Frank Turek's absurd belief in objective morality

 Christian apologist Frank Turek increased his popularity with his "Stealing from God" book that he supports with book-tours in which he attempts to argue that morals are objective, so since this requires an objective moral law giver, and atheism provides none, the existence of objective morals necessarily implies the existence of God, hence, atheism is false.


Turek says, in an article entitled Atheists have no basis for morality:

Monday night at UNC Wilmington, despite no cooperation from the school (see my last post), just over 200 people showed up for part 1 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. 

Maybe god is punishing you for misrepresenting him and mistaking your marketing bells and whistles for the wooing of the Holy Spirit.  Just a thought.

Several atheists asked questions– actually made statements– and struggled greatly when I asked them to offer some objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview. 

 Then they were not very educated about matters of morality.  You won't find the atheist writing at this blog to be struggling, to any degree, to answer your ridiculous questions and challenges.

For now, your question was illogically loaded.  The only reason to ask an atheist for an objective basis for morality, is because that atheist thinks morality does indeed have an objective basis.  Any such atheists are wrong.  If atheism is true, morality does not have an objective basis (i.e., a basis that transcends humanity).

Also, the fact that most humans are social mammals logically requires that they find unacceptable any acts that inhibit the thriving and surviving of the members.  Murder reduces the numbers of living things and deceases chances of thriving.  Rape increases the likelihood of additional children that were not planned and thus strain the group's resources.  Since no theory needs to be 100% perfect and explain every last little electron in the universe, the issue is not whether the naturalistic theory is comprehensive, but whether it is reasonable.  It is.  The naturalistic explanations for why most people find rape and murder to be immoral, are reasonable.  Merely calling them 'opinion' does nothing to show the theory unreasonable.  Some moist robots have an atomic configuration that motivates them to care about the survival of others.

On the other hand, the explanatory theory that says "God put his laws into our hearts" is beset by far worse shortcomings and fallacies:

What is the reason we cringe at the thought of burning teen prostitutes to death?  Because the god who required this in other cultures (Lev. 21:9) has put his laws into our hearts?  Or because the culture we are born and raised in can have a very profoundly strong impact in shaping our moral opinions?

Turek's explanation cannot point to any specific empirical evidence of a god putting his laws into our hearts, while the entire business smacks of telepathy and other foolishness that we know is bullshit.  At the same time, the naturalistic theory can point to the lower animal world, those who Turek agrees are not made in the image of god, and we find that those calibrated to care about survival of the group, do indeed also find murder and rape unacceptable.

What standard is Turek using to form his belief that rape is objectively evil?  It cannot be the bible or 'god', since Isaiah 13:16 would then have God causing men to rape women, that is, have God acting contrary to his own nature.

  They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why something is moral. 

That's easy.  Try the Constitutions and Laws of the country you were born in.  They reflect the moral outlook of the majority of the people. 

One atheist said “not harming people” is the standard.  But why is harming people wrong if there is no God? 

If you mean "objectively wrong", then harming people isn't wrong, because there is no objective standard governing the question of which human activities constitute immoral harm.  Furthermore, "harm" is subjective and requires analysis of context.  Doctors cause harm all the time, but most of us say this is justifiable because the harm creates a greater future good.  So it is the same in other areas of life. 

If you "subjectively wrong", then the wrongness of harming people does not go any further back than the human being who is calling it wrong, and perhaps the other human beings in the world who agree with him.  But again, that doesn't establish that the moral opinion is objective.

Another said, “happiness” is the basis for morality.  (After I asked him, “Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?,”  he said, “I need to think about this more,” and then sat down.) 

 Thus indicating that these atheists were woefully uneducated about the matters to justify pontificating about them as they tried.  

This says nothing about the intelligence of these people– there just is no good answer to the question.  

 Incorrect, you appear to have been addressing absolute dolts.  The reason you find a lot of people agreeing with you that morals have an objective basis that transcends humanity is because the vast majority of people have never taken an introductory course in moral philosophy.  You are dishonestly trading on their strong personal views and their ignorance.  Your problem is that the naturalistic explanation for most humans in history agreeing certain acts are immoral, reasonably accounts for all the empirical data, at which point, there is no compelling "need" to invoke god to explain it.

Most humans are social animals who desire the company and fellowship of other humans.  Since unrestrained murder and rape would clearly hamper the human's instinctive goal to both survive and thrive, it is instinctive for humans to view murder and rape as unacceptable behavior.   You don't think the insects are made in the image of god, yet the social insects like wasps will attack you if you do thinks to disrupt their social goals, such as throwing dirt clods at wasp-nests.  The same is true for most of the higher order mammals.  Anything that inhibits their ability to survive or thrive as a group, is automatically deemed unacceptable and deserving of suppression.

You cannot avoid this rebuttal by doing what you do best, and pretending that an endless series of "but how do you know that?" will help you save face. Humans are instinctive social animals, so that is quite sufficient to explain why those who desire most to live in groups agree that things like rape and murder are unacceptable.  Questions about how humans were created, etc, are another topic.

Without God there is no basis for objective morals. 

Correct.  That doesn't mean subjective morals cannot exist.  There is no proving to another person that the subjective morals of modern-day America are "better". All we can say is that if you act contrary to those morals, you will be put in jail or killed. 

And God himself in Genesis 6:6-7 must have come to feel that his prior decision to create mankind was immoral, or else he wouldn't have "regretted" doing so.  No, Turek, there is nothing in the grammar, immediate context, larger context or genre of Genesis 6 to suggest that this oassage is an "anthropomorphism", so it is reasonable to take it equally as literally as the other events in the context.  In that case, your own God contradicts his own morals, since it was HE who created mankind, and HE who later discovered that said creative act was immoral.  If God didn't think creating man was immoral, what does it mean to say God "regretted" making mankind?  If you think your prior decision was morally good, could you ever "regret" it?  No, not unless you start thinking that decision wasn't as good as you had first thought. 

And Christians must be without god, because they are often dogmatic in their moral disagreements with one another:

• Does the Christian god think it morally good for a Christian adult to join a worldly military?  How long must the atheist analyze this in-house debate among Christians, before they are justified in drawing the conclusion that there is no objective moral law governing the question?  2 weeks?  20 years?
• Does the Christian god think it morally good for voluntary abortion to end a pregnancy caused by rape?  How long must the atheist analyze this in-house debate among Christians, before they are justified in drawing the conclusion that there is no objective moral law governing the question?  2 weeks?  20 years?
• Does the Christian god think it morally god for married Christian couples to use condoms?  How long must the atheist analyze this in-house debate among Christians, before they are justified in drawing the conclusion that there is no objective moral law governing the question?  2 weeks?  20 years?
• Is corporal punishment of kids morally good?  How do you know what level of non-lethal pain is the maximum that objective goodness will allow?   Why would Proverbs 22:15 and other passages require striking kids with a "rod", if the level of force it is talking about would not produce any more pain or injury than what could be produced by the "tap" of an open hand that so many Christians think is the limit?  Proverbs 20:30 has only good things to say about beatings that produce bruises, and contrary to popular belief, "immediate context" does not always prevail when dealing with Proverbs.  While some commentators try to get away from a moral nightmare by pretending that the "immediate context" of Proverbs 20:30 restricts that passage to mere judicial beatings of adults in criminal courts:

20:30 In context this is not parental discipline but beatings administered by the king’s officers as punishment for crime. Yahweh can peer directly into a person’s innermost being (v. 27), but the king can touch the criminal’s soul by harsh retribution.

Garrett, D. A. (2001, c1993). Vol. 14: Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of songs (electronic ed.). Logos Library System; The New American Commentary (Page 179). Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 Other equally Christian scholars maintain that the way different Proverbs about different matters are often strung together, you cannot limit what one of them is talking about by appeal to "immediate context":

With the book of Proverbs one can select at random a single verse or two and observe a complete unity of thought in them that may not have any real connection with what precedes or follows. Yet this does not hinder interpretation of its meaning

 Ardel B. Caneday, Qoheleth: Enigmatic Pessimist Or Godly Sage?, 
GTJ—V7-#1—Spr 86—31

• And if Proverbs 20:30 is extolling the goodness of the criminal receiving bruises and welts from the corporal punishment inflicted by a court....do you agree that human courts achieve objective moral good by physically beating convicted criminals, yes or no?  Or did you suddenly discover that god's objective biblical morals don't apply if the culture in question is too different from the biblical culture?  Sound like cultural relativism to me.
• How do you know that vigilante justice is objectively immoral, given that Peter in Acts 5:29 appears to have found an exception to Romans 13?  If there are pacifist exceptions to Romans 13 wherein you can safely disregard worldly law, then how do you know that pacifist exceptions are the only types that exist?  How do you know where to draw the line?  What makes you so sure that God doesn't wish to act through you personally to murder the convicted and self-confessed pedophile living locally in your neighborhood?  Before you answer, ask how many tears you'd shed if you found that this man was found gunned down in a ditch earlier this morning.  You won't exactly be clearing your schedule just to make time to attend his funeral, amen?  And your own bible requires that the person who murdered the pedophile was doing the will of God regardless of how the death was actually achieved (Deut. 32:39, Job 14:5). 
• Is it morally good to torture babies to death?  If not, then you must think your god once violated his own objective morals in torturing to death the baby born to King David and Bathsheba:

  13 Then David said to Nathan, "I have sinned against the LORD." And Nathan said to David, "The LORD also has taken away your sin; you shall not die.
 14 "However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die."
 15 So Nathan went to his house. Then the LORD struck the child that Uriah's widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.
 16 David therefore inquired of God for the child; and David fasted and went and lay all night on the ground.
 17 The elders of his household stood beside him in order to raise him up from the ground, but he was unwilling and would not eat food with them.
 18 Then it happened on the seventh day that the child died.  (2 Sam. 12:13-18 NAU)

The baby obviously wasn't "deserving" of this torture, and yet v. 18 indicates the torture lasted for seven days.  Oh, did I forget?  This doesn't even qualify as the child being punished for the sins of the father.  Before the child was stuck by God, Nathan the prophet said God had "taken away" David's sins (v. 13).  God's torture of the baby cannot be considered "punishment" in any way, since the "taking away" obviously operated to exempt David himself from the death penalty required for adultery and murder.

• If God really is the author of all murder and death (Deut. 32:39) and has set a specific number of days for each human to live, a number they cannot increase or decrease (Job 14:5), then how can you say murder is immoral?  If a man pulls out a gun and shoots the Christian bank teller dead, this is also God calling that bank teller home...it is not limited to the earthly perspective of "murder".  if those bible passages are true, you are calling God's own actions objectively immoral when you call murder immoral.  How long must the atheist analyze this in-house debate among Christians, before they are justified in drawing the conclusion that there is no objective moral law governing the question?  2 weeks?  20 years?
• Does god approve of a legislature taking the death penalty, usually applicable only to murder, and extending it to other crimes such as child rape?  Not a few people were angered when a man who nearly fatally raped his daughter, escaped Louisiana's death penalty for that crime when the US Supreme Court found such law to be cruel and unusual. 
• Does God think it is moral or immoral that America's courts have a general rule generally excluding hearsay?  The fact that most of the bible is in hearsay form and allegedly comes from God, requires that the answer is "immoral".  Yet if Christians were to start a movement to overturn the court rule banning hearsay, it would likely trigger a legal war that would produce various degrees of harmful collateral damage, such as wronged Plaintiffs preferring to take the law into their own hands instead of having the matter adjudicated in a court that foolishly allows hearsay.
• If rape is objectively immoral, why does God claim responsibility for causing men to rape women in Isaiah 13:16?  Even conservative Christian commentators admit God was "taking responsibility" for these and other atrocities in the immediate context, such as beating children to death:

 13 Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, And the earth will be shaken from its place At the fury of the LORD of hosts In the day of His burning anger.
 14 And it will be that like a hunted gazelle, Or like sheep with none to gather them, They will each turn to his own people, And each one flee to his own land.
 15 Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword.
 16 Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.
 17 Behold, I am going to stir up the Medes against them, Who will not value silver or take pleasure in gold.
 18 And their bows will mow down the young men, They will not even have compassion on the fruit of the womb, Nor will their eye pity children.   (Isa. 13:13-18 NAU)

17–18 As the macabre scene resulting from the cosmic quake passes, the finger points to historical movement. Yahweh calls attention to stirrings among the feared Medes for which He claims responsibility.

Watts, J. D. W. (2002). Vol. 24: Word Biblical Commentary : Isaiah 1-33.
Word Biblical Commentary (Page 198). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

What now, Turek?  Do atheist bible critics have an intellectual obligation to study the convoluted tortured reasonings of Christianity's 500-year old in-house Calvinist-Arminian debate on the biblical extent of God's sovereignty (or the 1500 year old Augustinian/Pelagian debate),  before they can be justified to draw conclusions here?  If so, how long must the atheist study such debates before they can justifiably draw conclusions about it?  2 weeks?  20 years?

And don't forget, Turek:  Calvinists are Christians who say the bible teaches that God secretly wills for us to violate his revealed will:

If someone disobeys God's revealed will, that's because God "secretly" willed them to disobey his revealed will. (Steve Hays, from Triablogue)

• When we jaywalk, would it be objectively morally good to consider this sufficient to prove us guilty of murder?  Before you balk at the stupidity of such a suggestion, read James 2:10-11 for the first time in your life, and ask yourself how feverishly stupid it would be to try and make such careless sophistry apply in real-world situations:

 10 For whoever keeps the whole law and yet stumbles in one point, he has become guilty of all.
 11 For He who said, "DO NOT COMMIT ADULTERY," also said, "DO NOT COMMIT MURDER." Now if you do not commit adultery, but do commit murder, you have become a transgressor of the law. (Jas. 2:10-11 NAU)

Then tell yourself that such sophistry does apply in the allegedly real-world situation of your guilt before god.  Then tell yourself that the only people who are allowed to invoke the mysterious ways of God to get their asses out of a theological jam are Trinitarian bible-inerrancy-believing evangelical Protestants.

It is reasonable to expect that if the Christian god exists and has imposed 'objective' morals on humanity, he would not remain so silent and hidden from his own genuine seekers, as to facilitate such moral division among genuinely born-again Christians.  One reasonable conclusion is that Christians who read the same basic bible and hold the same theological tenets always disagree about moral issues they find to be "important" because there is no objective moral law giver.

It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s. 

 That's exactly right.  Most citizens of most countries are civilized and have common sense.  Nation would not likely rise against nation in war if knowing which morals come from God was the pre-skool matter that Turek pretends it to be.

The atheists’ responses to the cosmological and design arguments– the arguments that show us that the universe exploded into being out of nothing and did so with amazing design and precision– were “we don’t know how that happened.”

 Once again, you capitalize unfairly on ignorant atheists.  That would be like the atheist concluding Christianity is false because of all the stupidity he can find in a KJV Only Pentecostal church that allows its members to play with live rattlesnakes.  Stop pretending that defeating an ignorant atheist means defeating atheism.  It is illogical.

As far as the cosmological arguments, Turek has a serious problem:  Genesis 1 and 2  would NEVER have caused its originally intended pre-scientific audience to think the "beginning" started with an explosion, as nothing therein is expressed or even implied.  Nothing could be a more flagrant example of eisogesis than Truek reading modern science's big-bang theory into Genesis 1-2.  He may as well read macro-evolution into it as well.  Not only does the Big Bang contradict Genesis 1 and 2 (which set forth God's work as the result of a carpenter or artist), plenty of conservative bible-inerrancy-believing creationist Christians agree the BB is bullshit, such as Institute for Creation Research.

Now Turek cannot say it is the blinders of atheism and rebellion toward god that cause an atheist to be blind to the Big Bang in Genesis 1 and 2, unless he wishes to accuse his own born-again Christian brothers of being atheists.

   This is simply an evasion of the evidence that clearly points to an eternal, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal and moral First Cause of the universe.   Since nature itself was created, this Cause must be beyond nature or “supernatural.”

Sorry, the arguments for the universe being created, are unpersuasive to say the least, while the evidence that the field of planets and stars extends infinitely in all directions is rather clear from the fact that astronomers continue increasing their estimate of the number of stars with each passing decade:  "There are a dizzying 2 trillion galaxies in the universe, up to 20 times more than previously thought, astronomers reported on Thursday."

Even astronomers who disagree with the infinite-space model agree it is at least possible, and that's a serious problem for the lemon-head apologists who want us to think an infinite universe model is "illogical" or otherwise not a valid option:

GREENFIELDBOYCE: So it goes on, but is it infinite? Chuck Bennett is an astrophysicist at Johns Hopkins University.  

CHUCK BENNETT: It is somewhat unimaginable, but quite possible that our universe simply goes on forever.

The issue is not which cosmological theory is "true", that is a child's approach.  The issue is whether theories of the universe that make it harder for you to "prove god" can be reasonable.  They can.  It isn't like the infinite universe model is on the order of flat-earth or ancient astronauts.

I end with a challenge to the stupid fundamentalists who believe hell's fire is more literal than symbolic, and who deny any possibility of second chances for those who die after knowingly rejecting the gospel:


Suppose you are the parent of a 10 year old girl who hasn't actually believed the gospel just yet, she simply goes through the motions like so many other kids.  She is invited to a church that promotes whatever  specific doctrinal bullshit you consider minimally necessary to true orthodoxy.   She goes, they tell her the true gospel, they ask if she wants to repent, she says no, and on the way home, while having no personal faith in Christ, dies in a car accident.  That is, she died immediately after knowingly refusing to obey the revealed gospel.  God then shows you a vision of her being tormented by the flames of hell, and tells you this torture will go on for all eternity, because God thinks 10 years old is the age of accountability for that particular child.

Suppose every time you attend church thereafter and sing songs about God's eternal 'love', God puts this vision of your daughter's real, current, irreversible and eternal suffering into your mind.  Your daughter is screaming in mindless agony in this torture-by-fire WHILE you are smiling and happily clapping your hands in church to songs about about the wonderfully comforting love of the God who is, at the same time, torturing your child.

Could you continue worshiping God in good conscience if you had that much precise information about the ultimate fate of a deceased child?

Or did you suddenly discover that the biggest problem in your life right now can be solved by suddenly discovering that the age of accountability is 37?

How to make all these problems disappear in one fell swoop?  Become an open theist.