Menu Close

Tag: Objective Morality

Bruce, If There is No God, Who Determines What is Moral?

Bruce Gerencser 5 Comments
objective morality

Recently, I received the follow comment:

Just curious on your thoughts about humans having, wanting and giving of love. Curious on where you believe it comes from.

Also, in your opinion, if there is no God or creator, who makes the morality rules?

Some believe that mankind is ultimately the moral law maker and or compass, in your opinion can anyone change that moral level as they see fit?

If the moral conduct is changed by the masses to whatever works for you, would that be counterproductive to society? Or do you feel mankind is evolving into learning and understanding what is helpful or not helpful to the whole? I hope all this makes sense. If not I will try to clarify.

I appreciate your time to respond.

Generally, I don’t engage is discussions about morality. Been there, done that, so to speak. I have been attacked by Christians and atheists alike over my views on morality. I have been accused of all sorts of “sins.” So, I am not inclined to write about morality, but today I have decided to do so, knowing that new readers have not read my views on this subject.

I am an atheist, so there is no God, no creator, no divine lawgiver. The laws and commands found in the Bible are of human origin. No Christian apologist has provided any evidence to suggest otherwise. Saying, THE BIBLE SAYS, is not evidence; it is an assumption rooted in presuppositionalism. That said, the Bible can be a helpful voice in discussions about morality, showing us how ancient societies viewed morality.

All morality is inherently subjective. There’s no such thing as absolute morality. Even in the Bible, we see morality, including God’s, changing over time. The idea that the Ten Commandments (which version?) or the Bible (which translation?) are an objective moral standard for all people for all time is absurd. History reveals ever-changing moral beliefs and standards. I came of age in the Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) church. IFB churches and pastors believe in absolute morals, yet most IFB churches have moral standards today different from those they had in the 1960s and 1970s. This is especially so for Evangelicals. Yet, these moralizers, with great gusto, proclaim that they are keepers, defenders, and proclaimers of God’s moral standard.

Humans are social creatures, and as such, we need rules by which to govern ourselves. If morality is subjective, who decides what rules to use to govern our societies? We do. There’s no higher standard than “we the people.” If happiness and well-being are our goals — and they are (or should be) — then our morals should reflect those goals. Whether these morals can then be considered objective is a matter of debate, a debate, by the way, that I have no interest in. I know that humans generally agree that murder, rape, child sexual abuse, kidnapping, etc., are morally wrong. We don’t need a deity (or a church/preacher/religious text) to tell us these things are wrong. Why we know these things are wrong is an interesting discussion, one that has provoked much debate. Personally, I am convinced that our moral beliefs are shaped by biology, environment, culture, parental training, education, economic status, religion, and other factors. As you can see, it is far easier to appeal to God or the Bible — no thinking required. However, as stated above, I am an atheist (and a humanist and a socialist). God and the Bible have no place in my thinking.

Since morality is inherently subjective, our morals can and do change over time. And this is what troubles Fundamentalists. They live in a bubble where change is banned (even though a careful analysis shows transformational change taking place in Evangelical churches). Fundamentalists pine for the 1950s, a time when gays were deep in the closet, women were barefoot and pregnant, and Blacks knew their place. The foundation of the culture war is a yearning for what is perceived (falsely) as better times.

Progress demands we continue to examine our moral beliefs and adjust them accordingly. As long as Fundamentalists continue to clamor for, and achieve, a return to “old-fashioned” moral beliefs, progress is impeded. The current spate of anti-transgender, anti-abortion, and pro-creationism laws seems laughable to skeptics and rationalists, but state after state are passing these laws, moving us closer to the “good-old-days.” We must never, ever forget that theocracy (a system of morality) is their goal.

Bruce Gerencser, 67, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 46 years. He and his wife have six grown children and sixteen grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist.

Your comments are welcome and appreciated. All first-time comments are moderated. Please read the commenting rules before commenting.

You can email Bruce via the Contact Form.

Do Atheists Really Love to Wallow in Sin?

Bruce Gerencser 12 Comments

atheists-wallow-in-sin

I just love it when Evangelicals tell the world what it is atheists believe and how they live their lives. One such Evangelical is SpaniardVIII, a man obsessed with dissembling about atheism. He has been publicly challenged and corrected over and over again, but as sure as the sun comes up in the morning, SpaniardVIII will be right back at it, slandering atheists and misrepresenting atheism. Evidently, his Bible does not contain the verse that says, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.”

Today, Spaniard VII asserted:

Look, their [atheists] so-called no evidence for God cry is so outlandish that in reality, they don’t reject God for no evidence [for there is an abundance of it], but their rejection of God is based solely on emotions. They cannot comprehend how God can bring judgment on any nation.

The reason an atheist cannot understand what righteous judgment is, because they reject what sin stands for. For them, sin is a way of life which they love to wallow in like a swine to mud. The world which comprises of people like atheists [haters of God] and those who want nothing to do with Jesus or the real Jesus have a deep hatred for God’s punishment on sin because that is why they live for. The heart of the world is pure darkness and devoid of anything good that pleases God.

….

John 3:19-21 [Emphasis Added]

19 “This, then, is the judgment: The light [Jesus who is the truth] has come into the world, and people [like the atheists] loved darkness rather than the light because their deeds were evil. 20 For everyone who practices wicked things [through the lust of the flesh] hates the light and avoids it, so that his deeds may not be exposed [to hide their true intentions]. 21 But anyone who lives by the truth [those who believe in Jesus Christ and hold on to God’s Word] comes to the light, so that his works may be shown to be accomplished by God.”

SpaniardVIII thinks that when atheists ask for evidence of the existence of the Protestant Christian God of the Bible, what we are really doing is trying to cover up our deep-seated desires to “sin.” No matter how often Evangelicals-turned-atheists tell their stories and attempt to explain why they no longer believe in the existence of God, Evangelicals such as SpaniardVIII will dismiss their testimonies and explanations out of hand. There has to be some OTHER reason for our loss of faith, they wonder. What could it be? Sin! (Please see the posts on the WHY? page)

I can’t even begin to number the times one Evangelical apologist or another has told me that the reason I left the ministry and later left Christianity was due to some sort of dark, secret sin in my life; that if the truth was told about me, everyone would see that I never was a Christian. And so the deconstructions go . . .

SpaniardVIII is right when it comes to how atheists view the notion of “sin.” Sin is a religious construct, and as such, atheists reject it out of hand. For Evangelicals, sin — supposedly — is transgression of the law of God (I John 3:4). I say supposedly because no two Christians agree on what exactly constitutes the law of God. The Ten Commandments? The Nine Commandments? The 613 Laws in the Old Testament? The New Testament? The Old and New Testaments? Or, perhaps the antinomians are right, and none of the Law of God is applicable in this present day of grace.

Take any behavior called “sin” — a sin such as homosexuality — and you will find diverse Evangelical opinions on the matter. Evangelicals are increasingly divided on homosexuality, with many Christians embracing inclusivism and equal protection under the law, while others believing the Bible clearly teaches that homosexuality is a heinous sin against God and humanity, one worthy of severe punishment. Some Evangelicals even think that LGBTQ people should be rounded up, incarcerated and, in some cases, executed!  Both sides of this debate appeal to God and the Bible as justification for their position. Who is right? If Evangelicals can’t agree amongst themselves over what is and isn’t sin, why should the unwashed, uncircumcised Philistines of the world listen to them?

Of course, SpaniardVIII is a special, short-bus kind of Christian. He’s a Bible-believer®, a literalist who knows exactly which human behaviors are sins and which are not. Want to know if something is a sin? Just ask him. And in doing so, SpaniardVIII, in effect, becomes God. He confuses his peculiar interpretation of a fallible, errant, contradictory ancient religious text with the voice of God. SpaniardVIII believes God talks to him, thus affirming that his interpretations of the Bible are “truth.” In any other setting, hearing voices lands you in a psych ward, but because the voice is supposedly the one true and living God, it’s considered perfectly “normal” not only hear God’s voice, but to have conversations with him.

Thus, atheists look at the Evangelical notion of “sin” and objective morality and laugh. Not only do Evangelicals not have an exclusive standard of morality, but their lives betray the fact that they do not practice what they preach; that they are works in progress; that they are not perfect. Never mind the fact that the Bible Evangelicals say they believe says that Christians are to be perfect even as their Father in Heaven is perfect (Matthew 5:48). Never mind the fact that the same Bible says that Christians have the same mind as Christ (I Corinthians 2:16). Never mind the fact 1 John 3:8 says: He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. Do Christians sin? Yes, in thought, word, and deed. Do Christian men look at women with lust in their hearts; even SpaniardVIII? Yes! Then, they are, as the Bible says, adulterers (Matthew 5:28). And, drumroll, please, the Bible says that people who commit adultery and other sins will NOT inherit the Kingdom of God. Take Galatians 5:19-21:

Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness, Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies, Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

Sure sounds like a lot of Christians I have encountered over the years. Much like SpaniardVIII, they rail against the “sins” of others, condemning them to hellfire and brimstone, all the while hiding their own sins behind the “precious” blood of Jesus. Countless Evangelicals have committed horrible crimes (See Black Collar Crime series), yet all they need to do to find complete, unconditional forgiveness is follow 1 John 1:9: If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. Just confess and forget, baby!

I am sure you have seen the glaring contradictions between the aforementioned Bible verses. Which is it? Is forgiveness from sin and a new lease on life just a prayer away? Or are Christians who sin of the devil, and will not inherit the Kingdom of God? You see, when you appeal to the Bible as an infallible standard of right behavior, contradictions abound. SpaniardVIII, then, is forced to play Bible Gymnastics©, hoping to escape drowning in the Sea of Contradiction®.

It is for these reasons and others that atheists reject the notion of “sin.” Now, this doesn’t mean that atheists don’t have moral and ethical standards — they do. SpaniardVIII’s Bible literalism and entrenched Fundamentalism keeps him from thinking critically and objectively about morality. Instead, morality is reduced to “The Bible (or my interpretation thereof) says ________.” Atheists and other non-believer are forced, on the other hand, to think and reason about human behavior. What is “good” and “bad” behavior? How do we determine which behaviors are which? This usually leads to thinking about the objective and subjective nature of morality and human behavior. For example: is sex between consenting unmarried adults wrong? SpaniardVIII would say, absolutely, the Bible says ________. Atheists, however, would need more information before saying whether this behavior is wrong. Atheists, with their rejection of religion-based moral standards, are forced to critically think about human behavior. It’s not that atheists — most of them anyway — are hedonistic libertines. We just have standards of human behavior that differ from that of moralizers such as SpaniardVIII.

Now, SpaniardVIII asserts — again, without evidence — that atheists reject Bible-based morality because they want to wallow in sin. Is this true? Are atheists really the “sinners” SpaniardVIII portrays them to be? Sure, some of them are, but then the same thing can be said about Evangelicals too. As with any group, human behavior varies within the group. Some atheists are awful people, but I can tell you this after a decade of interacting with the godless: most of them are thoughtful, loving, caring people. Sure, they can, at times, do bad things, but the general arc of their lives is towards the humanist ideal. Unlike Evangelicals, atheists don’t have a Get Out of Sin Jail Free card. All atheists can do is admit their bad behavior and do what they can to make restitution. We don’t need a middle man — God — to get between us and people our behavior has harmed. Our goal is to be better people today than we were yesterday.

SpaniardVIII’s atheists-love-to-sin straw man is rooted in his need to project moral superiority. The fact remains that atheists generally want to be good and decent people. I know this is hard for Evangelical zealots to rationalize, but most atheists just want to live and let live. We want to work, enjoy life, love our spouses, children, and grandchildren, make a difference in the world, and watch some football on TV, if we are so inclined. Our rewards come in this life, not the life to come.

I suspect that most atheists’ lives compare quite favorably to those of Christians. Outside of my language being a bit — okay, a lot — more colorful and my TV viewing habits having changed, my life is not much different from when I was a pastor. The difference, of course, is that my “sin” list is much smaller — 3×5 card — and  I no longer negatively judge others who behave differently from me. I am a heterosexual man. I don’t “understand” same-sex attraction. However, I don’t need to. You see, whom people love, marry, or fuck is none of my business. I don’t have to “understand” someone’s life in order to respect and understand them. Take SpaniardVIII. If he was content to quietly and privately live his life according to his interpretation of the Bible, I would have no objection. Each to his own, I say. As long as someone is not harming others — and therein is the rub with Evangelicalism — or forcing them to live by their moral standard, I am fine with how he or she wants to live. However, this is not how SpaniardVIII lives his life. Oh no, he demands that his religion and moral standard be lived by everyone. He genuinely believes that his thoughts and words are “solely based on scripture and not on anyone’s opinion or theology but only on what scripture clearly reveals with the help of the Holy Spirit.” Thus, he feels justified in demanding everyone bow in fealty to his God.

It is at this point that atheists push back. We demand evidence for SpaniardVIII’s claims, yet none is forthcoming. Instead, he offers up Bible prooftexts and personal opinions and interpretations. Atheists don’t reject his moralizing because they want to wallow in sin. Far be from it — though wallowing can be a lot of fun. We reject the messenger and his message. We see through the man and his beliefs. SpaniardVIII wrongly thinks that atheists say to themselves, ” We will not have this God rule over us,” when in fact, what we are saying is this: “We will NOT have SpaniardVIII and his contradictory, anti-human interpretations of a Bronze Age religious text rules over us.” We are free, and we intend to stay that way! Having left the bondage and paucity of Egypt and finding intellectual and personal freedom in the Land of Canaan, we have no intention of returning to the fish, cucumbers, melons, leeks, onions, and garlic of Egypt. It’s not that atheists want to “sin.” They have just found a better way to live — living that doesn’t require obedience to a mythical deity and an irrelevant religious text. And THAT’S what pisses off the SpaniardVIIIs of the world. They look over the proverbial fence and see atheists living the good life and they can’t help but yearn to join us. But they can’t. As long as they believe in the Evangelical God, lives of repressive self-denial are expected lest they find themselves under the chastisement of God. The issue here, then, is not atheists wallowing in “sin” — it’s envy; Evangelicals secretly wishing they could “sin” too. To that I say, come join us! I promise you that atheists really aren’t child molesters who eat fetuses offered up in worship to Satan. We are everyday people who love life, knowing that this is the only one we will ever have.

About Bruce Gerencser

Bruce Gerencser, 62, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 41 years. He and his wife have six grown children and twelve grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist. For more information about Bruce, please read the About page.

Are you on Social Media? Follow Bruce on Facebook and Twitter.

Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section. If you are a first-time commenter, please read the commenting policy before wowing readers with your words. All first-time comments are moderated. If you would like to contact Bruce directly, please use the contact form to do so.

Donations are always appreciated. Donations on a monthly basis can be made through Patreon. One-time donations can be made through PayPal.

Quote of the Day: Does Morality Require a God or Holy Book?

Bruce Gerencser 2 Comments

dr john messerly

Lacking good reasons or armed with weak ones, many will object that their moral beliefs derive from their Gods. To base your ethical views on Gods you would need to know: 1) if Gods exist; 2) if they are good; 3) if they issue good commands; 4) how to find the commands; and 5) the proper version and translation of the holy books issuing commands, or the right interpretation of a revelation of the commands, or the legitimacy of a church authority issuing commands. Needless to say, it is hard, if not impossible, to know any of this.

Consider just the interpretation problem. When does a seemingly straightforward command from a holy book like, “thou shalt not kill,” apply? In self-defense? In war? Always? And to whom does it apply? To non-human animals? Intelligent aliens? Serial killers? All living things? The unborn? The brain-dead? Religious commands such as “don’t kill,” “honor thy parents,” and “don’t commit adultery” are ambiguous. Difficulties also arise if we hear voices commanding us, or if we accept an institution’s authority. Why trust the voices in our heads, or institutional authorities?

For the sake of argument though, let’s assume: that there are Gods; that you know the true one; that your God issues good commands; that you have access to those commands because you have found the right book or church, or had the right vision, or heard the right voices; and that you interpret and understand the command correctly—even if they came from a book that has been translated from one language to another over thousands of years, or from a long-ago revelation. It is almost impossible that you are correct about all this, but for the sake of the argument let’s say that you are. However, even in this case, most philosophers would argue that you can’t base ethics on your God.

To understand why you can’t base ethics on Gods consider the question: what is the relationship between the Gods and their commands? A classic formulation of this relationship is called the divine-command theory. According to divine command theory, things are right or wrong simply because the Gods command or forbid them. There is nothing more to morality than this. It’s like a parent who says to a child: it’s right because I say so. To see how this formulation of the relationship fails, consider a famous philosophical conundrum: “Are things right because the Gods command them, or do the Gods command them because they are right?”

If things are right simply because the Gods command them, then those commands are arbitrary. In that case, the Gods could have made their commandments backward! If divine fiat is enough to make something right, then the Gods could have commanded us to kill, lie, cheat, steal and commit adultery, and those behaviors would then be moral. But the Gods can’t make something right if it’s wrong. The Gods can’t make torturing children morally acceptable simply by divine decree, and that is the main reason why most Christian theologians reject divine command theory.

On the other hand, if the Gods command things because they are right, then there are reasons for the God’s commands. On this view, the Gods, in their infinite wisdom and benevolence, command things because they see certain commands as good for us. But if this is the case, then there is some standard, norm or criteria by which good or bad are measured which is independent of the Gods. Thus all us, religious and secular alike, should be looking for the reasons that certain behaviors should be condemned or praised. Even the thoughtful believer should engage in philosophical ethics.

So either the Gods commands are without reason and therefore arbitrary, or they are rational according to some standard. This standard—say that we would all be better off—is thus the reason we should be moral and that reason, not the Gods’ authority, is what makes something right or wrong. The same is true for a supposedly authoritative book. Something isn’t wrong simply because a book says so. There must be a reason that something is right or wrong, and if there isn’t, then the book has no moral authority on the matter.

At this point, the believer might object that the Gods have reasons for their commands, but we can’t know them. Yet if the ways of the Gods are really mysterious to us, what’s the point of religion? If you can’t know anything about the Gods or their commands, then why follow those commands, why have religion at all, why listen to the priest or preacher? If it’s all a mystery, we should remain silent or become mystics.

— Dr. John Messerly, Reason and Meaning, Professional Ethicists Rarely Oppose Abortion, May 19, 2019

Questions: Bruce, What Are Your Views on Objective Morality?

Bruce Gerencser 24 Comments

questions

I recently asked readers to submit questions to me they would like me to answer. If you would like to submit a question, please follow the instructions listed here.

Geoff asked, What are your views on objective morality?

The question asked by Geoff is complex and filled with nuance. Anytime I have addressed morality in the past, my writing has elicited all sorts of comments from atheists and Fundamentalists alike. It seems few people like or appreciate my worldview and my understanding of morality. As a Christian, I believed that the issue of morality was settled for me: God hath spoken. Shut the hell up and do what he commands! As a dutiful follower of Jesus, I attempted to follow not only the teachings of the Bible, but the direction of Holy Spirit who lived inside of me (or so I thought at the time).  Once I deconverted, I had to rethink my worldview. What was it I believed about morality in general? What was I it I believed about specific moral statements and standards? My understanding of morality has evolved over the past decade. I am, in no way, a finished product. I still have many questions about morality, and it is impossible to fully answer them in a blog post.

I readily admit that Christianity has deeply affected my understanding of morality. I was in the Christian church for fifty years. I spent twenty-five of those years pastoring Evangelical churches. As a result, Evangelical morality has seeped deeply into the dark recesses of my mind. While I try to distance myself from my past, its effects linger. Thus, there are times my moral views line up with those of Christians. This doesn’t mean, then, that I am a Christian. My views also, on occasion, line up with Buddhism and other religions. All this tells me is that religions have, in the past, played a big part in the evolution of human morality.

When someone asks me whether I believe in objective morality, what I hear them asking is whether I believe there are moral standards or moral absolutes. In the strictest sense, my answer is no. Morality is always subjective. Now that doesn’t mean countries, states, and tribes can’t have absolute moral standards. They can and do. All I ask is that believers in objective morality admit that their absolutes have changed over time, and that, in fact, the changing nature of their absolutes suggests that their morality is actually subjective. For example, there is a push in the United States to make eighteen the minimum age for marriage. This law, if passed, would be considered an objective moral standard. However, in the past, people were permitted to marry as young as age thirteen, and in some countries, children are betrothed to one another when they are still primary school age. If there’s such a thing as objective morality, then shouldn’t the age for marriage have been fixed from day one? That it hasn’t been shows the subjectivity of moral beliefs.

Morality is affected by tribal, cultural, and sociological influences. This means that all morality changes with time, including absolute, never-changing, God-said-it, it’s-in-the-Bible Evangelical morality. Evangelicals now do things that were considered sins — violations of objective morality — fifty years ago. Even Independent Fundamentalist Baptist (IFB) morality continues to change and evolve. Only those who are deliberately blind, people with fingers in their ears who say, nah, nah, nah, I can’t HEAR you, fail to see that morality is inherently subjective.

All of us belong to certain countries and tribes. As a U.S. citizen, I live in a country that supposedly values the rule of law. I say supposedly because Donald Trump’s abhorrent behavior and his penchant for ignoring the rule of law makes me question whether we indeed are still such people. Fascism is on the rise, and when it comes in full force it brings law by force, instead of WE THE PEOPLE deciding the laws that will govern us. For now, we are still a nation governed by laws shaped and enacted by legislators elected by voting Americans. These laws establish what we as a people believe is moral. These laws, over time, change. For example, at one time it was illegal to have an abortion; then in 1973 the U.S. Supreme Court legalized most abortions. Today, with the prospect of a right-wing Catholic being added to the Supreme Court, it is possible that laws regulating abortion will change, and women will be forced to revert to the days of coat-hanger, back alley abortions. The same can be said for much of the progress made on social and church/state issues over the past six decades. This ebb and flow shows that morality is subjective.

Theocrats, of course, despise the give and take of the legal process in democratic countries. They want a dictatorship, with the Christian (or Muslim) Holy book as the objective standard for morality. Theocrats demand that laws reflect their Fundamentalist interpretations of the Bible (or Koran). In their minds, their interpretations are one and the same with God’s will and commands. But, even for theocrats, their interpretations change over time, thus proving, once again, that morality is subjective.

Not only do governments establish moral norms, so do the tribes to which each of us belong. Whether at the group or family level, certain moral standards govern behavior. Now, keep in mind I am using the word moral in as broad of a way as possible. Divorce your mind from the religious constructs you have been taught, and see morality as the rules/laws/precepts by which we govern behavior. I suspect your family has certain moral standards, and those standards may or may not be different from mine. For example, I have lost readers over my refusal to stop using curse words in my writing. In their tribes, cursing is verboten or is considered in poor taste. In my tribe, it is okay to curse, except when young children are present or Polly’s IFB parents are visiting (though there have been times when a few damns, shits, and assholes have slipped out). When it is only adults in the room? Cursing is permitted, and be prepared to be schooled in sexual innuendo. Were the readers who demanded that I sanitize my writing “wrong”? Who determines what words are appropriate and what words are not? It should be clear to everyone that the words writers choose to use are subjective. Each tribe to its own.

My children are known for having what is called the Gerencser work ethic. This ethic was taught to them by their parents. Work hard. Eight hours pay for eight hours work. Do your best. Do it right the first time. Never accept good enough as a standard for acceptance. The reasons for these maxims are many, but regardless of how they came to be, they are deeply ingrained into the psyche of my adult children. My oldest son has taken one personal day at work in twenty years. His mom has taken zero. My younger children are not as zealous as their older siblings, but they still are known for being no-nonsense hard workers. This tribal ethos often brings them into conflict with other employees who have different work standards. For example, one son works in a department where the majority of the workers have already used half or more of their personal days. My wife supervises people who are already out of personal days with six months to go before they accrue new days. Years ago, my two oldest sons were asked by their fellow employees to slow down. Why? They were making less industrious employees look bad. My sons ignored their critics, choosing instead to follow the Gerencser work ethic (an ethic that can be found in many families, by the way). Both now hold management positions with their respective employers, as do their younger brother and mother. Does this make the Gerencsers better than other people? Depends on how “better” is defined, I suppose. All I know is that this very subjective work ethic is deeply embedded in my tribe. We behave this way because that what we have been taught to do.

Each of us also has personal moral standards; certain things we will and won’t do. I don’t expect other people to live by my moral standards. These rules of behavior — ever-changing — help me navigate the road of life. As a humanist, I look to the humanist ideal to provide moral guidance. This ideal, crafted by men and women, is inherently subjective, but it does address and support my worldview. I have no problem with Evangelicals wanting to live by their personal interpretations of the Bible. Go with God, I say. It is when Evangelicals demand that others live by their interpretations I have a problem.

As a post-Evangelical, I have been forced to reexamine my morality and worldview. For example, I am a pacifist. More specifically, I am proponent of non-violent resistance. Sounds like a moral absolute, right? I would like it to be, but the world is too messy for it be so; too gray, too challenging for me to say that I am, without reservation, a pacifist. Generally, I oppose violence, yet I love and support American football — organized violence. I wouldn’t take up arms to defend the United States, but I would defend my family against attack and harm. I face this same struggle with most moral issues. It’s too easy to write Ten Commandments and say obey. I choose, instead, to think about each issue, and then come to a reasoned conclusion.

Most people agree that we should avoid harming others. I think that’s a good place to start. But, even here, it is impossible to ever live a life that does not, at some point, harm others. Take vegans. They don’t eat meat for moral reasons. They don’t want to cause animals pain and suffering. Yet, providing vegans a non-animal diet still causes pain, suffering, and death. Earthworms, insects, and other animals die so farmers can provided vegans with yummy (I am being sarcastic here) soybeans. The goal, then, should be to promote the greatest good while at the same time causing the least harm.  We can then build on this foundation, asking “what is the best way for humans to govern themselves and live lives of love, peace, and harmony — pass me a joint, bro.”

Human morality is inherently subjective; a work in progress; a work that will never be completed; a work that will hopefully lead to a kinder, gentler tomorrow; a work that places great value on justice and kindness. Nirvana, it will never be, but we can have a better tomorrow if we want it badly enough. Unfortunately, internecine warfare between countries and tribes leaves me wondering if human progress is but an illusion, a pipe dream. Perhaps it is, but I see no other option than to work towards a better future for my progeny. This work requires of us hard discussions and debates about morality. Holy books or trade paperbacks are not the answer. We the people remain the captains of our ships, the masters of our destinies. God’s not coming to save us.

About Bruce Gerencser

Bruce Gerencser, 61, lives in rural Northwest Ohio with his wife of 40 years. He and his wife have six grown children and twelve grandchildren. Bruce pastored Evangelical churches for twenty-five years in Ohio, Texas, and Michigan. Bruce left the ministry in 2005, and in 2008 he left Christianity. Bruce is now a humanist and an atheist. For more information about Bruce, please read the About page.

Bruce is a local photography business owner, operating Defiance County Photo out of his home. If you live in Northwest Ohio and would like to hire Bruce, please email him.

Thank you for reading this post. Please share your thoughts in the comment section. If you are a first-time commenter, please read the commenting policy before wowing readers with your words. All first-time comments are moderated. If you would like to contact Bruce directly, please use the contact form to do so.

Donations are always appreciated. Donations on a monthly basis can be made through Patreon. One-time donations can be made through PayPal.

The Sounds of Fundamentalism: God — the Only Reason All of Us Aren’t Murderers by Dennis Prager

Bruce Gerencser 6 Comments

dennis prager

This is the one hundred and fiftieth installment in The Sounds of Fundamentalism series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. If you know of a video clip that shows the crazy, cantankerous, or contradictory side of Evangelical Christianity, please send me an email with the name or link to the video. Please do not leave suggestions in the comment section.  Let’s have some fun!

Today’s Sound of Fundamentalism is a video clip by Dennis Prager. Prager is a Jew and proponent of Judaeo-Christian objective morality. At least in theory, that is. By being thrice married, twice divorced, Prager shows that he is a hypocrite when it comes to God’s objective moral standard concerning marriage and divorce. Shocker, I know.

Video Link

The Sounds of Fundamentalism: If God Does Not Exist the Nazis Were Not Wrong by Todd Friel

Bruce Gerencser 6 Comments

todd friel

This is the seventy-ninth installment in The Sounds of Fundamentalism series. This is a series that I would like readers to help me with. If you know of a video clip that shows the crazy, cantankerous, or contradictory side of Evangelical Christianity, please send me an email with the name or link to the video. Please do not leave suggestions in the comment section.  Let’s have some fun!

Today’s Sound of Fundamentalism is a  video clip produced by Wretched Radio.— the ministry of Todd Friel.  I will leave it to readers to “explain” what this preacher “thinks” atheists can’t explain. Perhaps the real issue isn’t our inability to “explain” as much as it is the inability of most Evangelicals to “listen” to and “understand” how secularists, humanists, atheists, agnostics, and other non-Christians understand morality.

Video Link

Letter to the Editor: Is the Bible the Objective Standard of Morality?

Bruce Gerencser 4 Comments

letter to the editor

Letter submitted to the editor of the Defiance Crescent-News on April 11, 2016

Dear Editor,

Recently, Cal Thomas pontificated about the need for an objective standard of morality. Of course, Thomas, an Evangelical, believes the moral code found in the Bible is the true standard of morality. Thomas believes America is mired in a moral quagmire. Blaming liberals, secularists, and atheists, Thomas believes America’s only hope is for Americans to once again prostrate themselves before the Bible and promise resolute fealty to its author — God.

What exactly is the Bible’s objective moral standard? The Ten Commandments? Or is it the Nine, since most Christians no longer “remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy?” Or, as dispensational Evangelicals suggest, is just the New Testament the standard for morality? If it is just the New Testament, then why do Evangelicals continue to condemn homosexuality, same-sex marriage, and abortion — none of which is mentioned in the New Covenant? And why do Evangelical pastors continue to collect tithes and offering each Sunday, a practice not found anywhere in the New Testament?

While Evangelicals will point their peculiar interpretation of the Bible to justify the notion that they are the holders of God’s standard of morality, any careful examination of their churches shows that Evangelical moral beliefs are every bit as subjective as their atheist/agnostic/secularist neighbors. There are over one hundred churches in Defiance County, and not one of them agrees with another about what is considered moral behavior.

On matters of greater importance: salvation, baptism, and communion, local churches fight among themselves, each believing that it has the keys to the kingdom. One church has been running weekly ads in the Crescent-News to remind locals that their church — a Campbellite congregation — preaches the true gospel. Down the street Baptists preachers remind congregants that the heretical followers of Alexander and Thomas Campbell were thrown out the Baptist church mid-19th century. It is the Baptists who have the true gospel. And so the internecine wars continue unabated since the day Jesus was buried in a pauper’s grave.

Atheists such as myself laugh when Evangelicals suggest that the Bible is the standard for morality. Seeing the utter confusion and contradictory beliefs among the various Christian sects, how can anyone know for sure who is right? My money is on none of them being right. As a humanist, I believe it is up to people — not religions — to determine the standards by which we want to govern our lives.

Bruce Gerencser
Ney, Ohio