The answer to the question asked in the title appears to be no. Or at least, not without a close substitute for God. But I admit that I am playing with words. I certainly think, in fact I know, that a person can perform good acts without believing in God. That is so obvious I cannot imagine anyone denying the possibility.

What the question really gets at is whether there is a coherent philosophy of what is "good" and "bad" morally without a God. You could even put the question another way, "Is it possible to be bad without God?" In other words, is it possible to coherently identify certain acts or thoughts as moral or immoral if one denies the existence of some form of Supreme Being?

In my opinion, belief in a transcendent God provides the most coherent, secure foundation for a system of morality that is not entirely "in the eye of the beholder." A morality that rises above the mere perspective of the party engaging in the conduct or even the society of the person or people engaging in the conduct requires a source that is higher and above the person, persons, or culture in which the activity occurs. God provides such a source.

For example, prior to the U.S. invasion of Afghanistan, their culture approved of beating and/or executing women for not wearing enough clothing, or being outside without a male member of their family as an escort. The persons engaging in the behavior believed they were justified. Their culture taught them that their actions were justified. Even their religion taught them that their actions were justified. Many in the United States condemned these actions as immoral. Were we justified in making such an assumption and if so on what basis?

Or consider the ancient Aztecs, who believed in human sacrifices. Prisoners, young women, even children were sacrificed on a massive scale by having their heart cut out of them while they were still alive. The Aztecs considered this good. Most today would consider this immoral. But is our belief that it is immoral entitled to any more consideration or weight than the Aztecs' belief that it was moral? And if so, why?

If there is no God or source of rights that transcends our culture, the Taliban culture, and the Aztec culture, then our statement of moral outrage is simply a matter of personal preference or cultural affinity, no different than our preference for driving on the right side of the road while the British drive on the left side of the road. Neither side has the inherent authority or ability to determine that the other's actions are moral or immoral.

But if there is a source for these rights that is superior in comprehension, power, authority, and position than all of humanity, then there is a basis for claiming that a particular action is moral or immoral -- despite the perspective of the participants or the culture.

God provides such a source. William L. Craig puts it this way:

Consider, then, the hypothesis that God exists. First, if God exists, objective moral values exist. To say that there are objective moral values is to say that something is right or wrong independently of whether anybody believes it to be so. It is to say, for example, that Nazi anti Semitism was morally wrong, even though the Nazis who carried out the Holocaust thought that it was good; and it would still be wrong even if the Nazis had won World War II and succeeded in exterminating or brainwashing everybody who disagreed with them.

On the theistic view, objective moral values are rooted in God. God's own holy and perfectly good nature supplies the absolute standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. God's moral nature is what Plato called the "Good." He is the locus and source of moral value. He is by nature loving, generous, just, faithful, kind, and so forth.

The existence of God provides a coherent explanation as to the source of morality that transcends any one person's or culture's preference. But more than just providing a justification or coherent explanation as to the source of morality, it provides an objective standard of what that morality is. The "good" is that which conforms to the nature and direction of God. The "bad" is that which is contrary to the nature and direction of God.

William L. Craig again:

God's moral nature is expressed in relation to us in the form of divine commands which constitute our moral duties or obligations. Far from being arbitrary, these commands flow necessarily from His moral nature. In the Judaeo Christian tradition, the whole moral duty of man can be summed up in the two great commandments: First, you shall love the Lord your God with all your strength and with all your soul and with all your heart and with all your mind, and, second, you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On this foundation we can affirm the objective goodness and rightness of love, generosity, self sacrifice, and equality, and condemn as objectively evil and wrong selfishness, hatred, abuse, discrimination, and oppression.

We can see, then, that the existence of God provides a coherent, rationale basis for the existence of a transcendent morality. It may be argued that someone can do "good" things without a belief in God. That is true. A person certainly could donate money to charity without believing in God. However, without God, there is no reason to label that action "good." It has the same inherent "morality" as would stealing money from the poor box at church. Only the existence of the character of God and the communication of God which defines charity as "good" provides any justification for differentiating theft from charity. Therefore, a person can do something which we describe as "good" even if they do not believe in God. But without God, nothing is genuinely described as "good." So, in essence, it is impossible to be "good" without God.

Can atheism come up with a God-substitute? That is, can there be a transcendent "good" and "evil" without a transcendent source for such a distinction? Not that I have seen. And some atheists have been rather up front about the fact.

One source of "morality" that I've heard atheists bandy about is evolutionary theory. However, this really offers no transcendent morality in any sense. Michael Ruse, a Professor of the Philosophy of Science makes this clear:

Consider also that what aids in survival and reproduction often clashes with what most of us consider to be moral. A man who habitually rapes and impregnates women will be aiding himself in a very successful reproductive program. And if he's a strong intelligent fellow, his wanton acts of rape may actually aid the species in reproduction as well.

R. Z. Friedman, a philosopher of the University of Toronto, concludes, "Without religion the coherence of an ethic of compassion cannot be established. The principle of respect for persons and the principle of the survival of the fittest are mutually exclusive."

I have also seen people claim that morality is just a matter of common sense or human reason. Again, this substitute fails provide a coherent, justified, transcendent moral code. Kai Nielsen is an atheist ethicist at the University of Calgary. Professor Nielsen candidly admits that "human reason" offers no guidance in developing a concept of true morality:

We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view, or that all really rational persons should not be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn't decide here. The picture I have painted for you is not a pleasant one. Reflection on it depresses me.... Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.

Kai Nielsen, "Why Should I Be Moral?" American Philosophical Quarterly 21 (1984): 90.

I see no atheistic alternative or substitute for a transcendent being in developing a coherent, justifiable moral scheme. Nor do I have much hope that one could be developed. It seems impossible that one could develop a transcendent moral code without recourse to a transcendent source for that moral code.

©2004 Christopher Price

Questions or comments concerning this article or the use of this article should be directed to Christopher Price.