Last Friday, Christian apologist Sean McDowell debated Orange County Atheist high school teacher James Corbett at Saddleback College. The topic of the debate was "Is God the Best Source for Morality?" This event was co-sponsored by the Campus Crusade for Christ and the Freethinkers Club. Regardless of the outcome, these two clubs working together to open up a dialog represents a great cooperation and a very positive activity.
Many who are not active churchgoers are not familiar with the broad field of Christian apologetics. "Apologetics" does not mean "apologizing" for being a Christian, it represents a field of rational thought and reason that enables Christians to present reasoned arguments for their faith. I wasn't aware of Sean McDowell before the debate last Friday, but students have informed me that he's very well-known and I can see why, after listening to him and visiting his website. Other well-known apologeticists that I am familiar with include Ravi Zacharias and Dinesh D'Souza. I've listened to Dinesh, who truly is a powerful, rational presenter for his opinions, and have read Ravi Zacharias' books. One impressive thing about Ravi Zacharias is that he comes from a Hindu tradition, and thus is able to compare religious and cultural traditions in a reasoned, cultured way.
As a Christian science fiction writer, I've worked in a religion-free area for some time. I have an audience that may have no familiarity at all with the concepts that my work might be inspired by. Most Christians immediately recognized my story "To Kiss the Star" as an examination of a very basic question of faith - how could a loving God "give" terrible disabilities and diseases to a good, kind, caring young woman, while others who are "bad" are totally healthy, disease-free, and can do whatever they want? I have readers who are not only a-Christian, they are anti-Christian and completely unreceptive to any type of Christian thought. They tend to assume that Christians are stupid and ignorant. They think that Christians know nothing of science, and are resistant to, or incapable of, rational thought. They actually think that the unsophisticated presentations such as the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" or this About.com Atheist article about "moral standards" are "smart," while all Christians are knuckle-dragging morons. There is such a vast gulf of mental acuity between Christians like Sean, Ravi and Dinesh and any of the leading Atheists that I can't find any analogies to match the difference.
There was no contest between Sean McDowell and James Corbett (of "Jesus Glasses" fame) in this debate. It is not that Sean "won" in presenting that all morality must derive from God. It is that Corbett was woefully unprepared, and above all, was unable to provide any non-religious foundation for morality or moral behavior of any type. This entire article seeks to debunk the attitude that Atheists have no reason to have morals or care about others. The problem is, the author never says what morals are important to Atheists and why they hold those attitudes, except to point up that if people care about dogs and cats, then it's probably a good idea to care about other people too. This is what we call "enlightened freethinking" I suppose.
I am a Bible-believing Christian, but I can provide some examples and evidence of morality and moral behavior that does not derive from the Bible (or any other religion). Most people who have studied comparative religions see many correspondences between them. But let's see what examples there are of non-religious-derived moral concepts and behaviors:
Sharing and community - this is an interesting article that focuses on how obeying rules and the appeal of simple, elegant "memes" of behavior and thought has a strong human appeal.
Utilitarianism - this article presents a "utilitarian" or enlightened self-interest approach to moral values.
Being able to live with one's self - this article covers a fascinating-sounding Korean film called "The Thirst" that tells the story of a researcher who becomes a vampire, and who struggles with his use of others to survive without religious feelings.
Again, the monster egotist Dawkins probably cannot describe a world with morality, but without religious faith probably due to his own personal lacks - he can only criticize the fears of religious people about what may happen in a world without religious faith.
Probably the simplest and most beautiful expression of moral behavior in the absence of religion is "Everything I Needed to Know, I Learned in Kindergarten" by Robert Fulghum. His simple ideas have been adopted worldwide - this is a Canadian World Peace site. This would have been such a simple, powerful "argument" that morality need not rest exclusively in religion, nor derive exclusively from it. Unfortunately, many angry Atheists like Corbett operate solely out of fear and anger, not openness or even common sense. Letting go of one's unreasoned anger, also, is something that most religions, and also most common sense, will recommend as a way for healthy living, and healthy living is generally considered "moral," in our society today. Morals are, of course, also derived from society as well.
Now, as to writing, imagining a society that is moral, or a society in which people make choices about right and wrong in the absence of a religion, that is the province of fantasy - or science fiction. And it is a very challenging task indeed.