Dan Barker on Morality without God
Barker argues from personal experience that deconversion did not diminish his moral sense — it sharpened it.
Dan Barker's case for morality without God is grounded in autobiography. As a preacher, he was moral because God commanded it. As an atheist, he discovered that his moral sense not only survived the loss of faith but improved — freed from the obligation to defend the indefensible moral commands of the Old Testament, he could evaluate moral questions on their merits.
Barker co-founded the Freedom From Religion Foundation and has spent decades advocating for the separation of church and state, the rights of nonbelievers, and the protection of children from religious abuse. His moral activism intensified after his deconversion, which he attributes to the removal of a theological framework that demanded he call genocide 'just' when God commanded it.
He makes the philosophical case as well. Morality, on Barker's account, is about the reduction of harm and the promotion of well-being — goals that are intelligible without reference to God and that can be pursued through reason, empathy, and evidence. The claim that morality collapses without God is not only philosophically weak but empirically false, as demonstrated by the moral lives of millions of nonbelievers and the strong social indicators in highly secular societies.
“I am now far more moral than I was as a Christian. I no longer have to pretend that genocide, slavery, and eternal torture are compatible with a loving God.”