All Muslim Objections answered about Morality and Atheism

Unfortunately, Islam faces significant moral criticisms, which atheists often highlight. In response, Islamists argue that atheists lack the moral foundation to criticize Islam, claiming that without a belief system, atheism has no basis for moral judgment. For example, the MuslimSkeptic Website, which belongs to famous Islamic apologist Daniel Haqiqatjou, writes (link):  

Atheism Has No Morality: The overwhelming majority of atheist “criticism” against Islam and religion in general are moral claims. Yet to an intelligent person this does not make sense. How do people without any moral foundation have the audacity to make moral arguments in the first place? In short there is “objective morality” and then there is “subjective morality.” You see, atheists do not have any objective morality in the first place. What atheism can only do is create subjective morality. Subjective = opinion, whereas objective = fact (there is no 3rd one).e.g: “Red is the best color” is subjective, but “2+2=4” is objective. In other words, atheists are criticizing Islam based on their own subjective personal opinions. They might as well say, “I hate Islam because Muslims like the color green, but my favorite color is blue,” and it be no different than the garbage they say currently.

Our Response: 

Before addressing the debate on objective vs. subjective morality, let us clarify the basics:

The Origin of Morality: Humanity Within Us

• The ORIGIN of morality lies in the HUMANITY within us: The origin of morality lies in the humanity within us. Our innate human qualities—empathy, compassion, and a sense of justice—provide a strong moral foundation for distinguishing right from wrong. These traits form an internal moral compass that guides ethical behavior and are universally shared across cultures, although their interpretation can be subjective.

• The Evolutionary Basis of Humanity and Morality (Scientific Reason): The origin of many human behaviors, including moral ones, can be traced back to our evolutionary biology, which involves the release of hormones that promote positive social behaviors like kindness, empathy, and cooperation. For instance, hormones like oxytocin promote feelings of trust and bonding, reinforcing behaviors that benefit the group. Our physiology has evolved to release hormones that promote feelings of happiness and well-being when we engage in positive social interactions, such as showing love, kindness, or empathy towards others. Behaviors that promote cooperation, altruism, and empathy evolved because they were beneficial for the survival of social species like ours. From an evolutionary perspective, helping others—even at a cost to yourself—creates mutual benefit and increases the likelihood that genes are passed on. Thus, from an evolutionary perspective, morality is a survival mechanism, not a divine gift.

Atheists do not need divine commands to live ethical lives. They rely on the same moral foundations—empathy, compassion, and fairness—that are shared by all humans. What sets atheists apart is their willingness to question, refine, and adapt their moral beliefs based on reason and evidence, rather than accepting them as unchanging truths.

The Role of Reason in Shaping Morality

While our moral foundations are universal, the specific moral choices we make are shaped by reason, culture, and experience. This is where subjectivity enters the picture. Human reasoning allows us to interpret and apply our innate moral instincts in diverse and complex ways. For example:

• Role of Human REASONING in morality: As humans evolved, we developed the capacity for higher reasoning and cultural advancement. This allowed us to go beyond basic instincts and continually improve our moral frameworks. Human reasoning, influenced and shaped by culture, society, upbringing, and personal experiences, enables us to evaluate and refine our moral choices.

Here are examples of some factors which could influence human reasoning, ultimately making them to land on different subjective moral decisions:

• Empathy vs. Emotions: Emotions like anger or love further influence moral decisions, either reinforcing ethical behavior or, when mismanaged, leading to biased or harmful actions.
• Balancing Empathy with Reason: Reasoning helps us balance empathy with justice, especially when complex decisions, like punishment, are involved. Thus, while empathy discourages harm, reasoning helps us navigate complex cases, like punishing a serial killer, balancing empathy with sense of justice.
• Ignoring Empathy due to Self-Interests: Human Reasoning can also be influenced due to Self-Interests, and in this case EMPATHY and sense of justice may be totally ignored for the sake of self-interest.
• Ignoring Empathy due to Religious Indoctrination: Some individuals may come to a conclusion through their human reasoning (or through their learned behaviour due to their upbringing and indoctrination) that there exist any higher power (i.e. god), and his commands have preference over our limited innate wisdom. Thus, this human reasoning make them to ignore both empathy and sense of justice, and that individual than consider religious ruling to be moral. Thus, religious morality (also known as religious Objective Morality) prioritize divine commands over innate human empathy, which can sometimes lead to actions that contradict humanistic principles.

Thus, even without divine guidance, humanity within us provides a robust foundation for ethical behavior. While individual interpretations of morality may vary, the core values of empathy, compassion, and justice remain central to our collective sense of right and wrong. Atheists, like anyone else, can rely on these innate human qualities to navigate the complexities of morality.

Religions don't have any OBJECTIVE Morality:

Religions do not provide objective morality; rather, they promote what can be described as a "Master-Slave Morality." In this framework, adherents are expected to follow the subjective moral views and directives of the religion’s founding figure or scripture without questioning their validity or universality (i.e. even religious teachings go against our innate humanity, still they have to follow them in the name of objective morality). However, religious people don't realize that this form of so-called objective morality is inherently subjective, as it reflects the personal beliefs, cultural context, and societal norms of the founder’s time.

1. Cultural and Historical Relativity:
   The moral principles promoted by religious figures often reflect the cultural and historical conditions of their era. For instance, practices like slavery, gender inequality, or harsh punishments, which were common in certain historical periods, are enshrined in many religious texts. This indicates that these moral codes are not objective or timeless but are tied to the subjective worldview of their originators.

2. Blind Obedience vs. Critical Reasoning:
   Religious morality often discourages independent thought by demanding unquestioning obedience to divine commands or the teachings of prophets. This reliance on authority limits the capacity for moral reasoning and ethical evolution. Objective morality, on the other hand, requires principles that can be rationally debated, universally applied, and refined through critical thinking.

3. Conflicting Moralities Across Religions:
   Different religions propose vastly different moral systems, often contradicting one another. For example, some religions may see polygamy as moral, while others strictly condemn it. These contradictions highlight the subjective nature of religious moralities, as they are shaped by the unique contexts of their founders rather than reflecting universal ethical truths.

4. Dependence on Supernatural Validation:
   Religious morality often derives its authority from supernatural claims, such as divine revelations or commandments. This reliance makes morality contingent upon belief in the religion itself, meaning it lacks universal applicability. An objective morality would not depend on supernatural validation but would stand independently, based on logic, empathy, or shared human experience.

5. Moral Stagnation:
   Religious moral systems tend to resist change, as they are often considered divinely ordained and immutable. This rigidity can lead to outdated practices being maintained despite evolving societal norms and ethical advancements. Objective morality, in contrast, adapts and progresses with time, reflecting humanity's growing understanding of ethics and justice.

Thus, Religious morality is ultimately subjective, rooted in the personal and cultural biases of its originators. A truly objective morality would transcend individual beliefs, cultural contexts, and religious doctrines, offering a universal framework based on reason, empathy, and shared human values.

The Science of Innate Moral Sense:

The moral foundation of morality is not arbitrary or invented—it is deeply rooted in our biology and evolutionary history. As social creatures, humans evolved to cooperate, form bonds, and resolve conflicts in ways that promote group survival. Traits like empathy and fairness are not just abstract ideals; they are hardwired into our brains and bodies. For instance, hormones like oxytocin promote feelings of trust and bonding, reinforcing behaviors that benefit the group. From an evolutionary perspective, morality is a survival mechanism, not a divine gift.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780124201903000454

Abstract

Is there an innate moral sense? Scientific evidence, from child development, linguistics, and behavioral economics to neuroscience, moral psychology, and primatology reveals universal drives that constitute a biologically prepared moral architecture within human nature. This innate moral sense is akin to the innate predisposition for smell or language and suggests human beings are born with the prototypes of a sense that fosters anxiety when they witness others in distress and, similarly, promotes positive feelings when that distress is alleviated. Incorporating the concept of an innate moral sense into our models of social and political life would improve ethical analysis.

Nobody needs to instruct a baby on how to love their mother; it comes naturally thanks to hormonal influences.

Skin-to-skin contact between a newborn and their mother shortly after delivery is crucial and emotionally charged for both parties. Your touch and voice provide comfort and security for your baby, and this interaction triggers the release of oxytocin in your body.

Notably, childbirth and breastfeeding lead to a significant increase in oxytocin levels in women, promoting maternal bonding and nurturing behaviors.

Oxytocin, often referred to as the "love hormone," plays a crucial role in fostering attachment between parents and their offspring. While it was initially believed that only mothers experienced a surge in oxytocin levels during childbirth and breastfeeding, research has shown that fathers also exhibit similar hormonal changes when they engage in activities that promote bonding with their children.

Studies have revealed that emotionally invested fathers display increased levels of prolactin, a hormone typically associated with breastfeeding and sexual satisfaction, and vasopressin, a hormone linked to bonding and stress response in mothers. These findings suggest that fathers who actively participate in parenting experiences can experience hormonal changes akin to those of mothers.

However, the extent to which these hormonal changes occur depends on the level of proximity and interaction between the father and child. For instance, when a child sleeps with their parents, the father's recognition and response to the baby's cries, and playful interactions between the two, all contribute to strengthening their bond. In contrast, when there is a lack of physical closeness, the fatherhood effect diminishes.

As individuals mature, their moral compass is no longer solely determined by innate factors. Empathy, enlightened self-interest, and societal pressures become increasingly influential in shaping an adult's moral values. While empathy remains a vital aspect of moral development throughout a person's life, its significance wanes somewhat as other factors come into play.

In contrast, infants rely heavily on instinctual behaviours such as empathy and trust in their caregivers, which significantly impact their early moral formation. As the child grows and interacts more with society, external influences progressively shape their moral code. Ultimately, the interplay between innate tendencies and environmental factors contributes to the complex and dynamic nature of human morality.

Innate Humanity within Muslims also clearly guides them on matters of right and wrong

Indeed, the innate humanity within every Muslim clearly guides them on matters of right and wrong, even when confronted with deeply ingrained religious doctrines. Consider the issue of apostasy, where Islam mandates the death penalty for a Muslim who chooses to leave the faith.

At a fundamental level, every Muslim's innate humanity recognizes the inherent injustice in this double standard. It is clear to them that while Islam encourages non-Muslims to convert, it unjustly prohibits Muslims from leaving the faith. This contradiction is a clear violation of the universal sense of justice that resides within all of us.

However, many Muslims are able to suppress this innate sense of justice due to powerful influences, particularly religious upbringing and indoctrination, which plays the major role in their human reasoning. These factors condition them to prioritize divine commands over their own moral instincts. As a result, they come to view adherence to Allah’s commands as morally superior, even when those commands contradict their innate sense of right and wrong.

In contrast, ex-Muslims represent individuals whose innate humanity has triumphed over the effects of religious indoctrination. Their internal sense of justice has ultimately led them to reject the moral inconsistencies they perceived in the Islamic system, prompting them to leave the faith.

This phenomenon is not unique to Islam. For example, every devout Hindu, guided by their innate humanity, can recognize the inherent injustice of the caste system. Yet, the forces of religious upbringing and indoctrination instill a belief that the religiously sanctioned social order holds moral superiority, overriding their natural sense of fairness and equality.

Another Example of "Islamic Objective Morality":

Allah says about salvey and sex slavery: 

• It is okay to rape captive women and even minor girls (although they were innocent and had no role in the war). 
• It is okay to turn captives (including small children) into slaves for their entire life.
• It is okay that coming generations of slave parents are also born automatically as slaves (i.e. the evil of Slavery by Birth in Islam).
• It is okay to separate a baby of 6 months (who has two teeth) from his/her slave parents and sell him/her in the Islamic Bazaars of Slavery. 
• It is okay for an owner to rape his slave girls. And after fulfilling his lust, it was ok for him to hand her over to his brother or slave. And once all his brothers and slaves have raped her one by one (in Shia Muta Type "TEMPORARY Sexual Relationship), then she could be sold to 2nd master in the Islamic Bazaar of Slavery. And it was ok for the 2nd 2nd to rape her, and then sell her to the 3rd master...
• It is okay for an owner to snatch away the wife of his slave, and then rape her, and then return her to his slave.
• It is okay to prohibit slave women from taking Hijab. 
• It is okay that slave women are compelled to move in public with naked breasts ... (Please read all these Sharia Rulings about Slaves here) 

For non-Muslims, these acts of Islamic slavery are crimes against humanity. 

But, for Muslims, it is totally moral to commit these acts against slave girls. Although their innate human qualities—empathy, compassion, and a sense of justice— are clearly guiding them that these are injustices against humanity, however they ignore them through their human reasoning (i.e. Allah is supreme and his wisdom is greater than human wisdom). 

Buddha didn’t rely on any "Religious Objective Morality"; instead, he developed his own system of ethics

Buddha did not believe in gods, nor did he claim to be a prophet or receive divine revelations. He rejected the so-called Objective Morality of Hinduism and based his teachings entirely on his inner empathy and rational thought. The humanity within him was enough to discern what is good and what is bad.

This challenges the claim made by Islamic preachers that atheists cannot have a moral foundation without belief in a god or religion. They overlook the fact that humanity transcends all religions and deities, including Allah.

Morals are always subjective. Were all of Buddha's morals flawless? No. Were they influenced by his cultural context? Certainly yes. However, the key takeaway is that nothing in this world is 100% perfect. Nonetheless, moral principles have consistently guided humanity, exposing the flaws in so-called "objective" religious morals, such as the acceptance of slavery or the caste system.

Now, let’s reframe the question:

• Do Muslim preachers acknowledge that Buddha had morals?
• Do they accept that Buddha had the right to CRITICIZE the so-called religious objective morality of Hinduism, based upon his inner humanity and rational human thought? 

Let’s see how Islamists respond to these questions. 

Muslim Tactic: Using Confusion to Deflect Criticism of Islamic Morality

Modern Islamists, such as Mohammad Hijab, employ tactics designed to confuse people and discourage them from questioning the moral flaws in Islamic teachings. These strategies often include:

1. Overwhelming with Philosophical Jargon: They cite or misquote atheist philosophers like Nietzsche, John Stuart Mill, or Jeremy Bentham and use complex terms like Utilitarianism, Hedonism, the Harm Principle, moral realism, ethical naturalism, etc. Most people are unfamiliar with these names and ideas, leading to confusion and hesitation in criticizing Islamic morality.

2. Questioning Qualifications: They argue that critics of Islam lack the "credentials" to comment on Islamic teachings. They insist that one must have a PhD in philosophy or Islamic studies before they can question or critique Islamic morality.

Our Response: 

We do not rely on atheist philosophers to justify our morality. While their ideas may enhance our understanding, we are not bound to their teachings like Muslims are to Muhammad in a Philosophical Master-Slave relationship. Terms like Utilitarianism, Hedonism, or the Harm Principle often lead to similar conclusions, and one does not need to master these philosophies to recognize what is right and wrong.

It is absurd to demand a PhD to criticize Islam. The humanity within us is enough to recognize the moral failings in Islamic teachings, such as:

• The allowance of enslaving and raping innocent captive women and children.
• Practicing "Slavery by Birth" or selling infants in slave markets.
• Killing apostates for leaving Islam.
• Inciting hatred against non-Muslims and justifying violent jihad to impose Sharia law.

These actions are self-evidently immoral to anyone guided by empathy and rational thinking.

Buddha did not rely on atheist philosophers or philosophical terminology to determine what was right or wrong. His inner humanity and empathy were sufficient to guide him toward creating a moral framework.

Similarly, ex-Muslims, even during their time in Islam, often felt an internal conflict between their humanity and the teachings of Islamic morality. Despite religious brainwashing that declared Islamic morality unquestionable, their humanity ultimately prevailed, allowing them to challenge and reject these teachings.

Even today, moderate or progressive Muslims feel discomfort with certain Islamic rulings. They recognize that practices like slavery or killing apostates are wrong, thanks to the humanity within them. This leads them to advocate for reform, much like Buddha reformed aspects of the caste system in his time.

You don’t need a PhD to join Islam, question its teachings, or leave it. All you need is your humanity, empathy, and the ability to think critically. These qualities are enough to recognize that certain aspects of Islamic morality are incompatible with basic human ethics