“If God does not exist, then all things are permitted.”
And of course, nothing is permitted.
It’s permission that drops out; not right and wrong!

Great meditation. Count me among the proponents of an ethics that rests on reason and evidence alone (if indeed we can distill any “ought’s” from the “is’s” of reason and evidence.) But I do wonder how much less contentious these debates become even if we forego the God talk. Some may (and probably do) feel an unreflecting repulsion when it comes to euthanasia and same-sex marriage; a reaction that has nothing to do with religious teaching. (There’s no doubt that such teaching is a key driver of these attitudes, but it’s far from clear that it’s the only one. All sorts of psychological factors may go into an inflation of the “yuk” factor.) Others might have no such reaction, while finally others might feel a repulsion but at the same time wish to uphold the principle that we allow others to do as they wish so long as they do not directly harm others. Depending on whether you’re an Millean, an Aristotlean, or any other secular “-ean”, you may find yourself arguing with another perfectly rational agent with no mention made on either side to God.

I wonder. If there wasn’t any such concept as a god how much would things be different? My guess is there would still be a marked difference in people, with the division similar to that which now exists. The “believers” would be drawn together by some other cohesive belief living under much the same system of morality. Ultimately, I believe there’s a common imagination - lack of, type, or fear of - these people share.

Actually, most of our (I’m an atheist) basic ethical values aren’t very different than those of the 10 Commandments or even from Homer. It seems that basic ethical rules haven’t changed much (yes, I know that Aristotle justified slavery, etc.)since ancient times, although our justifications and/or rationalizations for our ethics have changed radically. Ethics: a set of rules or virtues in search of a justification or rationalization. When God died, we (human beings) began to invent new justifications or reasons for not killing, not stealing, not lying, etc.

I like this bit “When God died, we (human beings) began to invent new justifications or reasons for not killing, not stealing, not lying, etc.” from Amos. I would like to introduce the subject of feelings. The reason “we (human being) begin to invent new justifications” is because we ultimately navigate through life by way of feeling. If it does not feel good to think a way, we alter our thinking.

I have had similar frustrating discussions with those who use fear as an eternal scapegoat and refuse to recognize the divine within themselves. It takes a great deal of understanding to see how nature builds its own morality into everything that exists, beginning with subatomic particles and culminating in these miraculous bodies we so often take for granted, walking around.

The kind of balance can only be achieved though Mother Nature “feeling its way” building block by building block for how it continues to work. Balance works. When things are out of balance, they will not stabilize and allow for greater complexity. In our heads we walk around with big ideas including God. These are the last 5% of our being. 95% of our being already is in place and recognizes balance (and consequently morality by how things feel). We are walking around in the morality of biology every day of our lives. If we tap into our feelings, right and wrong are clear.

Benjamin: “…how nature builds its own morality into everything that exists…”

Alas, as someone who has spent much of his life, one way or another, studying biology, nature is one of the last places I would look to for morality.

In nature, some species routinely eat their own young, a practice which is generally regarded as questionable in most societies. War, genocide, patricide, and most other “cides” you can think of, are fairly common.

Nature is a poor guide for what is moral.

Was disappointed to learn to today that the BBC lump religion and ethics together in one department. And it’s always annoying that the main go-to people for talking about ethical dilemmas on the news and current affairs shows are almost always religious figures, hardly ever philosophers.

The best basis for morality is Socrates’ simple maxim: Care for that within you which prospers by doing good deeds and suffers by doing bad deeds.
I do not need anything above or beyond that to behave justly and humanely. I may not always live up to that, but when I do not I know that I have gone wrong, and, what is more important, in my cooler moments, I know that I have wronged myself before anyone else and more than anyone else. I do not need a foreign god to tell me that.

Keith “Alas, as someone who has spent much of his life, one way or another, studying biology, nature is one of the last places I would look to for morality.”

I believe earnestly that you indeed have studied biology, but have you lived it? Examining life from a distance (i.e academically) you will never understand it. In a situation where “street smarts” are needed, you will inevitably being to explain intellectually your opinions on the matter and unlikely be able to finish your first pontificating sentence.

Nature does not wait on your IDEAS. Nature exacts what works and it does so to maintain balance ALWAYS. Balance IS morality, even if you don’t like how it looks and feels. Your religious programming obviously runs deeper than you have yet realized.

Benjamin:
Can you explain how a subatomic particle, say for instance a neutrino, can have a its own morality? So far as I know modern physics has yet to detect this, and I cannot imagine how it could. Additionally you mention “These are the last 5% of our being. 95% of our being already is in place” Can you enlarge on how these quantities were arrived at. I assume they are the result of some mathematical calculation?

My own take on this problem is that morality is a human construct alone. This means that outside of the human mind it has no existence. In other words reality does not do morality; no more than say, it does poetry or politics. Additionally Right and Wrong are not found outside the human mind things just happen there, that is all, and the matter of balance is not to my mind applicable in such a place. Things either happen, or they do not.

The Earth existed for millions of years before humans evolved; are you claiming that even then morality was sort of, hanging around, and eventually imbued humans?

I am wondering if there is a verbal dispute here, that is to say, your definition of morality differs from how most people would define it. Would you consider using another word such that your views would, with respect, be more attractive to others? I cannot help but think the word Balance is not much assistance here.

As a religious believer, I’m going to stab in the dark, as this is an issue that is of particular interest to me, and I’m always trying to understand you atheist types:

I lean toward Kant on the duty part, but add an insight from my understanding of cognitive anthropology: religion, particularly belief in a deity, is an incredibly useful concept the human mind uses to funnel its understanding of many issues into language which is not only powerfully symbolic, but also compact and economical. Finally, religion tightens the concept of duty due to the psychological implications (a la Pascal Boyer) of a personal god in relation to our intuitive psychology of each other.

In this way, atheist morality, at least all the one’s which I’ve seen, can get it right on the “rationality” part, but cannot gain in the public sphere due to lack of persuasiveness, and for very good reason: lacking the religious funnel means atheist morality cannot be used in quick and dirty situations where one person doesn’t necessarily know a great deal about the other person. This may be the reason why many regular people have a hard time even conceiving of morality without religion.

Sure, you can sub in some washed out humanism in place of religion, but again, I think to many people, even many education people, this concept just doesn’t provide all the pros of religion in funneling morality.

Now, Jeff, no offense, but you seem to think fundamentalist monotheism is the only religion in town or the only form of theism in town (at least the wording in your article makes it seem like this). However, I’m a Christian who thinks that euthanasia and homosexual marriage should be legal, even though I morally disagree with these particular issues.

Given that I don’t think we can even eradicate religion in the first place (given it’s “hardwiring” in the modular mind), I think even talking about it as if we could is driven more by emotional wishful thinking than anything else, as the last lines in your article seem to suggest by talking about some progressive future.

——————-

Anyone responding to me, go easy. I’m an amateur philosopher and might not have the time to have a knock out battle on this issue (like most people usually want to have). Instead, I’m merely here to exchange some ideas and direction of thought, so that I can better understand the atheist positions on morality. Any thoughts are greatly appreciated.

Benjamin: “I believe earnestly that you indeed have studied biology, but have you lived it?”

Have I lived it? Yes. I have probably spent more time wandering through nature than you have.

“Examining life from a distance (i.e academically) you will never understand it.”

What makes you assume that I examine life from a distance?

“…and unlikely be able to finish your first pontificating sentence.”

Arrogant nonsense.

“Nature does not wait on your IDEAS. Nature exacts what works and it does so to maintain balance ALWAYS.”

Nature is mostly out of balance: that is how it works.

“Your religious programming obviously runs deeper than you have yet realized.”

I’m an atheist, you twit. (Normally I would not stoop to name calling but your response is full of arrogrant self-serving assumptions and unjustified blather.)

Don,

When you were a child or even now as you might play with your own child and stack wooden blocks one on another on a table—balance is what rules. The earlier stages must be balanced before you can build higher. In a similar manner, as all physical existence is nothing more than energy in patterns, what allows all energy to express itself in any degree of complexity is balance. This is the only thing that allows life to grow more complex throughout kingdoms and species—just like the wooden blocks

Morality is indeed a word used by humans to describe and determine right from wrong. At some point someone decided something was worth making a stink about and called it “wrong” or someone fell deeply in love and called out “this is right”. By contrast we believe the opposites exist. A couple of frustrated humans get together and decide they are going to determine what “right” and “wrong” is, when it is absurd—life just IS.

As a human construct it doesn’t work. What works is what has always work for eternity—Mother Nature. Mother Nature determines everything. You and I are nature. It just happens. The resistance that many so-called religious people have to looking outside their box is that life could only be considered—as this post initially pointed out—random and lawless. If you look deeply enough into natural law you find morality—you can call it leftover turkey dinner if you like—but it is all we have got as a stand-in for morality.

I believe that reality does indeed do poetry. Just watch a sunset. You and I agree. Words and mind stuff may not get us there through these comments, but we absolutely agree. We agree because we are ultimately the same—in the same boat—living the same thing—life. If we were to just look in each other’s eyes without all these words we would both simply nod and smile. Minds never touch, hearts do.

Just as it feels uncomfortable to lean to far over a railing at the Grand Canyon because of the loss of balance and the danger involved it also feels uncomfortable and not quite right to hurt others. We have overstepped something in both cases. This is balance and the only morality that rules. The rest of it is the thing of debates and endless conversation getting nowhere.

Keith, have another beer.

I would also like to offer a link to an article on my Natural Healing blog concerning the issue of God from a Holistic Healing perspective. Here is that link: Holistically Speaking, Who or What is God?

This is the first time I’ve posted to this site so I hope I’m not intruding. Let me preface my comments by saying that I am one of those atheist types Tom is trying to understand. His comments are insightful and add a much-needed balance to the debate. We need to understand his thoughts as much as he is attempting to understand the atheist side of things.

Religion is a nearly universal given in cultures around the world and throughout history. This is not an accident. Tom is correct to point out that religion provides a shared shorthand for understanding ethical problems. Without this shared understanding on the part of so many, can we really imagine that the moral landscape would be any healthier? The atheists commenting to this essay can’t seem to agree on any one compelling basis for ethical thought. Should nature, red in tooth and claw, be our example? Does one follow Kant, Bentham, or Camus? Without some monolithic source of moral consensus, especially one that is “hardwired” into our psyches, how is public debate to be framed?

Pun intended, I’m playing Devil’s advocate. I don’t believe that belief in an anthropomorphic deity is necessary for an individual to have consistent ethical standards or moral behavior. Still, I think we all need to read over Tom’s posting carefully and thoughtfully.

Randy

Perhaps we should focus more directly on the problem Jeff Mason posed. As I understand it we were asked to consider if a system of morality having any worth could exist without it supposedly emanating from God. In my opinion religion conspires against wisdom. So far as the ten or is it twelve commandments are concerned, the first few direct the way in which we must behave towards an all powerful god. The remaining commandments are generally reasonably good but provide no advice as to why we should behave in certain ways towards each other.

Consider for example the command ‘Thou shalt not steal’ this I understand if obeyed without question will ensure that god will reward the agent. If disobeyed god will punish the agent. What we have here is shaping behaviour by means of reward or punishment. So if one asks a believer why he does not steal he will reply because it is forbidden in The Bible. This of course is a most unsatisfactory state of affairs. The believer has never been informed by the authority to which he bows, of the social undesirability of stealing, the misery and distress it causes, depriving someone of their own property. The believer is never advised to place himself in the position of the victim and consider how he would feel. The commandment does not say ‘thou shalt not steal because of its social consequences, it is because god will wreck the most terrible punishment on you if you do. This and a multitude of other reasons is why I say religion conspires against wisdom.

There very good reasons for endeavouring to abide by some of the commandments and I am well aware that some people of faith also are fully aware of the sociological implications of stealing, but fear of the wrath emanating from an entity having as much evidence of existence as does a unicorn is not one of them. I conclude therefore that a proper and sound moral code is not fully determined by religion, which is not even a necessary part of that code.

Kevin Spacey’s character from K-PAX,the movie:

“Every being in the universe knows right from wrong, Mark.”

We just know it — we know it by how it FEELS to be OUT OF BALANCE.

[...] at Talking Philosophy, a post by Jeff Mason has generated a few interesting comments. The post itself is interesting (hence the comments, I [...]

There’s a fair amount of descriptive truth to what Tom is saying. Many people do use religion in this way – this is of course an entirely separate issue from whether they should do so. The latter question would be answered by knowing which was the most optimal way to derive moral rules (in terms of their intelligibility, motivational force, outcomes, sustainability, coherence, etc.).

I’ve said more over at http://synapses.co.za/good-god/

Interesting comments here, and a thought-provoking post. It’s also great to see the (largely) civil way in which people are interacting.

Hi everyone. Thanks for the thoughtful responses. What I would like to know is what would happen to the hot button moral problems of the current age, if, per impossibile, supernatural judgments had never played a role in defining ideas of right and wrong and having a say on moral problems.

Morality is human, isn’t it? People care about right and wrong according to how people suffer or how they wish to avoid suffering. Whether God exists or not will not necessarily give way to moral degradation. Physical suffering and the quantity of people on this planet who affect others is so obvious in today’s world. The economy is a monitor of our behavior, the natural resources and their seeming scarcity monitor’s our behavior, natural disasters monitor our behavior. Doing “good” is the result of “I’ll scrtach your back if you scratch mine” more than any altruistic notion of an ideal morality. People behave morally because they have to to avoid suffering, not because they have made an altruistic choice to love God above all else.

Ethics without God happens often. For example, professional ethics (w/ formal statements of principles of professional conduct) do not mention God or any other divine being.

The prior question is ‘Can ethics without enforcement work?’ Professional ethics typically have mechanisms for reprimanding, even outing, a wayward member. Informal ethics such as schoolyard ethics have rewards and punishments to persuade members or dissuade non-members.

As for doing or promoting the doing of good things, Christian ethics has a better track record than philosophy. A notably example: 19th-century Anglicans were very instrumental in getting slavery banned in English-speaking countries.

Are there ethics in which someone will create or maintain a good or benefit for another without reward or punishment? At least one: the ethics of love.

Happy Valentine, eh?

I think that’s sort of why religion was created in the first place. I for one don’t think people need “God” in their life to live morally, but a lot of people do. It helps instill people with a sense of good, and for that it’s appropriate. However, to think that without God we would have no morals is just silly. I don’t follow and religious pretext or guidelines, and I consider myself a very moral person.

I think using religion as a shortcut for understanding and framing ethical issues in discussions with others is useful, but not necessary.

I have not yet found a way to satisfactorily build a system of ethics on a non-religious foundation and yet humankind still manages to get by. There are laws and legal systems that tell us how to behave and provide for punishment. They can be different in each society as different societies will base their laws on different (usually religious) bases. So again religion proves to be a useful shorthand by providing a basis on which we can build practical systems to govern people with.

I also think most religion & religious creeds are created by humans.

So I guess my conclusion is that all moral codes are created by humans but that we are unable to define or defend them from first principles. Instead we have to start with a set of (hopefully shared) assumptions (-it’s wrong to kill, steal, etc.) and then build up our moral / legal system from there – religion provides those assumptions for us and gives us a justification for using them.

Of course if we could all only agree on one single religion then that would simplify the discussion of moral matters as Jeff Mason seemed to have hoped for.

If God exist and if he is this all mighty entity that is above all understanding how could assume that morality is relevant to him?

I think this post misses the issue a bit. While I think it’s true that some of ‘God’s’ prescriptions are very problematic, even amoral (like gay rights), I think these are really issues with religion. And confusing God with religion is an error both sides of the debate make.

I want to suggest that God is believed to be the keeper for morality is because he represents the existence of an objective perspective, an absolutism in the universe. Without the existence of such a perspective, the concept that something is wrong in the ultimate sense that we want things to be wrong becomes very difficult to ground. Moral realism becomes extremely hard to argue.

Let’s take utilitarianism, for example, as you say a morality that exists without God. But how do we know what maximizes pleasure/happiness? What’s the ‘right’ pleasure, and for whom, and why? And how do we answer these questions in a satisfying way without referring to some kind of objective standpoint? That’s what I think is the relevant and interesting place God enters into the discussion.

Am just curious how this thought experiment can successfully proceed, weeding out religious bias even from among atheists, who nonetheless have a concept of God. [After all, can think of 'not A' when there is no A to talk about?]. Would this thought experiment require a laboratory involving a group of individuals who must be quarantined from birth, in that their sense of right and wrong is well confined within this God-less environment (provided, of course, that the very strong meme [har, har, thanks to dawkins] of a religious belief will not cross their minds, or even created)?

Kezia, you make a very good point about the difference between a divine being and a man-made interpretation of the cosmos. I agree that humans feel a need to ground their morality in something and the only thing that could ultimately be the objective reason / support for a moral system would be a divine being.

Peter Day: “I agree that humans feel a need to ground their morality in something and the only thing that could ultimately be the objective reason / support for a moral system would be a divine being.”

But if the divine being does not actually exist, then this morality is not grounded on anything (except what some people think an imaginary divine being wants).

I am a human and I certainly do not need to ground my morality on an imaginary divine being.

An interesting question came up as to whether we are able to disentangle divine input into our moral controversies. Why can’t we? Take the so-called ‘issue’ with homosexuality and gay marriage. What if the Bible had said that sexual orientation is neutral, and it is how we treat each other that matters. Or what if it said nothing about sexual pleasures and morality? I agree this is hypothetical, but we can imagine that sexual orientation would be a non-issue without divine input. All we would see is that there is a small minority that prefers same sex love relationships, and a majority that do not. This would be a simple observation and not a condemnation. Just an idea.

I entirely agree on the sexual orientation point - it simply does not involve any defensible notion of “wrongness”, apart from it’s wrongness by definition, at least according to some religious systems.

Just an intro, I didn’t type this to try and convince anyone, just to present both sides of an argument from my own understanding. Balance was out of the question when I wrote this being that I have the option to be reasonably biased in this, the best country on earth. Although I think the Arab Emirates will be the best country once they finish that nice arrangement of islands which is suppose to look like a map of the world from the sky.

I think this is a great convo on morality. Some very good points are being brought up here. I love to learn about this stuff, really broadens a person’s horizons in terms of thinking logically about reality. However, I do have a point I would like to present, and that is, if God does not exist then do good and evil exist? Also we must define what the word “exist” actually means. In a materialist thought there cannot exist a consciousness of sorts, being that everything is made of matter and energy, therefore this concept of mystical consciousness would not exist as many materialist have acknowledged. Therefore in order to say that something doest exist it should be able to be proven by experiment that this thing does exist as matter and energy.

So, if we look at evil through materialist eyes, can we say that it exists? If there is no consciousness or God then that means there is no original basis for good and evil but in fact those terms would be subjective. I think it can reasonably be concluded that something which is subjective cannot be proven by experiment, otherwise it would be absolute. Now if good and evil are subjective then there’s no absolute good or evil, each idea of good and evil being arguably and reasonably an opinion or belief. Now if there are no absolutes concerning good and evil, then the existence of good and evil cannot be proven materially, they would simply be distant concepts, kind of like a faith in a god or gods, and for the atheist, arguably none existent. Now if good and evil are subjective non-absolutes then it can reasonably be agreed that good and evil do not exist. Now, if good and evil do not exist then all arguments concerning morality should logically cease, and also logically not cease. If good and evil do not exist, then morality, being the basis for which we decide good and evil, inevitably become the basis for which we decide two nonexistents. Therefore, morality is also a distant improvable concept. Now an experiment to prove morality cannot be performed on the basis of whether or not morality is good or bad being that those things arguably do not exist. So, morality also does not exist, or it exists as a delusion for the sake of convenience in terms of the norm.

Now concerning this morality as a convenience for the sake of the norm, some would say this is necessary for meaning. Yet, if good and evil are nonexistent, and morality is a nonexistent, then off the basis of which nonexistent moral code does a person base their understanding of meaning? It would seem that an argument must be postulated to in some way give reason to hold true to a delusion. Yet if such an argument were to be developed, then why would the atheist debate with the theist. If it is true that all of the ideas of good, evil, and morality are subjective and logically do not exist, yet it is okay for one to remain in the delusion of a life as if these things do exist, then if a person believes it to be best for them to hold true to a delusion, and I am ethically speaking here, then what reasoning does that person have to try and disprove what they think is another person’s delusion? Of course this spreading of radical atheism should logically cease, and yet again, according to materialist thought everything I am saying here is subjective, and if that were true, then in my view, everything they are saying is subjective, and so even to say that something is subjective is subjective, which leads into a whole other problem concerning truth, which would also not exist, therefore, it would not be reasonable to agree nor disagree, yet my subjective thoughts can reasonably conclude that this world view concedes that the world revolves around each individual, because their perception is subjective to everyone else.

Now, in looking at the idea of faith in God, with that faith there is provided an original basis for the concepts in morality, good and evil have absolutes, meaning is provided by the intrinsic value of humanity provided at creation, and God is no longer a distant concept but a close friend and father. Morality, in its truest form, is not based on delusion, it is not based on fear of death or hell, it is not based on law or debates, but it is based on love; morality is based on true love for one’s creator and His purpose in creation, true love for humanity and one’s purpose for one’s creator.

In the materialist world view, the dead end of their thoughts leaves the person with their hands full of nonexistent concepts and incalculable delusions. There is no meaning, inevitably no actual understanding. Yet in the world view which is faith in the one true God, the dead end leaves the person with some questions, but most of all, the persons attention is focused on the overwhelming sensations of love, compassion, and trust. The materialist perception say’s that a person’s essence, if I may use that word, is carried on by their legacy. But in the theist perception, the essence of the one who has faith in God is carried on into eternity.

Here is where the line is drawn between atheistic logic and pragmatism. How can the end of one’s thoughts be love, compassion and trust? Yes, reality is harsh, the basics of pragmatic thought tell us this. Frustration and anger persist in this present reality. Yet it is the hope of the believer which says that there is an alternate reality; this one being temporal, the other being eternal, this one being full of pain, the other being the very image of everything that is good and perfect beyond our perception. So how can a believer’s “dead end” in terms of understanding be love, compassion, and trust? The answer is hope. Eternity, or perfection, although an alternate reality, is ever present within this present reality. Hope in this future, opens our perception to that futures existence in this present time; this allowing a person to taste of the love, compassion, and trust which are present in the eternal reality, while here in this temporal reality. Now, whichever one of these thoughts a person has faith in will ultimately decide whether or not they are left with nonexistents and delusions, or absolutes which come from the mind of God, which only a fool would argue that God’s thoughts are also subjective in the grand scheme of everything. Ultimately, a person’s faith can only leave them with two things, if they believe in no creator, then they are left with nothingness, if they believe in the creator, then they are left with hope, and in the words of the Apostle to the gentiles, “hope does not disappoint” (Romans 5:5a).

Matthew, you claim that morals can only exist if there is an absolute standard in the mind of God. Yet that begs the question: Are moral standards good in themselves or simply because God commands them? If morality is about choices, how can a being that cannot make evil choices be moral at all? Is “good” simply what he commands? If so, then being willing to kill your child on his whim becomes a good moral choice. “Thou shalt not kill!–Well, except when I order you to do so!” That’s not exactly an absolute, is it?

Morality is most properly based in human nature itself. Moral choices are about values and the foundation for all values is Life itself. We have one basic capacity as humans which differentiates us from all other animals: To choose to value Life or not. Like all other creatures, we are biologically programmed to preserve our own lives. Beyond that is the question of how to live our lives well–or at all. A natural moral philosophy starts with the basic needs we all have as human beings and asserts the first “ought”–We OUGHT to seek that which is actually good for us. It is self-refuting to argue the opposite. Of course humans make bad choices because we often confuse apparent goods with real goods. Yet every human has the need for food, shelter, health and companionship. A rational morality strives to balance the needs of everyone by the protecting the rights of each individual to meet those needs without trampling the rights of others to do the same.

I’m an atheist and do not deny the critical importance of love in human life. Living without belief in God does not leave me with “nothingness.” Indeed, if you would not love your parents, your children and your friends just as much whether there is or is not a God, then your concept of love is sadly twisted.

I wouldn’t complain if we could live for eternity in perfect bliss after this life. However, I see no evidence of an afterlife, nor for deities of any sort. That doesn’t destroy hope, it focuses it where it belongs: This life. If it is all we have, that doesn’t devalue it–it makes it all the more precious.

No one denies *some* positives have come from religions. The problem lies in their contradiction with modern science, guilt-tripping, and promotion of ignorance.

If people are told faith in certain disproven beliefs is the ultimate form of goodness, they are being told to flat out disregard the truth. And the sad thing is, plenty of people will disregard the truth because of what an ancient document says.

There are people who refuse to hospitalize or medicate their kids when their survival is at stake, because they *believe* that modern medical treatment is harmful and that all that is needed is faith in God. And as a result, their kids get sicker and may die. The lunacy and fanaticism within the human race has no bounds.

There is no mention here of Confucius, who made the claim that metaphysical beliefs about God and the universe are irrelevant. Without appealing to God, Confucius was able to influence Chinese beliefs for thousands of years, assuring people that benevolent relations with fellow humans is the social glue that holds human civilization together. One could compare this to Levinas’ talk of “the other” in the West.