Argument from morality and existence of God

Wikipedia says

In its most general form, the moral argument is that:

1. Some aspect of Morality (e.g., its objective force) is observed. (Moral realism)

2. Belief in God provides a better explanation of this feature than various alternatives.

3. Therefore, to the extent that (1) is accepted, belief in God is preferable to these alternatives

Basically, the argument for the existence of God is that “If there is no God, there are no morals”. Or in other words, “If there is no God, everything is permissible”. For me, it is akin to saying that if there was no police and legal system we would live in a chaotic and a lawless society. Which means that people abide by the laws, merely because they are afraid of being punished. When I first read it I thought this was a very cynical view of humanity.

I believe that a majority of the people majority of the time know what the law is and abide by it, irrespective of whether someone is watching over them. That definitely does not preclude the importance and role of the police force. There is still a small minority who do not understand the importance of upholding the law, or even if they do, break the law anyway. We need the police, so that what is generally understood as lawful by the society is enforced.

There is a difference between laws and morals. I think, the legal system is an interpretation and implementation of morality. When a car dealer or a real estate agent lies to the customer to sell a car or a property, it isn’t illegal, unless it is written. No one can hold them accountable for it. But, it is still not what the society believes is moral behaviour.

The question is, how do you enforce morality. A democratic society gives a person right to choose to whether or not believe in God. The parallels in the legal system is giving people a right to choose to stay within the legal system. This will allow people to opt out of the legal system. When such a person commits an unlawful act, the legal system can not hold him accountable, because, he/she did not accept the validity of the legal system in the first place.

I am in no way suggesting that belief in God should be made mandatory. I was an atheist 12 years ago, but I had a good idea of what was moral and I lived by it. On the other hand, I know people who would seem to strong believers in God, but wouldn’t mind accepting bribes. I think they believe it to be either less immoral, or even completely moral, and hence not punishable by God. If we allow people to decide what is moral and what is not, the line between the both will eventually completely disappear.

Law requires evidence, and law can not be everywhere. Moreover, the legal system can not ensure morality. But neither can religion, unless there is a clear and rigid set of moral codes and everyone is bound by their belief in a God who rewards adherence to these codes and punishes any straying away from them. Moreover, define these laws as being passed down by God, and it kills any argument against them. This is what dogmatic religion is all about, and this is a bigger problem. What happens when our understanding of the world changes, and what is truly evident goes against this very religious dogma? No, that isn’t acceptable as well.

What we need is belief in a democratic God. Morality is determined by majority, which takes into consideration any changes that might occur as a result of an improvement in our understanding of the world. God can be given the role of enforcing this morality. That seems to me the best solution to this morality argument. The solution is to create a belief in a God who enforces the moral code of conduct determined by humans.