An Earlier Draft of "An Atheist Morality without God"

When readers look at my paper, "An Atheist Morality without God", the first thing seen is that I had trouble getting it passed peer review.

Submission received: 2 March 2025/Revised: 22 September 2025 / Accepted: 3 November 2025 / Published: 12 November 2025

One peer reviewer wanted to debate me about the problem of horrendous suffering in my first few paragraphs. I thought what I said was pertinent. But this reviewer was not giving an inch, some criticisms of which were ignorant. Dr. Sterba suggested he or she felt threatened by what I wrote and wasn't going to accept the paper unless I deleted that part, so I did.  

Here is the contested part: 

On God and Horrendous Suffering

When it comes to horrendous suffering I have written several chapters in my books on it, plus edited, God and Horrendous Suffering (2021). The force of this problem is much greater for evangelicals, who believe a perfectly good, all powerful, all knowing theistic God exists, who allegedly inspired the horrific tales in the Bible, including sending people into an eternal conscious torment in hell. That explains why evangelical apologists like William Lane Craig said, “The problem of evil is certainly the greatest obstacle to belief in the existence of God. When I ponder both the extent and depth of suffering in the world, whether due to man’s inhumanity to man or to natural disasters, then I must confess that I find it hard to believe that God exists.”1

Christian philosopher James F. Sennett echoed what Craig said: “By far the most important objection to the faith is the so-called problem of evil—the alleged incompatibility between the existence or extent of evil in the world and the existence of God. I tell my philosophy of religion students that, if they are Christians and the problem of evil does not keep them up at night, then they don’t understand it.”2 The force of this problem is perhaps the greatest for Calvinists who believe in theological determination, as opposed to non-Calvinists who believe in free will.

God and Horrendous Suffering, 2nd Edition (2026)

My anthology God and Horrendous Suffering (2026) is my last book. To get a copy of it click here. Other important links you can follow include a written debate I had on this issue with Dr. Don McIntosh at The Secular Web, plus a video on YouTube by Michael Maletin, as narrated by Seth Andrews. It has gained some fantastic blurbs! 

  

With this anthology I have written, co-written, edited, and co-edited enough books on enough topics that, taken as a whole, they can be compared to a small encyclopedia, addressing all of the crucially important issues Christians must face when honestly considering the truth of their faith. 

 

I’m very grateful for the authors who have written chapters for my books, along with those who wrote the forewords and blurbs. I’m also very grateful to my readers for their encouragement over the years, and their recommendations of my books to others.  

 

There are even translations of my books. The one on the left is an Arabic translation of The Case against Miracles--translated as Essays on Miracles. Arabic is a Semitic language (related to Hebrew). The other one is a Persian translation of Why I Became an Atheist, which is an Indo-European language (related to English and French). A Korean translation of a third book is pictured in the comments.

 

 

 The first edition of God and Horrendous Suffering was published in 2021 by the Global Center for Religious Research (GCRR), which was headed up by Darren Slade. We were finalizing  a 2nd edition when he abruptly put a halt to it, defaulting on his contracts with his authors, and releasing them back to us.  [If you're a published author with GRCC you too are released from your book contract!] 

Visit My "Academia.edu" Papers

I have published papers for Academia.edu, a few of which aren't found elsewhere. Here they are in one Link.

---A Minimal Facts Approach to the Problem of Evil. In my anthology, God and Horrendous Suffering, my focus as an author is on heinous, hideous, horrific levels of horrendous suffering given the belief in a theistic God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect good. Unless we focus on that kind of suffering, the kind that seems needless and absolutely inexplicable, we'll fail to see the problem of evil for what it is. Instead of focusing on bruises, sprained ankles, slaps on the cheek, a clump of hair being pulled out, or sicknesses like colds and the flu, let's focus instead on people who have been burned alive, boiled alive, and buried alive. This paper is set to be published in the Freedom from Religion Foundation's next monthly publication!

---Hume's Four Suplemental Arguments Against Miracles. David Hume argued that the prior probability of a miracle is infinitely low because it violates established laws of nature. Consequently, the likelihood of human testimony being mistaken will almost always outweigh the probability of the miracle itself, making it irrational to believe. Often neglected, David Hume offered four additional or supplemental arguments that discussed the "likelihood" and "false positive rate" in Part 2 of Chapter 10 of the Enquiry.

I think David Hume didn't revise or edit his chapter after knowing about Bayes is because he already used the structure of Bayes in his chapter! Plus, in his philosophical proof he already argued against the possibility of human testimony to overcome the laws of nature. After that destruction what else did Hume need to say?

---Preface, Blurbs, Contents and Introduction to "God and Horrendous Suffering" 2nd Edition. This paper contains the Preface, Blurbs, Contents, and Full Introduction to "God and Horrendous Suffering" 2nd Edition.

“He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands”

Oh please, give me a break: It's ridiculous bragging!  

For a long time I have suggested that people should carefully study—and absorb the truth about—World War I. In John Loftus’ Second Edition of God and Horrendous Suffering, he included my essay, The Problem of World War I, in which I present the case that this brutal conflict should have put an end to belief in a good, caring, all-powerful god. World War II reenforces this conclusion, as Darrell Ray has pointed out in his book, The God Virus: How Religion Infects Our Lives and Cultures: 

“It took two world wars for Europeans to realize that the prayers of millions of people were not answered. It doesn’t take much intelligence to see that god isn’t working too well when 92 million people died in two world wars, or to see the complicity and cooperation of the Pope, Lutheran clergy and Christians with Hitler during WWII.” (page 75)

Why Didn't David Hume Respond Upon Knowing Bayes Theorem?

I'm currently trying to resurrect David Hume from the dead. We've established that David Hume knew of Bayes Theorem and had two chances to edit his chapter "Of Miracles" in response, but didn't. This seems to be "a deliberate philosophical position," per William Vanderburgh.

As an author I've published a great many blog posts, papers, and books about a whole lot of issues; a small encyclopedia of them, if you will. The more that one publishes the more of a context informed readers have for understanding an author on a separate issue. So let's consider the relevant books of David Hume, apart from his History of England which was a massively influential six-volume historical work that thrust him into fame. Let's see if there's a reason he didn't respond to Bayes Theorem. (In what follows A.I. insisted that I let her help a bit.)

A Treatise of Human Nature was published in London in multiple volumes between 1739 and 1740. Together it was Hume’s most comprehensive philosophical work. It breaks down the origins of human knowledge, ideas, cause and effect, personal identity, the passions, and morality.

An Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding (1748). A more accessible, revised version of the first book of the Treatise. It specifically addresses skepticism, our understanding of cause and effect, free will, and the critique of miracles. Thomas Bayes’s work on probability appeared posthumously in 1763. His friend Richard Price discovered the manuscript and published it posthumously in 1767 along with his explanation of Bayesian methods for assessing miracles. We know Hume read Price's paper and liked it. But Hume neither addressed Bayesian arguments nor revised his account of miracles for the 1768 and 1777 editions of his Enquiry.

An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals (1751): Hume’s dedicated work on ethics. By relying on empirical observations of human nature rather than abstract religious or rationalist dogmas, Hume presents morality as a practical, natural tool designed by humans to foster social harmony and mutual well-being.

The Natural History of Religion (1757). Hume treats religious history as a natural, secular phenomenon, fundamentally undermining the belief that religion is inherently rooted in reason or divine revelation.

Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion (1779). His last book published posthumanously. It explores the psychological and sociological origins of religious belief, arguing that religion stems not from rational contemplation or innate knowledge of God, but from the emotional drives of human nature, primarily fear, anxiety, and the desire for security.

Why Won't William Lane Craig Debate Me? (Plus Further Comments On Horrendous Suffering).

In this episode I started watching and I commented. Phil Harper was there!!! Then unexpectedly Derek Lambert sent me a link to be in the show. That was nice! I think it went well, starting early on with the question why William Lane Craig won't debate me. 

 

  

 

I had mentioned my novel approach to the problem of evil, calling it the minimal facts approach, LINK. Get my book on horrendous suffering, LINK. Derek Lambert's show is most excellent! Check out his other amazing videos!

A Minimal Facts Approach the the Problem of Evil

I just uploaded a major paper at "Academia.edu" titled, "A Minimal Facts Approach to the Problem of Evil." Hat tip to Gary Habermas and Michael Licona for the concept! Enjoy, and if you enjoy it please share! Get the book here: LINK. After reading it Frank Zindler said: "You can never have too much Loftus!" I like it! [Look him up!]

Visit My Page at The Secular Web!

Avid readers will pardon me for reminding others of my page at The Secular Web. I've published on some key issues there. They cover major faith responses to those of us who value reason and science. Consider the recommendation of Frank Zindler, who recently said, "You can never have too much Loftus!" I like it! [Look him up!]

The first one you'll see is a link to an offsite paper: Atheist Morality Without God.

This essay is a response to James Sterba's "An Ethics without God that is Compatible with Darwinian Evolution" and thoroughly provides a secular morality in that it argues that the most reasonable ethics are secular systems that don't require a God, gods, or goddesses. Loftus further goes on to defend an atheist morality by appealing to polls that show that there is a common neighborly morality that matters to most people based in facts about who we are as a species, which includes facts about the prehistoric world. Finally, Loftus argues that 'Sterbaian ethics' succeeds in that it is useful for human flourishing.

My most recent paper is Assessing McIntosh's Sophisticated Defense of Miracles. Here's the abstract:

In a previous paper Don McIntosh showed an exceptional awareness of the major objections to belief in miracles. In his attempt at a comprehensive rebuttal to them, his first goal was to argue that there are no fixed, exceptionless laws of nature, and thus nothing to prevent reasonable people from accepting miracle reports from reliable witnesses. His second goal was to argue that miracles are best understood as divine activity that merely defies our expectations and so miracles are akin to “signs” and “wonders.” His final goal was to offer a positive case for miracles that doesn’t lean on human testimony, which is generally considered weak as part of a defense of belief in miracles. Here McIntosh defended three categories: (1) miracles of cosmology; (2) miracles of prophecy; and (3) miracles of experience. 

In this reply John W. Loftus offers a comprehensive rebuttal to McIntosh. Loftus argues that there are regularities of nature on a mega scale that can be described by many essential equations, and that this should be good enough. To deny the existence of the laws of nature raises twin problems. On the one hand, such a denial would open the flood gates to include false miracle claims in the absence of any way to check them against laws of nature. On the other hand, such denial would undercut the basis for belief in biblical miracles since it would concede that biblical authors didn’t require solid evidence for their occurrence. Loftus goes on to argue that this is exactly what we find in the Bible—unevidenced, superstitious miracle stories. Finally, he concludes that McIntosh’s miracles of cosmology are based on a kind of ignorance, as are the alleged Hebrew Bible prophecies of the promised land, and McIntosh’s conclusions from his own personal testimony.

There are others.

The Christian Faith Makes No Sense. This one hasn't had too much promotion but it's really good!

In this paper I canvass a variety of ideas throughout the Christian Bible that make no sense at all. These include God's unembodiment, timelessness, foreknowledge, and human characteristics like longing and tribalism, as well as the idea of divine inspiration, the Trinity, the existence of Satan, the Incarnation, the Atonement, the Resurrection, the Ascension, Heaven and Hell, punishment for sin, the task of evangelism, and the need for apologetics. These epitomize what Jeremy Bentham famously called nonsense upon stilts.

My Debate Notes: "God Probably Doesn't Exist Given the Existence of Horrendous Suffering, by John W. Loftus

Get this huge book!!

I had mentioned this debate yesterday. Here is my planned opening statement: 

My focus is on heinous, hideous, horrific levels of horrendous suffering given the belief in a theistic God who is all-powerful, all-knowing, and perfect good. Unless we focus on that kind of suffering, the kind that seems needless and absolutely inexplicable, we’ll fail to see this problem for what it is. Instead of focusing on bruises, sprained ankles, slaps on the cheek, a clump of hair being pulled out, or sicknesses like colds and the flu, let’s focus instead on people who have been burned alive, boiled alive, and buried alive.

God may well have good reasons to allow for a modest amount of pain since we have physical bodies and we will all die. So we can set aside that kind of suffering as largely uninteresting in this discussion. Horrendous suffering, by contrast, should be our focus. My perspective is a “minimal facts” approach to the problem of suffering. I’m arguing that God should not allow a specific kind of suffering, horrendous suffering. Failing to focus on it is a failure to honestly search for the truth, for when horrendous suffering is our focus, the standard theodicies don’t work.

My contention is that the theistic God probably doesn't exist given the existence of horrendous suffering. Just ask what we would expect to find if we woke up one morning for the very first time. Would we expect to find so much horrendous suffering on this planet? I submit that people would never guess there would be as much horrendous suffering as there is in our world if such a God existed. For it’s clear that God should never allow it. We wouldn’t expect the existence of God since he could prevent it, should prevent it, yet doesn’t prevent it.

1. Horrendous Suffering 2. Catastrophic Superstitions 3. A Vicious God

Christian theology is shattered by these three factors

For centuries, the devout—determined to preserve and protect their faith—have ignored reality. They have turned off curiosity and critical thinking. That just doesn’t work anymore. 

 

There are major brick walls that Christian theology smacks into—and these should put a stop to belief in the god it claims to adore, follow, and worship. Let’s consider three of these brick walls.

The Best Cure for Christianity Is Reading the Bible, Essay No. 7

Big problems with the apostle Paul: please stop calling him a saint

Just how did the apostle Paul become convinced that Jesus was the key to salvation? He assured one of his congregations that he heard this news directly from Jesus himself, in a heavenly vision: 

 

“For I want you to know, brothers and sisters, that the gospel that was proclaimed by me is not of human origin, for I did not receive it from a human source, nor was I taught it, but I received it through a revelation of Jesus Christ. (Galatians 1:11-12)

The Problem of Evil Will Pulverize Theism into Oblivion Thanks To James Sterba, Paul Draper, and My New Book On Horrendous Suffering!

This latest book by Paul Draper should be very good! This should lead to a triple thumping to take place against Christian theism! It's coming from books by Sterba, Draper, and Loftus! The 2nd edition of mine comes out in about two weeks!

Honest Sermons on the Gospel of Mark: Chapter 9

A sorry mix of superstition, cult bragging, and bad theology

Baptist preacher William Miller predicted that Jesus would return on October 22, 1844. Thousands of people were psyched for this dramatic event, which turned into what became known as The Great Disappointment, since Jesus didn’t show up. Miller had calculated the date based on data—what he assumed was data—that he found in the Bible. He should have grasped that some Bible data is just plain wrong. Such as the opening verse of Mark 9: “Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.” 

 
We are entitled to wonder what was going on in the head of the author of Mark’s gospel—whoever that was. There is consensus among mainstream New Testament scholars that this gospel was written in the wake of the destructive First Jewish-Roman War (67-70 CE), during which Jerusalem and the temple were destroyed. This horror is reflected in Mark 13. The Jesus-script in Mark 9:1 might reflect this gap of four decades between supposed Jesus events and the writing of the gospel: “some standing here who will not taste death” until they see the arrival of the kingdom. Some maybe, likely very few.

Video: Calvinism and the Problem of Evil:

Video 1: My livestream on Calvinism and the problem of evil.

I did a livestream reaction-video today on the problem of evil. There are some sound issues with this video, but my sound seems to have been mostly recorded, it is just quiet. The reason for its quietness is that there was a lot of background noise: cars passing, heavy rain, renovations—or, in the American dialect: remodelling—and so I had to have the gain on my cardioid Blue Yeti mic down really low, so as to exclude most of this background noise. The heat and the humidity, here in Ireland—as I am sure that my friend from North of the Border, Ignorant Amos, might confirm—is quite severe today, and so I had to have my windows open despite all of the background noise going on. However, I did not stand close enough to the microphone, and so the sound of my voice is really low. It was my first stream using OBS, and I think that it was ok for a first attempt.

Sound issues aside, one of the points that I keep returning to is that I consider Systematic Theology to be a System of Lies. In my view, “Systematic Theology” is merely an attempt by theologians to force the Biblical Text into its being univocal … when it is anything but.

I refer to Captain Cassidy McGillicudy, quite a lot, as I particularly like her style of counterapologetic. I don’t think that Captain Cassidy has much of a presence on YouTube which is why I particularly like to discuss her ideas on YouTube. I have binge-read most of what she has written over a period of more than a decade. Captain Cassidy, as I read her, is much more interested in persuading her readers that Christianity is harmful, rather than persuading her readers that Christianity is false. That Christianity is false, really should be a given, in this day and age. A religion invented to swindle mostly illiterate Mediterranean peasants, 2,000 years ago, really should not be swindling and fooling people today, in the age of the internet and Artificial Intelligence. As John Loftus puts it:

‘2,000 years is enough!’

. Pondering, though, the ways in which Christianity may be harmful, to my lights, is a much more interesting discussion, than pondering the myriad ways in which Christianity is false. Cassidy excels at this. To this end, allow me to recommend 24 Reasons to Abandon Christianity (2022) by Charles Bufe. From what I remember from this book, and I read it but recently, Bufe mostly argues from Christianity’s being harmful rather than arguing from Christianity’s being false.

As John Loftus writes in a chapter in one of his anthologies—I just looked up my Kindle edition of God and Horrendous Suffering (2021), and it does not appear to be this one—the harm caused by Christianity is itself an argument from evil against the existence of an all-powerful, all-seeing and omnibenevolent god. Another humorous quip of Loftus’s is:

‘God’s hiring practices are abysmal!’

Leaving Home

[Dr. Valerie Tarico posted this on 05/25/2007. Enjoy!]

Greetings! John has graciously asked me to join this community of thinkers and scholars, and I am honored to say yes. In a world torn by religous tribalism, what could be more important than re-examining the traditions that have inextricably blended wisdom and community with bigotry and violence.

I will begin, as others have, by posting my deconversion story. Out of a sheer overwhelming lack of time, I am cheating: copying out of my book,The Dark Side: How Evangelical Teachings Corrupt Love and Truth, rather than beginning the narrative again from scratch.

Leaving Home.

When I first started having misgivings about my faith, I did what any good Evangelical would: I prayed. I was fifteen at the time, earnest and devout. An eldest daughter with a caretaker’s heart and responsibilities. A good student surrounded by a good family, good friends, and a good church community. Even so, the cognitive changes that beset teenagers—increased ability to introspect, to think critically, and to envision the possible—were giving me trouble.

Honest Sermons on the Gospel of Mark: Chapter 7

The devout must hope Mark was wrong about Jesus here

 
If the Judeo-Christian god truly had the welfare of humanity at the center of attention, it’s hard to understand why he/she/it didn’t include a major book in the Bible about health and hygiene. This missing book could have included detailed information about germs, exactly why we get sick, and ways to stay healthy and fit. Was this god satisfied that it would take thousands of years for humans to discover the realities of disease? In the meantime, we suffer, so what? So much of the Bible is useless nonsense: what harm would it have done to include a major book explaining the realities of human biology and contagion?

A Christian Defends Popular Theobabble with Amateur Theobabble

Religious personal opinion doesn’t replace epistemology 

 

In my article here last week, I explained exactly why He’s Got the Whole World in His Hands—popular though it might be—is nonetheless theobabble. It makes no sense whatever when we honestly admit that there is so much pain and suffering in the world. But devout folks have devised ways to divert attention from these realities. It was no surprise, therefore, a Catholic jumped into the debate. One of his earliest comments was:
 
“God has a plan. Human beings act freely within that plan. People committing acts of violence and mass murder are acting against God’s Plan. God’s divine providence makes sure that good comes from the evil. So basically, if had not been for Gods plan, the human race would have destroyed itself long ago.”

The Evil God Challenge, Part One: Introduction

John W. Loftus asked me to write about Steven Law’s Evil God challenge (Wikipedia link). The topic turns out to be rather large, and it ramifies into several related topics that should be familiar to readers of this blog.

The Evil God challenge spawned a sizable literature, with articles that expand on it, and articles from theists that attempt to rebut it or nullify it. To keep the subject manageable, I’ll split my coverage across several articles. This article introduces the subject and provides references and a video.

• Wikipedia articles:
  • Steven Law
  • Evil God challenge (Wikipedia link)
• Steven Law’s blog pages:
  • The Evil God Challenge, February 12, 2010, announcing his original paper:
    • Law, Stephen. “The evil-god challenge.” Religious Studies 46, no. 3 (2010): 353-373.
    • PDF link to the paper
  • God, Evil, and Theodicies - Evil God and Mirror Theodicies, January 10, 2016
• Scholarly links:
  • The Evil God Challenge, Google Scholar entries
  • The Evil God Challenge, Google Scholar search result (original paper plus responses)
• And on Debuking Christianity:
  • What is the Likelihood That a Trickster or Evil God Exists?, 1/22/2010

Now that AI is here, check out my brief chat with Google Gemini on the Evil God challenge. Here is Gemini’s initial response:

Steven Law’s “Evil God challenge” is a philosophical thought experiment that questions the traditional concept of an all-good, all-powerful God. Here’s a summary of its core ideas:

• The Challenge:
  • Law presents the challenge of explaining why believing in an all-good God is more reasonable than believing in an all-evil God.
  • He argues that many arguments for God’s existence don’t inherently prove God’s goodness, and could equally support the existence of an evil deity.
• The Symmetry Thesis:
  • A key component is the “symmetry thesis,” which suggests that if the existence of good in the world is used to argue against an all-evil God, then the existence of evil should similarly argue against an all-good God.
  • Essentially, he questions why the “problem of evil” is considered a strong argument against a good God, but the “problem of good” isn’t considered an equally strong argument against an evil God.
• The Goal:
  • The challenge aims to provoke deeper consideration of the attributes ascribed to God, and to examine the logical consistency of theistic arguments.
  • It also forces examination of why we define good and evil in the way that we do.
• Responses:
  • There have been many responses to Laws challenge, including arguments that good is a positive reality, and evil is a privation of good, therefore not symmetrical. Also there are arguments that an all evil god, would not allow any good to exist.

In essence, Law’s challenge forces us to consider why we prioritize belief in a good God over an evil one, and to scrutinize the reasoning behind our theological assumptions.

Gemini’s summary is pretty good, but could do better at framing the Evil God challenge as a tool for showing how weak the standard theodicies are. (A theodicy is an attempt by a Christian apologist to solve the Problem of Evil, i.e. to explain how there can be so much evil in a world supposedly created by an omni-God.) Steven Law says that for many of the standard Christian responses to the Problem of Evil, there is a “mirror theodicy” that equally well (or poorly) tries to explain how there can be so much good in a world created by an omni-malevolent God. If the theist views the theodicy as a valid justification for the omni-God, why then isn’t the mirror theodicy an equally valid justification for the Evil God?

Alert readers will recognize similarities to parody religions and Street Epistemology, topics I’ll address in following articles. To very briefly summarize, both of those things aim to stimulate critical reflection by showing a person how the arguments they give to support their own religious claims work equally well, mutatis mutandis, to support a wide variety of other claims, such as the claims of other religions, or of parody religions.

This notion of analyzing the form of an argument, and plugging different terms into it, to see if the argument form still seems to work, is central to critical thinking. Around 2400 years ago, Ancient Greek thinkers began to analyze arguments this way. Presumably people had been making arguments for as long as they had language (which might have been for as long as people had anatomically modern vocal organs). Critical thinking began when people realized that arguments aren’t just things you assert when you want to make some specific point, but things that have forms you can analyze. The Evil God challenge is a clever case study in this kind of critical thinking.

Here’s a video to finish off this short introduction to the Evil God Challenge. Enjoy!

Actual Pain vs. Remembered Pain - A Crucial Difference for the Problem of Evil

You might wonder what this article has to do with zebras. Spoiler: they teach us how pain is not necessary for soul building, even if we allow for the baseless metaphysical projection of souls from the merely physical psychology of learning. Unlike Bruce Springsteen, Zebras are literally born to run.

In his blog post entitled My Paper on Morality without God is finished of March 1, 2025, John W. Loftus mentions his visit to Notre Dame University to meet James Sterba. A photo accompanying his post shows a reprint of Sterba’s article An Ethics without God That Is Compatible with Darwinian Evolution (Religions 2024, 15(7), 781; doi.org/10.3390/rel15070781). Religions is an Open Access journal, so Sterba’s paper is free to read online. (Read it now! I’ll wait.) The paper overlaps considerably with Sterba’s recent book:

Could a Good God Permit So Much Suffering?: A Debate by James Sterba, Richard Swinburne, OUP Oxford | 2024 | ISBN: 9780192664693, 0192664697 | Page count: 160.

Publisher’s blurb:

Another Chapter by Dr. David Eller: "Christianity Does Not Provide the Basis for Morality"

This is his Chapter 13 from my anthology "The Christian Delusion." Enjoy.

Christianity Does Not Provide the Basis for Morality by Dr. David Eller.

            Imagine someone said to you that English provided the only basis for grammar.  After you overcame your shock, you would respond that English is certainly not the only language with a grammar. You would add that grammar is not limited to language: understood broadly as rules for combination and transformation, many phenomena have a grammar, from sports to baking. Nor is grammar the sole or essential component of language: language also includes sound systems, vocabularies, genres, and styles of speech. And you would remind the speaker that grammar does not depend on human language at all: some nonhuman species, including chimps and parrots, can produce grammatical—that is, orderly and rule-conforming—short sentences. Ultimately, you would want to explain that English does not “provide a basis” for grammar at all but rather represents one particular instance of grammar. English grammar is definitely not the only grammar in the world and even more definitely not the “real” grammar.

            The person who utters a statement like “English provides the only basis for grammar” either understands very little about English (and language in general) or grammar, or the person is expressing his or her partisanship about language (i.e., pro-English)—or, more likely, the speaker is doing both. Thus, the person who utters a statement like “Christianity provides the only basis for morality” either understands very little about Christianity (or religion in general) or morality, or the person is expressing his or her partisanship about religion (i.e., pro-Christianity)—or, more likely, the speaker is doing both. But, as a savvy responder, you would answer that Christianity is certainly not the only religion with morality. You would add that morality is not limited to religion: understood broadly as standards for behavior, many phenomena have a morality, from philosophy to business. Nor is morality the sole or essential component of religion: religion also includes myths, rituals, roles, and institutions of behavior. And you would remind the speaker that morality does not depend on human religion at all: some nonhuman species demonstrate moral—that is, orderly and standard-conforming—behavior. Ultimately, you would want to explain that Christianity does not “provide a basis” for morality at all but rather represents one particular instance of morality.  Christian morality is definitely not the only morality in the world and even more definitely not the “real” morality.