as a "hospital for sinners" (a moniker which admits to the sins of members, by the way). Let's say there is a certain fever going around in a village. A doctor visits and prescribes a medicine. After a month, 90% of the villagers still have the fever. So the medicine is faulty, right? Not so fast! We need more information. As it turns out, 90% of the villagers stopped taking the medicine. The 10% who took the medicine no longer have the fever. In this example, one can't judge the medicine based on the actions of those not taking the medicine. Similarly, one can't judge Catholicism based on occasions when Catholicism is not practiced.

6. Never be a pawn of your time
Have you ever heard someone say, "The Catholic Church needs to get with the times?" or something like, "Too much Church teaching is out of step with 21st century thinking..." And you wondered, if the 21st century has the "right thinking," what happens when a flippant 22nd century blogger says "get with the times"? And what happens to, say, the idea that it is wrong to steal because the 18th century B.C. decried it in Hammurabi's Code?

And then, perhaps you asked yourself what relevance does a calendar date have on the soundness of a moral teaching?

If you ask these kinds of questions, then perhaps you prefer to live in accord with sound morals regardless of whether some other century taught them.

The early 20th century Catholic philosopher and convert G.K. Chesterton, in his essay "Why I Am a Catholic," said one of the reasons he became Catholic was: "[The Church] is the only thing that frees a man from the degrading slavery of being a child of his age."

This is not to say that a good development of moral thought cannot occur in the present day. But this is to say the date a moral teaching is asserted does not make it right or wrong. A person who attempts to align his teachings merely on the cultural zeitgeist of his day is indeed a "degraded slave," as Chesterton says. He is merely a pawn whose morals are on as firm a ground as the calendar date about to change.

That the Church is accused of not conforming to "the times" is indicative that "the times" are not a basis for the Church's teaching. Since, as we have posited here, moral truth is not subject to "time," it would be expected that one who asserts that truth would not use a clock to test its validity.

7. No coersion
In the 21st century, like many others focused on freedom, whether or not someone wishes to join the Church or depart is up to that person's free will. This is a long-standing Catholic teaching, as has been cited on this blog previously. e.g.:

[A Christian evangelizing a brother] does not drag him and force him, but leaves him his own master. (St. John Chrysostom, Homily on Romans, ca 390 A.D.)

(See similar quotes) To consider Catholicism is an enterprise in discernment. It is to examine the Church based on characteristics that would be native to a true Church. Previously on this blog, in "Is faith belief without evidence?" several evidences and qualities of a true Church were reviewed. There are many online resources collecting source material, Church documents, bloggers, multimedia, and more (e.g. Vatican, NewAdvent, EWTN, Catholic.com, Ave Maria Radio, Patheos Catholic blogs, Catholicforuminc testimonials/episodes, Sonitus Sanctus audio, etc.) There's also a good, free discussion forum at Catholic.com, frequented by this blogger, where visitors can converse with other Catholics and inquisitors about all things Church.

And the considerer of the Church may depart whenever he/she wishes. It's a type of "money back guarantee," if you will, without ever having to put up any money.

I invite anyone considering the Church or seeking to engage truth to make a list of what traits would be characteristic of truth. Test that criteria. Scrutinize it. If it fails logical fallacies, discard it. This is a good way to purify ones views and develop a sense of examining doctrines as true/false or right/wrong, and never merely something like "modern," "popular," or "comforting."

To quote Chesterton once more:

The difficulty of explaining 'why I am a Catholic' is that there are ten thousand reasons all amounting to one reason: that Catholicism is true. 

Why do Christians eat bacon? A look at natural law.

THE ACCUSATION
In recent times, there have been multiple accusations by opponents of Christianity that Christians are hypocrites for doing such things as eating bacon when it is declared forbidden in the Old Testament (Lev. 11:7-8). Particularly, the accusation includes the notion that Christians inconsistently choose which OT precepts to follow. One flow chart circulating social media claims to "destroy" Christians for appealing to the Bible regarding homosexuality (Lev. 20:13) since they suspend other teachings of the Old Testament like the prohibition on eating pork. A blogger who professes to think "critically," writes about several forbidden OT precepts Christians practice today by tagging the post with "hypocrisy."

THREE VARIETIES OF OLD TESTAMENT PRECEPTS
However, these accusations are faulty. Here's why. Old Testament precepts often varied with regard to the permanence of their character. As commonly classed, there are three different varieties of OT precepts. St. Thomas Aquinas, writing in the latter 13th century, expounded on these:

We must therefore distinguish three kinds of precept in the Old Law; viz. "moral" precepts, which are dictated by the natural law; "ceremonial" precepts, which are determinations of the Divine worship; and "judicial" precepts, which are determinations of the justice to be maintained among men. (Aquinas, Summa Theologica, 2.a.99.4, ca 1270)

In short, the permanent precepts are the "moral," often compared to the "natural law." And, apart from containing overlap with moral precepts, the ceremonial and judicial precepts are not necessarily permanent.

Those familiar with Scripture can see these distinctions in some familiar stories. In fact, the accusations of "hypocrisy" made by today's skeptics are virtually identical to those made against Christ:

He answered, "The man called Jesus made clay and anointed my eyes and said to me, `Go to Silo'am and wash'; so I went and washed and received my sight." They said to him, "Where is he?" He said, "I do not know." They brought to the Pharisees the man who had formerly been blind. Now it was a sabbath day when Jesus made the clay and opened his eyes. The Pharisees again asked him how he had received his sight. And he said to them, "He put clay on my eyes, and I washed, and I see." Some of the Pharisees said, "This man is not from God, for he does not keep the sabbath." But others said, "How can a man who is a sinner do such signs?" There was a division among them. (John 9:11-16)

You see how the Pharisees make the same argument as today's skeptics, not understanding why Jesus could morally "make clay" and perform a miracle on Sabbath, a day held for rest in the Ten Commandments, no less! (Ex. 20:8-11) The teaching of resting specifically on Saturday is not a teaching of the "natural law," it is, rather, a teaching of the ceremonial law, i.e. the day especially reserved in the OT for divine worship. Such a precept does not have the inherent permanent quality as would a moral teaching discernible from the natural law.

So, for instance, Jesus affirms other of the Ten Commandments explicitly:  

And Jesus said, "You shall not kill, You shall not commit adultery, You shall not steal, You shall not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother, and, You shall love your neighbor as yourself." (Matt. 19:8-9)

These teachings are part of the natural law. They are discernible by the light of human reason. The late theologian Fr. John Hardon described this discernment thusly:

It is therefore called natural law because everyone is subject to it from birth (natio), because it contains only those duties which are derivable from human nature itself, and because, absolutely speaking, its essentials can be grasped by the unaided light of human reason. (Fr. John Hardon, Modern Catholic Dictionary, "Natural Law")

And, finally, the Catechism has a section on the natural law from CCC#1954-1960. Here is an excerpt:

The natural law, present in the heart of each man and established by reason, is universal in its precepts and its authority extends to all men. It expresses the dignity of the person and determines the basis for his fundamental rights and duties. ... The natural law is immutable and permanent throughout the variations of history. (CCC#1956, 1958)

Reason tells us a person is rightly due life. Through the human experience, we can therefore recognize that murder is an immoral violation. Man did not suddenly become accountable to the teaching of murder only when the Ten Commandments were issued. In the OT, even Cain was held accountable for murder long before the Ten Commandments (Gen. 4:8-14). Stealing likewise violates a person's right to due belongings. Adultery is also recognizable as an offense to the idea of the marriage bond. Jesus upheld such natural laws while not insisting upon the Sabbath ceremonial laws, even though all are included in the Ten Commandments. Shall today's skeptic encounter Jesus and accuse him of hypocrisy for upholding certain OT precepts while suspending others?

Elsewhere in the New Testament, Paul specifically distinguishes the reality of the natural law regardless of whether it appears in the OT:

When Gentiles who have not the law do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or perhaps excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus. (Rom. 2:14-16)

This phrase "written on their hearts" is often cited as a description of the natural law Paul references here. With reason, we can recognize certain laws "by nature." (v.14)

Let's look at a modern analogy to help clarify.

MODERN ANALOGY
Let's say there are parents who teach their children the following "precepts."

• Don't steal
• Be in bed by 8 pm

Both are precepts for the children, but only one of them is a life-long moral obligation. Not to steal is a principle of the natural law. It is a violation against human dignity recognizable in the very lining of human experience. Even the most skeptical, atheistic person will cry foul if you steal his wallet. In saying this, the skeptic is appealing to the natural law. He recognizes that a person is capable of claiming ownership to belongings, and that it is to violate a person to steal his belongings. The concept is reasonably derivable without a higher authority explicitly articulating it.

Being awake past 8pm is not in and of itself immoral. The rule is given to achieve other advantageous results for the children, such as obedience, self-discipline, good rest for taking on the next day, etc. There's nothing about being awake at 8:30 p.m. that inherently violates one's humanity.

Hence, we can better understand why all the precepts in the Old Testament are not mandatory to today's Christian. Something like the marital law is naturally evident in the complementarity of the genders. It's not revocable because it is written in the very fiber of humanity. Something like murder is a violation of the life proper to other persons. The Church could not declare void the immorality of murder by arguing that all OT precepts are void. Natural laws would still apply because they transcend OT law.

NATURAL LAW: COMPARING PHYSICAL SICKNESS TO MORAL SICKNESS
Perhaps another analogy can help with the term "natural law." Sometimes, when we hear the term "nature" in this context, we think "occurring in nature." That is not the case. By natural law is meant proper to the nature of the subject in question. A person is naturally due his belongings. Hence, stealing is a moral violation of that proper nature.

I like to compare the idea of moral "health" to physical "health." Scripture does this repeatedly. For example, when the Pharisees asked Jesus why he associated with sinners, Jesus replied, "Those who are well have no need of a physician, but those who are sick." (Luke 5:31) Spiritual health is comparable to physical health.


To recognize the sense in which the term "natural" is meant in the natural law, we can ask how do we determine that someone is sick or wounded? In order to do that, we necessarily must have an idea of what a properly healthy body is. We know that a healthy human arm is covered by intact skin. If that arm gets scraped by a sharp rock, that skin might incur a cut. We recognize that the bleeding should be stopped. A healthy arm does not bleed. Even after that, we recognize that it is healthy to treat the wound to prevent infection, which is also not ordered toward a healthy body. We might even apply ointment to prevent scarring. Such response is to restore the body to its proper order. If we do not know what the body's proper order is, we could not even identify what qualifies as a wound.

In the same way, we cannot call something immoral unless we have an idea of what a properly ordered person is. A properly ordered person is able to pursue life, is due his/her belongings, is defiled if sold against his/her will into slavery, etc. This is likewise where the Church would appeal to the proper use of the sexual faculties only within the context of a marriage because of the spousal, giving, fertile meaning of the body. Deviations from using the sexual faculties in this context are naturally identifiable as immoral. Like slavery, murder, or thievery, they violate human dignity.

Even a person who rejects the Church's view on any such issues must at least confront the discussion at this level of natural law. To make a case for spiritual health, one must successfully reason what is proper to a human being, just as one measures physical health by knowing what is proper to a human being. The dialogue must take place in this arena. Arguments otherwise often degenerate into basic fallacies of argument, such as appeals to emotion, appeals to modernism, or the like.

SO IF PORK ISN'T AGAINST THE NATURAL LAW, WHY WAS IT FORBIDDEN IN THE OLD TESTAMENT?
We have established here the varied types of "laws" in the Old Testament, which include permanent laws reflecting the "natural law," as well as ceremonial or judicial laws, which are not necessarily permanent to the human condition. The skeptic's next question undoubtedly asks what purpose a "ceremonial law," such as the prohibition on eating pork, would therefore serve in the OT, if it is not a law always applying to human beings. One could likely generate several good answers to this question, since Biblical truth is not always exhausted once one sound interpretation is attained. Nevertheless, here is one explanation.

It is critical to understand the principle of "divine accommodation" that permeates the condition of the ancient Jewish people. The theologian Dr. Scott Hahn expounds on this principle in this way:

[If] you’re inclined more towards earthly things than heavenly, God will use earthly things and invest them with heavenly symbolism, so that people will love these earthly things and discover in the objects they love a deeper heavenly meaning... (Dr. Scott Hahn, lecture for Theological Foundations course, 1999)

A PDF study guide from scotthahn.com similarly says:

Divine accommodation refers to God’s fatherly condescension and how He first gives us what we want in order to then give us what we need. As loving Father, He stoops down to our level and speaks to us using natural earthly means (chiefly in the Old Testament), but then calls us to Himself and gives us through the sacraments the supernatural means to share in His divine nature through self-denial and sacrificial love.

In his famous work City of God, St. Augustine writes:

The education of the human race, represented by the people of God, has advanced, like that of an individual, through certain epochs, or, as it were, ages, so that it might gradually rise from earthly to heavenly things, and from the visible to the invisible. This object was kept so clearly in view, that, even in the period when temporal rewards were promised, the one God was presented as the object of worship, that men might not acknowledge any other than the true Creator and Lord of the spirit, even in connection with the earthly blessings of this transitory life. ...  It was best, therefore, that the soul of man, which was still weakly desiring earthly things, should be accustomed to seek from God alone even these petty temporal boons, and the earthly necessaries of this transitory life, which are contemptible in comparison with eternal blessings, in order that the desire even of these things might not draw it aside from the worship of Him, to whom we come by despising and forsaking such things. (St. Augustine, City of God, 10.14, ca 420)

You see the basic principle of divine accommodation at work here: God uses earthly things, graspable to humans, to lead them to Himself. So, for example, gold, recognized by the Jews as precious, came to help them recognize that which was holy. God instructed Moses to forge the Ark of the Covenant, the place of His presence, with a structure of gold (cf. Ex. 25). Getting back to our concept of natural law, there is nothing inherent to gold that makes it a "holy" metal. But through the command to use gold, that audience more fully understood something holy must go within the Ark. They understood gold as that which was precious and pure. Purified precious metals were even used often to denote holiness (cf. Job 23:10, Ps. 12:6, etc.)

Now, let's return to the concept of pork. Why does Leviticus declare a pig "unclean"? What about killing and eating a pig would have significance to an ancient Jew? For one, they recognized the pig as a worshiping instrument to false gods.

Sometimes the uncleanliness of an animal has to do with how neighbouring peoples regarded that animal (they may have made it an object of worship or reserved it as something untouchable in honour of a god: the pig, for example, was used for sacrifices to the Babylonian god Tammuz. (The Navarre Bible: Pentateuch, Scepter Publishers, Princeton, NJ, 1999, p. 454)

From the ancient Jewish perspective, the swine had significance as something contrary to the one and true God.

Perhaps another example could help the modern ear. Consider the swastika symbol, known to modern Westerners as the symbol for Nazism. For this reason, it is considered offensive and banned in many places, including Germany. However, prior to World War II, especially in the East, this symbol often represented well-being or good fortune, even used in advertising. Is there anything inherent to the symbol that makes it evil? No. There is no "natural law" appeal against such an arrangement of right angles. Nonetheless, to certain cultures, its banishment has more significance than others.

In the same way, the prohibition on swine to the Jews would turn their focus toward God, since, in that culture, they understood the animal as unclean, something pagans used for sacrifices to false idols. Likewise, the concept of "uncleanliness," leads toward the New Testament where uncleanliness is associated with sin. Jesus expounds on this concept with the Pharisees, who, again, clung to ceremonial law when they were prompted to recognize the natural law to which it pointed:

While he was speaking, a Pharisee asked him to dine with him; so he went in and sat at table. The Pharisee was astonished to see that he did not first wash before dinner. And the Lord said to him, "Now you Pharisees cleanse the outside of the cup and of the dish, but inside you are full of extortion and wickedness. You fools! Did not he who made the outside make the inside also? But give for alms those things which are within; and behold, everything is clean for you. But woe to you Pharisees! for you tithe mint and rue and every herb, and neglect justice and the love of God; these you ought to have done, without neglecting the others." (Luke 11:37-41)

You see, again, the Pharisees concern themselves with the OT ritual. Jesus explains to them the typological truth behind those precepts. For instance, ritual "cleanliness" corresponds to spiritual cleanliness. Note that he refers to almsgiving as something that truly makes one "clean." If we read the OT precepts in light of the principle of divine accommodation, we can recognize that OT  precepts about "cleanliness" were ordered to guide a certain "epoch" of mankind, as Augustine says. These precepts directed their focus to be clean as God would have them be clean. At that stage in history, they were able to digest a visible, ceremonial cleanliness, which prepared them to the invisible, spiritual cleanliness of which Christ spoke.

And so, today, in this different epoch of human history, standing on the shoulders of those ancient precepts, we can see that one of the reasons for the prohibition on pork was to order man toward God, and to strive for holy "cleanliness." In light of Christ's fulfillment of Old Testament law, we convert the principle behind the prohibition on pork to one that teaches us to avoid sin. There is nothing specific about eating a pig versus, say, a fish, that would violate the natural law.

Hence, there is no inconsistency in the modern Christian who both upholds the moral laws of the Old Testament while not necessarily upholding some of the ceremonial or juridical laws.