Well-Meaning Person Tries to Figure Out How Believers and Unbelievers Can Have a “Shared Ethic”

She’s apparently unaware that we already do. It works like this: God is just, wise, good and loving and creates us all in his image and likeness. Some people admit this and try to be just, wise, loving and good out of love for him. Some people admit this and try to be just, wise, loving and good out of fear of him. Some people do not admit this and try to be just, wise, loving and good out of a muddled notion that they are Just That Sort of Chap. Some people do not admit this and try to be just, wise, loving and good out of a muddled notion that Their Chromosomes Command It. Some people do not admit this, say, “Screw trying to be just, wise, loving and good” and do what they want.

It is not the case that an unbeliever must perforce be immoral. It is absolutely the case that an unbeliever cannot supply a coherent account of why he is moral, nor even how he knows what good and evil are. So you get claptrap about “selfish genes” and other bilge to try to paper over the fact that atheist morality basically consists of theft of bits and pieces from pagan natural law (which is ultimately from God) and/or Judeo-Christian tradition. I have no objection to the theft. It’s what keeps atheists in possession of what sanity they have. But theft it remains. A materialist can give absolutely no account of morality because you cannot derive Ought from Is. Anyone who claims you can is practicing sleight of hand and self-deception.