i too repent, sorry for the harsh words.

Yeah, I guessed it might be. But I was just being a bit pompous to see if such a comment might make you come back. I’m glad you did. Your replies are pretty thoughtful. Naturally I do not share your belief, but I do now understand the consistency of your opinion. Thank-you, and I will check out your other article. Peace to you also.

If reality just "is" – if it is simply an uncreated accident, then all behaviors simply "are", and there is no "ought". There is, as others here have pointed out, only historically contingent morality, but no obligation to do anything. Only a dialectical view of "eternal becoming", of never-ending moral transformation makes any sense. In the end the Randian view is not so different from the Marxist view, which is that morality is a product of the class struggle. "Objectivism" is Marxism for the wealthy.

Of course there are lots of things that make us feel bad, and lots of things that make us feel good. But for me "moral truth" means alignment with what is perfect and real. And I find it fascinating that the two representatives of Western and Eastern religions, or at least two of the major ones, Jesus and Buddha, essentially said the same thing: our goal as moral beings is to become perfect.

"It might be able to account for why certain morals exist at certain times, but it cannot account for – as I said quite clearly in the original – moral obligations. It can only account for why society x has moral y during epoch z."

That's a restatement, not an answer. Have you read Ayn Rand? If so, what do you think her particular error was in deriving an objective morality from facts of reality?

At the same time, I do think it would be irresponsible to make an argument, then respond and then not respond. So, here we go.

First I have to respond to Chinabounder:

"Like many religious people, he is too sure in his beliefs to have much interest in debating with those who do not share them."

This is the furthest thing from the truth anyone has yet said during this entire exchange. Too sure? I've never been 100% sure about anything, not as a teenage Satanist, a college Marxist, or a working Catholic. Everything requires a little leap of faith, otherwise self-doubt would cripple us to the point of immobility. "Paralysis by analysis" is a condition that some have ascribed to small, sectarian political groups unable to grow or move forward because they are always caught up in theoretical debate. The only way out the paralysis is to take at least one premise on faith and move forward. This is true no matter what you believe.

"Of course, given the Guardian link, this was a chance for Joe H. to make a little bit of a name for himself as a pundit. Too bad he wasn’t astute enough to see it."

Of course I saw it. I don't really want to "make a name" as a commentator on religion, to be honest with you. I wrote this piece because I was asked to. I'd rather write about socio-economic issues, on which we probably agree a great deal more (if you're anywhere left of center). And truthfully, I don't care why you believe, only what you believe – whether you get there as an atheist, a Christian, or something else entirely. Your salvation is ultimately your business.

For Frank the Yank:

"However, when you say "moral truth" is what you mean one's certainty of correctness of a moral code?"

I mean a moral that is objectively true regardless of who believes it in a subjective sense. The whole world could turn its back on such a moral truth and it wouldn't be any less true, because following it will still align you with the divine perfection, while rejecting it will still bring you further out of alignment.

People make a mistake when they get too rigid with it, however. There is a difference between form and content, appearance and essence. The former can be changed historically, but it is the latter that remains timeless. Likewise some of God's particular demands on humanity can change in the details. Any religious person who denies this, I believe, is mistaken about the nature of God and his relationship to man.

Again, regarding the dilemma of the ancient Greeks, "good" is the name we traditionally give to "that which aligns with God's will". Now, you don't have to call that "good". But it seems to me that the crux of the problem is in the definition, is it not? How can you ask "is x good because God wills it, or does God will x because it is good" without having first defined good? Some get around it by defining God AS good. I say that whatever brings us closer to God – which we can know through revelation – is good. As distinct from pleasing, pleasurable, enjoyable, beneficial, etc.

Anon asks,

"Why can't a thoroughly physicalist worldview account for moral objectivity,"

It might be able to account for why certain morals exist at certain times, but it cannot account for – as I said quite clearly in the original – moral obligations. It can only account for why society x has moral y during epoch z.

"and (for that matter) what about atheists who reject physicalism and accept non-natural moral properties?"

It may be irresponsible of me to say "atheists" when I really mean to criticize materialists. I will ask for forgiveness on that score. I just don't see many non-materialist atheists going after theistic religion lock, stock and barrel, so I tend not to engage their views as much. If that makes me sloppy, so be it. I shall be sloppy. But I do apologize for the confusion.

Ok, now that I've answered some questions, hopefully, in the future, we might all try to get along at least a little. I don't expect us to be friends or even like one another (though it would be fine with me if we did). In the future I'm going to stick to socio-economic issues, and I invite you all to read the article I published before this one, of which I am far more fond. Thanks, and Vade in Pace.

Of course, given the Guardian link, this was a chance for Joe H. to make a little bit of a name for himself as a pundit. Too bad he wasn’t astute enough to see it.

In the end, his demeanor shows that while many atheists are interested in dialog with the religious, the religious are not ready to respond. It’s a splendid own goal, and it gives hope that perhaps humanity is ready to move beyond the desperate, preposterous and offensive beliefs of the religious.

I'm still sort of confused about the term "moral truth". What believers could appreciate from your article is the pleasant articulation of your experience in coming to understand God's greatness, and how incomprehensible it is.

Regarding "moral truth". I've noticed that it is quite possible for individual atheists to conjure a firm fundamental moral rod to walk with. And I don't mind such processes as rationality bringing about morality is a cool thing as it can be explained to a wide range of people.

Ones that I like to use usually paraphrase the Golden Rule of Ethics. E.g. The universe works in immaculate harmony. Try taking all of it in for a moment from a quark to the farthest reaches of the cosmos. Think of Newton's 3rd Law. What you get is what you receive. Or the Nash equilibrium. Only works in your favor to do good.

Of course I believe having that kind of rationality also means you can logically come to the conclusion that there is a God.

I've not truly been in the mind of an atheist. When entertaining the idea I have found a haunting vacuum that none should want (does this sound patronizing?). At the end of the day I can only say this. Dear atheists, if you've found your "moral truth", good for you. But it is nowhere near experiencing even the very slightest aura of Allah's light within oneself.

And I guess that's all Joe was trying to say. His mistake was not being prepared to debate if the argument extended into the workings of religion itself.

Why exactly would theism have an advantage over atheism when it comes to moral foundations? Why can't a thoroughly physicalist worldview account for moral objectivity, and (for that matter) what about atheists who reject physicalism and accept non-natural moral properties? As far as I can tell, you haven't yet begun to provide any arguments for these claims.

I still haven't seen any response to the Euthyphro dilemma. I mean, is it your view that there is no moral standard other than God's will? If so, get ready for some truly disturbing consequences.

Also, is it your view that morality requires religion or is it that morality requires theism? I ask because nonreligious theism is a view that strikes me as far more reasonable than any religious theism.

Finally, that quote is not Sartre. It's typically attributed to Dostoevsky, although I believe it cannot be found in his works (though similar claims are made by characters in the Brothers Karamazov).

Secondly, Clearly many people do think that ethical thoeries can found morality in non-revealed truth. Utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and Virtue ethics do in fact exist, moreover they have been robustly defended by generations of Philosophers. Therefore, either you should have good reasons for dismissing these positions, or you should accept that your view that your idea of morality is merely one amongst many.

You do neither of these things

Therefore, you are wrong. QED