Dan Barker on The moral argument
Barker argues that morality is better grounded in human well-being than in divine command, and that the Bible's moral record is appalling.
Barker's rejection of the moral argument is grounded in his intimate knowledge of scripture. He argues that the Bible's moral teachings are not merely outdated but actively harmful: endorsement of slavery, subordination of women, capital punishment for trivial offences, and genocide commanded by God. If this is the foundation of morality, Barker argues, the foundation is rotten.
He defends a secular ethic grounded in the minimisation of harm and the maximisation of well-being. This framework, he contends, is not only sufficient but superior to divine command because it is responsive to evidence, open to revision, and does not depend on the character of an unverifiable being.
In debates with apologists, Barker frequently challenges the claim that atheists have no basis for morality by pointing out that atheists commit fewer crimes per capita than religious believers — a statistical fact that is uncomfortable for the moral argument but entirely consistent with a secular foundation for ethics.
“You don't need God for morality. You don't even need religion. You need empathy, and a brain.”