Does Atheism Provide Ethical Grounding?

This essay will tackle a very specific issue with regards to discussions of ethics and that is the question of ethical grounding. The question in view here is that of grounding, premise or foundation. It is one thing to assert that we ought, or should, or must do thus and such but it is quite another to provide the grounding for doing thus and such.

Note the difference between ethics and morality: morals describe the mores which are, by definition, relative while ethics refers to the ethos; it is that which is prescribed, the model, the ideal.

You're Grounded!
One way to consider the question what is the grounding is thusly:

Someone asserts that we ought to be compassionate.
You ask "Why?"
They answer that we ought to be compassionate because it benefits others.
You ask "Why should I benefit others?"
They answer that we ought to benefit others because we ought to care for the well being of others.
You ask "Why should I care for the well being of others?"
They answer that we ought to care for the well being of others because it will make us feel good about ourselves.
You ask "Why would that make me feel good about myself?"
They answer that it will make you feel good about yourself to be compassionate.
You ask "Why should I be compassionate?"

This metaphor could have been filled in with all sorts of assertions and questions but I believe that the point is made-piling assertion upon assertion does not provide an ethical grounding it merely creates a tel of assertions. Merely asserting oughts, shoulds, or musts is authoritarian dogmatism. The point here is that you can "Why?" any atheist's particular view of ethics into an infinite regress of groundless assertions.

But why is ethical grounding important, if not necessary or essential? After all, if someone withholds from punching me in the schnoz why should I care why they did not punch me? Am I not pleased enough that my schnoz remains intact? In an immediate sense, yes. But as regards the issue of morality, no. Why not?
Because:
If you have no moral grounding then you do good for no good reason (pun intended).
Thus, when you do not do good, you violate nothing.
If you have moral grounding then you do good for good reason.
Thus, when you do not do good, you are violating the moral grounding upon which you distinguish between good and not good in the first place.

Fertile Grounding Soil?
Let us consider upon which fertile soil ethics can be grounded:

Naturally
Can ethics be grounded in nature? No.
Nature is not an ethical agent. Nature has no cognitive functions. Nature does not care to assure the survival of any particular species. Moreover, nature would not logically or necessarily support, our basic view of, ethics such as compassion since the strong would be helping the weak survive and would therefore dilute the species with the genes of the less fit (although reciprocity may play a par here). Nature is quite please if you propagate your species while eating others.
Some affirmations of this view are as follows:
Dan Barker (during his debate with Paul Manata),

There is no moral interpreter in the cosmos, nothing cares and nobody cares.

Prof. Richard Dawkins,

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.1

The Skeptic's Dictionary,

Naturalism posits that the universe is a vast machine or organism, devoid of general purpose and indifferent to human needs and desires.2

Semantic Homorality
Can ethics be grounded in human dictates? Ultimately no.
What human beings can do is make epistemic statements about ethics but not provide an ontological premise. Human beings can, without recourse to God, declare certain actions ethics but these would be ungrounded assertions. In this view ethics can be said to be a concept concocted by humans in order to control other people. This human based ethics, or in reality morality or homorality (homo-sapien-morality), this epistemic morality, or semantic morality, is ultimately impotent being established and administered by human who can only deal out justice if the evildoer is caught. Human morality basically amounts to nature based morality with differing manmade moral codes struggling to survive as the fittest while unable to make recourse to an ethos. The difference between ethics and morality comes into play here.

I also wanted to include a succinct mention of the claim that since moral behavior is taught and learned it is therefore manmade. This is a non sequitur since, for example, just because 1+1=2 is taught and learned by humans does not mean that numbers (as the concepts that they are) are manmade. If there is a landslide and one rock ends up next to another rock but there is no human to count them; are there not now 2 rocks next to each other? If a man speaks in a forest and there is not a woman to hear him; is he still wrong? :o)

Firm Ethereal Ground?
Finally, can ethics be grounded in theism?
Are all theologically grounded ethical systems created equal? Here I am not asking if the ethical systems are the same, I am asking if they are likely grounded, or grounded at all? No. Let us consider a few examples.

Let's Make a Dual
Let us consider theological dualism.
Generally speaking, in this view there are two coeternal gods; one "good" god and one "evil" god. In such cases the goodness of the one is measured against the evil of the other and visa versa. Moreover, the evil one considers itself to be good and considers the other evil and visa versa. Thus, theological dualism presents arbitrary morality in that which one is good and which one is evil is merely subjective.

Singularity
Next, let us consider a "strictly monotheistic" god such as Allah. One argument that could be made against a god who existed eternally and/or but created other supernatural beings and humans (and animals) is that this god seems to have been lacking something, seems to be somehow imperfect. This would be because such a god may have created creatures in order to have a relationship with them.
In other words, it may be argued that such a god lacked companionship / relationship and thus, had to create someone with whom to enjoy that which it lacked. Keep in mind that according to Islam the very worse sin is known as shirk which refers to assigning a partner to Allah who is pictured as having been eternally alone:

Qur'an-Surah 5:72-73:
They do blaspheme who say: "God is Christ the son of Mary."…Whoever joins other gods with Allah, Allah will forbid him the Garden, and the Fire will be his abode. There will for the wrong-doers be no more help. They do blaspheme who say: God is one of three in a Trinity: for there is no god except Allah. If they do not desist from their word (of blasphemy), verily a grievous penalty will befall the blasphemers among them.

Thus, such a god may have created creatures in order to fill the human shaped void in its heart (to spin a popular saying about humans having a God shaped void in our hearts).

However, let us deny that this is why such a god created creatures and consider another angle. What we notice is that the character of such a god is that it is generally not a personal being. It is actually not interested in having personal relationships with humans. Ergo, since such a god lacks eternal relations it do not seek personal relations with their creations.
Moreover, since they lack eternal relations and do not seek personal relations with their creations their ethical systems are, in fact, arbitrary dogmatic assertions. In fact, Allah's character is such that one term which is very commonly associated with him is "capricious" (and boy, oh boy, do I ever remember my mother calling me "caprichoso!" whilst growing up). Allah is not bound by relation and so ethics is not intrinsic to his nature.

Since morality is not intrinsic to his nature Muslims cannot state with ultimate certainly that they will be saved. Some Muslims claim that as long as they proclaim the shahadah they are assured salvation and militant Jihadists claim that death during Jihad is a guarantee. Yet, ultimately Allah has nothing which would withhold him from changing the rules of the game in the middle or at the end. The militant Jihadists look forward to an afterlife of relations with 72 virgins (to what do the female militant Jihadists look forward?) and the Qur'an present heaven as a place of carnal, earthly, human pleasures:

Surah 78:32-34,
Abdullah Yusuf Ali, trans.-"Gardens enclosed, and grapevines; And voluptuous women of equal age; And a cup full (to the brim)."
Marmaduke Pickthall, trans.-"Gardens enclosed and vineyards, And voluptuous women of equal age; And a full cup."
Mohammad Habib Shakir, trans.-"Gardens and vineyards, And voluptuous women of equal age; And a pure cup."

Two or More is a Crowd
Now, let us consider pantheons, polytheism and henotheism.
These groups of gods were generally conceived of as having been created by one or two previously existing gods (sometimes a male god and a female god). They did enjoy relationships with each other yet, being distinct gods, they are not exactly famous for conducting moral relationships with each other but are rather infamous for their quarrels and warring. Since these supernatural beings could enjoy, good or bad, relationships with other supernatural beings, other gods, they were not generally interested in relationships with humans.
They generally considered humans to be play things-they may manipulate our fates, they may take human form and fornicate with us, but there is little, if anything, that they did that they could have considered ethical relationships. As Ravi Zacharias puts it (in his book Jesus Among Other Gods, p. 42),

The playfulness of Krishna and his exploits with the milkmaids in the Bhagavad-Gita is frankly an embarrassment to many Hindu scholars.

Triunity
Now, let us consider the God of the Bible in whom we are dealing with Trinitarian monotheism. This is to say that God is a triune being: one God and yet, three "persons" each of whom is God, each of whom is eternal, each of whom is distinct and yet, each of whom are the one God. One coeternal, coexisting, coequal being consisting of three "persons." The God of the Bible has been referred to as one what and three whos.3
This God is not alone in eternity and yet is not in relation to separate eternal beings. Since each member of the Trinity is eternal, each has enjoyed eternal relationships. This God is not lacking in relationship. God enjoys a relationship that is both unified in purpose and diverse amongst the persons. According to this theology the following relationships exist-God, angels and humans:

God's interpersonal Trinitarian relationship.
God's relationships with the angels.
God's relationship with humans.
Angel's relationship with God.
Angel's relationship with other angels.
Angel's relationship with humans.
Human's relationship with God.
Human's relationship with angels.
Human's relationship with other humans.

Perhaps, secondarily (or fourthly) is God's, angel's and human's relationship with the rest of nature such as with animals. Ethics is based upon God's nature. God's nature is relational and benevolent. God enjoys relationships and encourages His creation to enjoy likewise relationships. In this view, an afterlife is conceived of as the enjoyment of relationships with other humans, yes, but grounded upon the mutual enjoyment of an eternal relationship with God. God's very nature is the ethos.

In Conclusion
Thus, atheists generally claim that morality evolved. That is the actual term that they generally use evolved-a past tense term. Why they generally do not refer to morality as evolving is something to which we will come. Individual atheists may claim that morality is, as per Sam Harris, "hardwired" into us (why, how, when or what happens if we short-circuit remains unstated).

Others, such as Prof. Richard Dawkins, claims that morality came about as our ape ancestors attempted to ensure in-group survival and reciprocity. He is also the conceiver of the "selfish-gene," which is probably why he infers selfish expectation of reciprocity to explain morality.4 Apparently, you feel guilty when you are stealing a candy bar from a store because millions upon millions of years ago your hairy ape of an ancestor had to figure out at whom to fling their excreta (well, that may be a bit hyperbolic).

As I mentioned above, nature may be said to be interested in ensure the survival of bio-organisms (why, remains unstated) but it does not seem to care which survive, except for the fittest-the fittest may be humans, may be chinchillas, may be bacteria, may be cucumbers.

Since there is no ethos upon which any atheist attempts to ground their various moral concepts, there are no ethics to violate. You may help or harm another bio-organism who is or is not of the same kind as yourself and that is all that there is to it. If you are a masochistic, psychopathic, pedophilic, mass murderer you commit whatever acts you please and you enjoy yourself very much. If you get cause, you may spend time in prison or be put to death. If you get away with it, you simply got to enjoy yourself and you got away with it while your victims suffer-atheism offers no ultimate justice. Atheism makes evil even worse by guaranteeing that there is no higher meaning to it, that it cannot be redeemed, and that it is for the benefit of the evildoer.

So, why not utilize the term, or concept, of morality as evolving? If morality is still evolving then you may find yourself condemning an immoral action today which is even now evolving into a moral act. You could not condemn any past actions since those were the morals back then. You therefore, could not condemn any actions since the question becomes how do we discern where the moral zeitgeist may lead? Prof. Richard Dawkins states, "I'm actually rather interested in the shifting zeitgeist…[as to where] we get our moral outlook, one can almost use phrases like 'it's in the air.'" If they function on intellectual honesty atheist who believe in this sort of evolving morality would not condemn the Bible's ethics or lack thereof. Yet, atheists want it both ways: they want to claim that morality is evolving and also condemn the less evolved morality of the past.

Beyond asserting from whence morals come, some atheist, at least in part, offer some odd reasons for recommending moral behavior. For example, during his debate with Doug Geivett, Michael Shermer basically offered an argument for embarrassment. Responding to someone considering committing an immoral act he stated "Well, that tells us a lot about the depth of your character. Stay far, far away from me."

Dan Barker offered various motivators for morality in his debate with Peter Payne:

1. "if you wish to be…a healthy person" (meaning mentally healthy).
2. "if you wish to be labeled 'ethical' by other people."
3. "if you wish to be viewed by your society as 'a good person.'"
4. "if that's something you wish."

The Humanist Society of Scotland asserts,

It's best to be honest because…I'm happier and feel better about myself if I'm honest. [emphasis and ellipses in original]

Although, why being honest should make us happy remains a unstated.
Reginald Finley (aka The Infidel Guy) and Matthew Davis put forth the following "My Name is Earl"-watered-down-atheist-pseudo-karma reason for moral behavior,

if one does horrible things to people, that person will eventually have horrible things happen to him.

Other atheists have claimed that they condemn incest because they have a "visceral dislike of incest" (what if someone likes it?) Others say that they disagree with Neo-Nazis but cannot condemn them. Others claim that they do good because chemicals in the brains make them feel good when they do good (what happens when chemicals make someone feel good by doing non-good?). Etc. ad infinitum.

It would seem that the viable ethical grounding is found in the triune God. Since the triune God is coeternal, coequal, coexisting being who has enjoyed eternal relations ethics is His very nature. Since human beings are made in the triune being's image, human beings have an ethical nature and extrinsic dignity.

Jean Jacques Rousseau wrote:

In order to discover the rules of society best suited to nations, a superior intelligence beholding all the passions of men without experiencing any of them would be needed. This intelligence would have to be wholly unrelated to our nature, while knowing it through and through; its happiness would have to be independent of us, and yet ready to occupy itself with ours; and lastly, it would have, in the march of time, to look forward to a distant glory, and, working in one century, to be able to enjoy in the next. It would take gods to give men laws.5

1. 1. Frank Miele, Darwin's Dangerous Disciple - An Interview With Richard Dawkins
2. 2. The Skeptic's Dictionary, Naturalism
3. 3. Prof. Richard Lewontin wrote,
   

   What seems absurd depends on one's prejudice. Carl Sagan accepts, as I do, the duality of light, which is at the same time wave and particle, but he thinks that the consubstantiality of Father, Son, and Holy Ghost puts the mystery of the Holy Trinity 'in deep trouble.' Two's company, but three's a crowd.

   
   From Billions and Billions of Demons, Prof. Lewontin's review of Carl Sagan's The Demon-Haunted World. I wrote on this here and posted his entire, very sobering, review here
4. 4. I assert that his concept of the "selfish-gene" is actually selfish since he has stated,
   

   We are machines built by DNA whose purpose is to make more copies of the same DNA…It is every living object's sole reason for living'…fulfilling a purpose of propagating DNA…There is no purpose other than that.

   
   From Nick Pollard talks to Dr. Richard Dawkins (interviewed February 28th, 1995 published in Third Way in the April 1995 edition [vol 18 no. 3])
5. 5. Jean Jacques Rousseau, The Social Contract or Principles of Political Right, p. 25, part 7 The Legislator