Can Morality Exist without God?

In a word, no. More to the point, morality cannot exist without a conception of God. 

Most religious traditions place suffering at the core of the nature of Being. That is, Being cannot exist without suffering, limitation, dissatisfaction, and death. This problem of suffering demands a solution (since none of us are inclined to abide in our suffering). Ultimately, Being can be viewed, fundamentally, as a series of problems to be solved. 

How will we stay warm? How will we get food? How will we protect ourselves from nature (both within and without)?

At every level, our orientation is to identify and solve problems with the goal of reducing the suffering in our lives. Pain is arguably the most motivating factor in human life and our brain is naturally oriented towards problem solving (i.e. the alleviation of suffering). Our technological advancement is an effort to constrain nature. Our culture traditions are aimed at resolving societal problems. 

So with that in mind, let’s start by taking a look at the language used in the problem solving arena. The first ideas that come to mind are the concepts of “right” and “wrong.” We conceptualize a problem and aim at resolution for that problem. We use the ideas of right and wrong to evaluate solutions to said problem and determine a path forward. Right and wrong are not moral terms because at this level, we are not dealing with moral problems.

Let’s take the problem of navigating from point A to point B as an example. This isn’t a moral issue, at least under typical circumstances. It is simply a process of evaluating optional paths to get you to where you want to be. If a choice moves you closer to point B, then it is right. If it doesn’t, then it is wrong. The terms “right” and “wrong” are sufficient to evaluate these sorts of problems.

But as we elevated the height of our problems, we tend also to expand the base language that we use to navigate the problem. Let’s call these ethical problems. In the ethical realm we tend towards terms like “good” and “bad.” Here we can frame solutions as “values.” Values including those like fairness, beauty, justice, autonomy, and responsibility.

These are abstractions, unmoored from any specific case or narrow problem. They operate at a higher conceptual level and thus cover a broader range of problems in our lives. These are also problems that are far more complex, typically without simple solutions. These are the types of problems that cannot simply take a binary right/wrong approach. They deal in more ambiguity and have solutions which are better (more good) and worse (more bad) but often with a mix of good and bad. The simple binary language of right and wrong is no longer fit to the task. The value, in turn, is also not so clear.

But what of the ultimate problem? What of THE problem of Being. This is a problem so abstracted that it covers the whole of life, all elements, over all time, for ourselves, our ancestors, and all generations to come. As we aim higher, we must broaden the concepts of right and wrong (good and bad) into the ultimate edge of the spectrum, the final word that lies at the base of this orientation. At this level we cannot help but use religious language, that of “Evil” and “Righteousness.”

And what is the ultimate solution to the ultimate problem? This is God. God is the orientation towards the highest of values. Transcendent value. Universal value. Timeless value. The specific symbols and manifestations of God may differ from person to person but the ultimate reality of God exists in each one of us, regardless of our invocation of a deity. 

When we speak of morality, we speak of a transcendent ethic. One that is not easily defined and cannot follow a simple set of rules or rote procedures. This transcendent ethic must be oriented towards a transcendent value, that is, oriented towards God. I imagine this as a triumvirate, a hierarchical form, a direction and goal oriented form, with the base comprised of the spectrum of positive and negative language on which this value structure stands. It is as though you cannot reach the conceptual level of God, without widening the base of the concepts which we use to speak about God.

At this level things become so abstracted as to become paradoxical, ineffable, and persistently mysterious. Let’s take the Semitic perspective of God as an example. What is the solution to the problem of Being? Being. Literally as encapsulated in the translation of Yahweh, “the one who is, the existing”; “to be”; “to become”. What is the solution to the suffering of life then? To be. To become.

Highly correlated is the Daoist concept of the Way. The Way is a process - a path - and walking the path is the goal. Being and becoming are the goal. And how do we know if we on the Path, aligned with the Way, properly Becoming? It is only in reference to the Evil and Righteousness in our lives. Simple concepts of Right and Wrong are not sufficient. They are not expansive enough and they limit our thinking. We need transcendent language. The type of language that is as paradoxical, ineffable, and mysterious as the concept of God itself. 

What is Evil? Impossible to say but we know it when we see it. 

What is God? Impossible to say but we know it when we see it.

What Separates Us From the Animals?

This is a perennial question that has dogged philosophers for ages. What makes us special?

Many answers have been floated: language, religion, music, economics, strong social bonds, use of tools, discovery of fire, and our ability to reason to name a few. Here I'll attempt to explain what I think is the most fundamental difference that separate us from other animals and in order to not dispense with valuable insight on the subject, I will also attempt to synthesize some of those traditional answers to the question with my answer.

But first, let us explore the usual answers a bit and look at why they seem to fall short of feeling satisfactory. The issue with most answers to the question is that they essentially lie at the end of a spectrum that we can observe in many other creatures. Take language for example. While we certainly have a unique mastery of language, there is abundant evidence that all sorts of intelligent animals use language to one extent or another. There is a growing body of research regarding whales, apes, dolphins, and birds showing they all have a sort of language - even including regional dialects. Or as another example, consider tools. Once again, we humans clearly reign supreme on this front but monkeys use sticks to retrieve bugs, octopuses use coconut shells as makeshift shelters, and elephants will scratch themselves with branches. I think most of the answers offered up for the question are subject to this sort of analysis. They typically come down to a difference of degree but not a difference of kind, thus feeling incomplete as an answer.

This brings us to my answer to the question, one that I consider a difference in kind rather than degree. Something which is manifest in humans but which is not easily identified in animals, even in a primitive form.

This difference is the concept of "Why?" It is our ability to ask why that has charted us on such a divergent, developmental path. It is easy to point to how animals utilize the concepts of who (crows are quite adapt at recognizing faces), what (primates can answer simple questions), when (dogs seem to use smell as a marker of time), and how (clearly creatures can conceive of a goal and make plans to move toward it). But I don’t see any straight forward examples of animals handling the concept of why.

This is where humans stand apart. Clearly the question of why is central to our lives and so much of our culture flows from that conception. Once we form the concept of why, the next natural development is that of reason. In other words, we are inclined to offer reasons in response to the question of why. This in turn leads to the development of a robust form of Reason itself. Along with the development of those reasons, you need a mechanism to articulate your reasons (i.e. language). So in response to these questions of why, humans needed the new tools of reason and language to grapple with such questions.

Let’s take this reasoning to its logical conclusion. Every answer to the questions of why begs another why in response, resulting in a sort of infinite regress. Spend any time chatting with a six-year-old child and you will see this infinite regress in action. There is always a deeper why to be asked - a more fundamental understanding to be had. So what happens when you ask deeper and deeper questions of why? At some point you dig so deep that you hit the whys of transcendent experience. In other words, you begin to ask the questions which fit squarely into the realm of religion. Why do we suffer? Why is there something rather than nothing? Why are we here?

Herein lies the synthesis that I mentioned earlier. A few of the common answers (reason, language, religion) to the question of “what separates us from the animals" can all trace their roots back to the question of why. It is a demarcation point that has allowed us to achieve wondrous (and terrible) things. It is a sort of positive feedback loop which has launched us off in a distinct trajectory and - in my opinion - any accounting of our meteoric rise through the animal kingdom must have a deeply embedded positive feedback mechanism to fuel such advancement.

To some, this may be an equally unsatisfactory answer because I cannot offer any mechanism as to how humans came to the point of asking why. That is a question for someone much smarter than myself - I'm sure. But one thing is for certain, we must first ask the right question, in order to find the right answer.

That question is, at root, Why?

1 Second Everyday

Last year marked the beginning of a new project where (almost) every day I took a short video clip (a second and a half). At the end of the year, I cut all of them together to create this video which provides a small window into my entire year. There were some big events this year…a move, an engagement, and tons of great views, but a few themes stand out for 2018:

• Hotels and Airplanes - The number of flights I had last year was a bit staggering (stay tuned for Quantified Self 2018). With my new job in 2019, I’m sure this will be a big change in 2019.

• Cats - As the Internet is well aware, cats are a never ending supply of joy and entertainment. I’m sure Henry and Charlie will be stars of 2019 as well.

• Andrea - She’s not going anywhere and I doubt she is going to get any less silly. Prepare to see more faces, dance moves, and singing in 2019.

Check out my year below and stayed tuned for season 2 in January 2020.