The following was written in response to an old debate buddy who wrote me an email today, making the claim that all morality is born out of the presence of Christianity, the bible, and that without it, there would be no morality. Further, since there is morality in almost all nations, which generally resemble each other, that must mean that there is a cohesive and consistent divine power which reveals what is good and what is not good, and without the acceptance of this divine power by at least some (and the atheists can pull along on their coat tails), we would have no good, no right, and no morality.

This is my response:

The concepts you're describing assume a very nihilistic approach to the Universe. One wherein nothing is fundamentally anything but what we conceive it to be. In the case of your universe, the subscription of atheists to a divine power is no more than a subscription to a social norm, and would not be any more "good" or "right" than any other set of actions - including, say, the removal of the eyes of cats. If that's what the commonly thought of good prescribed as divine, doing so would be good.

Now, at this point I would disagree. If you do, fantastic. We'll move on to the next point. If not - then hey, you win. If nothing has purpose but what we declare has purpose, and its all meaningless except in perception, then I just can't win a fight against you. My core beliefs are too different, and I'll acknowledge that from your perspective you must be right.

Now, assuming you disagree with the idea that gouging out cat eyes could be moral if we, as a society, smiled on it - let me ask the very simple question: Why?

Now, if we're already assuming that mere social precedents, a-priori concepts, and common thought are not the response here, I would argue that there are two possible remaining definitions of morality.

One: Morality is determined by the most simple law of the Universe. We call it the "Golden Rule," of doing unto others as you want them to do to you. We can call this the Golden Rule, true morality, or the social contract theory - but the end idea of this rule is that we do things that we want done to us because (and only because) we want those things to happen more to us. This persistent building of positive action for the sake of good treatment yourself is, then, what we define as morality.

I disagree with this. I'll illustrate why in option . . .

Two: The golden rule and similar are only paths to a different destination, because outside of base pleasure and pain, even what we want done must be defined by something. Is it by societal standards alone? If so, I cannot win. This nihilistic view trumps me - but remember, it can be used to justify by majority desire and feeling what is right, and anything, including rape, murder, and eye-gouging of kitties, can become "moral" or even preferred.

If it is not by societal standards, what is it by? Original nature of humanity, perhaps? We want to have comfort in life, which involves a freedom from pain, and an opportunity for physical comfort and freedom from mental strain? Well, if this is all we want in life, then by all means. But freedom from pain, physical comfort, and freedom from mental strain are to me, ALSO, just a means to an end.

What end would that be? Well, if it's not determined by society's standard, and it's not determined by original nature, then we can rule out a huge portion of the pursuits of humankind. Rather, these things become a means to an end - the end of happiness.

When I say happiness I do not mean the frivolous "pursuit of pleasure" than our base or original nature has us pursue for survival (which would entail a huge amount of things that I feel are basically destructive to happiness in its true sense), but rather a more authentic happiness.

And where does this happiness come from? This happiness comes from meaning. From authenticity to ones self, and a loyalty to what is best. And how do we determine what is best? How do we determine what is true to one's self? How do we truly determine when we have a grasp on meaning?

Do you need someone to tell you when you are happy, or do you just know? Do you need someone to point out to you when you are sad? Do you need someone to explain to you why what you are feeling is good or bad? No. These things are innate. And again, the question to ask, is why?

And here the answer I provide is that this "best," this universal quality of good, right, divine, buddha, tao, the holy spirit, the presence of God - what we're all looking at, and trying so hard to describe, is not something that we create, find, or capture using all our classic reasoning, romantic emotion, or any faculty to which we have access. Rather, I believe this universal divine is something fundamentally existent in the Universe.

All descriptions, all perceptions, all concepts of good, bad, true, untrue - all desires, all opportunities - are born out of this desire to be unified with the divine. It is not an act of faith to believe in this divine, but an act of reason, born not out of what we see directly, but what we become aware we are not seeing.

There are all of these leaps that we must make in our relationships to others, and our pursuit of happiness. These leaps happen in strange ways which follows patterns. The coincidences of our lives follow these patterns as well. Much in the way we are aware of dark matter in the Universe, we become aware that we are not seeing something, but that it is there, and it is real.

The perceptions of what is good, and all its myriad forms, from Buddha to Ganesh to Christ and more, are not the divine itself, but merely attempts to fathom that which comes before all else. God himself is a mere attempt to personify the divine. And is it so hard to believe that our rationality and our creativity and our emotion cannot comprehend it, when, indeed, these things are merely a part of the divine itself? Can the hand fully comprehend the body? Can the electron fully comprehend the atom? Can the human fully comprehend the world?

No. So, why, then, do we expect the things that are divisions of a greater - in fact, the infinite greater - can somehow grasp that which it is a part of?

This dark matter rationality will show to us that there are things we are missing. Patterns which follow in certain ways, but that we do not have a fully understanding of. Things which are, by their nature, a way to connect to something greater - the good, quality, buddha, tao, spirit, divine. Not because we seek not to explain or understand it, but because we have a recognition that it is infinitely greater than us - we are a part of it, and not the other way around.

We must still seek as great an understanding as is possible, but only to the ends of union with the divine - by which, truly, I meanhappiness. And to these ends we should all unite in an attempt to bring a world, a society, a community, in greater connection with deity - tao - best - divine.

I think, based on what you're saying, that we're very much in agreement. That there is a higher, better, greater divine thing. But the disagreement we have is that you believe it is comprehensible, and therefore, finite. I believe in an infinite divine, which we are all parts of. And I believe it's incredibly arrogant to state that you have a full awareness of the divine through the teachings of a religion, which has granted you gnostic access to a reality that often contradicts the experience of others.

I also do not believe the divine is bourne out of the bible and Christianity. I believe that the bible and Christianity are flawed attempts to capture the divine.

It is time, I feel, to stop drawing lines that divide - that say "you are with us, and you are against us" - that say "this always leads to this, and this always leads to this" - and draw, instead, lines that connect. Wherein we may say "this has worked for me, and I hope it works for you" and "we are all in this together."

And that's the point. I'm not here to define the path, but to help others in whatever path they happen to be on. I'm not here to define the truth, but to seek it, whatever its definition may be. I'm not here to judge, or to be judged. I'm here to live, and experience, and hopefully find union with the divine.