What is the objective basis for morality? The answer isn’t “God”.

Since I view the existence of God as highly unlikely, God as moral arbiter seems similarly unlikely. Many people are perturbed by this; indeed, many reject atheism partially because they perceive nihilism to be the inevitable result—which, even if true, is simply an appeal to consequences.

But suppose we stipulate to the existence of God. Unfortunately, that doesn’t make moral questions much easier. For how are we to know the Divine Will? God rarely speaks on such matters. Prayer isn’t much good, since even prayerful people disagree. And the holy books of the world both disagree and have spotty coverage at best.

Let’s consider the most popular holy book, the Bible. Even the many Biblical laws don’t cover all the possibilities, and it’s ambiguous to boot. Thou shalt not kill—really? Even in self-defense? There’s plenty of killing in the Bible, of course; the sixth commandment is better rendered as Thou shalt not murder, but that simply begs the question: What, exactly, is murder? In other words, when is killing justified?

It’s justified when people work on the Sabbath, it turns out, and, as a result, nobody really believes in the entirety of Biblical law anyway. (How many Jews or Christians actually support the prescription in Exodus 31:15?) So, on what basis can we accept some laws (proscribing murder and theft, say), but reject others (death to adulterers and Sabbath-workers)?

No, morality isn’t easy, even if God exists.