“There are absolute rights and wrongs. That moral law, in the Declaration [of Independence], we call it the laws of nature and of nature’s god. There are moral absolutes. You can either find them in the Scripture, which is the law of nature’s god, or you can find them in nature itself. I’ve talked before, I don’t have to have the Bible to show abortion is wrong, because there is no species in nature that kills its young while it is still in the womb. That violates the laws of nature. I don’t have to have the Bible to show that homosexuality is wrong. I can show that when it does exist in nature, it is always an aberration. There is part of nature that exists on homosexuality – it’s always an aberration, it violates the laws of nature. There is a moral absolute established in nature and in the laws of nature and nature’s God.”–David Barton “Wallbuilders”.

In nature, there are no “moral absolutes” or “absolute rights and wrongs” that delineate “laws of nature and nature’s God”, but instead laws of nature are without religious connotations. The law of nature is based on the will to survive, not absolute definitions that Barton professes. Animals, vegetation, insects, unicellular organisms all remain loyal to law of nature which is to survive and is not directed by any unseen, mighty “god”. The most basic of instincts drives nature to grow, populate, seek prey, eat, and run when predication is imminent. None of those instincts are based on any mysterious set of morals or moralistic values, but instead promote survival of the species. In the realm of organisms need for survival, there really is no time to pass judgement on a fellow male wildebeest that retains a relationship with another male wildebeest. The law of nature is not comparable to human-designed, religious morals because nature does not subscribe to any belief other than the need to survive. As long as the fellow homosexually oriented wildebeest promotes the survival of the species, there is no separation of human interpreted moralistic codes to apply to that wildebeest. This does not mean reproducing, or even mating instincts; the gay wildebeest will still warn the herd of an alligator or other predator in order to ensure survival of the herd.

In human interpreted moralistic codes, murder is “wrong” and abortion is questionable. The lion hunts prey, such as gay wildebeests who are not slower or faster than other wildebeests, thus committing “murder” according to human moralistic code. When a new dominant lion takes over a pride, he causes the spontaneous abortion in lionesses who carry his predecessor’s genetic offspring. He does this to forward his own survival and diminish the survival of the weaker lion. Applying “moral absolutes” to such behavior is impossible, as moralistic codes perpetuated by religion do not apply to nature in any context. The need to survive does, and because of its fluidity in nature, absolutes are not applicable as human defined moralistic codes would undermine the survival of many species. A female praying mantis eats the male she is mating with during copulation, committing a heinous crime if human defined moralistic codes were applied. This is where nature divides itself from human beings, as its very nature to survive violates morality created by humans in order to survive.

It could be argued, by those of religious supplication, that a lion and a praying mantis are only doing what “god” created them to do. Therefore the “law of nature and nature’s God” is conveniently touted in complete ignorance of how evolution directs each species to survive. Over millions of years of evolution, lions have found the way to ultimately survive and insure its survival from one generation to the next. It has nothing to do with “god” or “god’s law”, but everything to do with survival of the fittest. A weak lion loses his chance to propagate his DNA to a stronger lion’s DNA as the strong survive and the weak do not. Moralistic qualities in animals are nonexistent because it is unnecessary to their survival. The application of moralistic values to organisms that are not humans is nonsensical, expecting animal behavior appropriate for the animal species is not. A dog, while being a very lovable and loyal pet, is always going to act by instincts appropriate to canines as opposed to instincts appropriate to humans. Viewing an episode of the National Geographic Channel’s “The Dog Whisperer” will educate one of the abilities and tolerances of instincts appropriate to canines and explain behaviors, needs, and care.

Religious moralistic values impressed upon animal species and organisms outside human beings is the singular manner in which gauging “absolute wrong and right” and understanding of nature is applied. Religious moralistic values are largely unnecessary for the survival of any species, including humans. Restriction of sexual activity and sexual intercourse undermines that natural drive of a species to survive. Creating marriage, and the moralistic values placed upon married couples heterosexual in nature restricts the primal instinct to propagate. Definitions of restrictive behavior such as murder is by all means essential to survival, but abstinence before marriage is wholly unnecessary as it is human nature to copulate and assign degree of pleasure during copulation to attributes necessary for a functional relationship. The very nature of human beings to instinctively behave this way is expected to be muted for the sake of “god” and “righteousness”. Morality minus “god” that upholds sexual responsibility to protect one from unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted diseases does not make one any less “righteous” than those who wait, yet societal consequences are assigned by religion to mire the natural instincts of human beings that is healthy and not “filthy” as sex is often defined by some religious indoctrination.

Morals that exist without the “godly” element that are psychologically, physically and emotionally “good” are passed from generation to generation as “godly” ones are and are no less effective to the survivability of humans as a species. The vigorous nature of religious morality when compared to responsible, “ungodly” moralistic values presents as unnecessary as it complicates one’s life more than necessary. Morals that exist without “god” are logically, rationally, and responsibly developed without retarding natural and acceptable instincts. As mentioned in Part 1, these morals existed long before religions borrowed them. Religions complicated morality codes and values in order to control ancient societies or primitive cultures, replacing the species need and instinct to survive with the religion’s need to survive. Artificially, morality codes and values dictated by “god’s prophets” in the religious texts often reflected personal preference as opposed to natural and healthy instinctual preference; thus dividing the “civilized” (read: particularly religious) societies from “uncivilized” (read: particularly secularist or particularly different religious subsciption) societies and culture. Add to that the marketing ploy of adapting religious dogma of alien religions to a major religion (the acceptance of “The Virgin Mary” as a sort of goddess to draw in paganism that was goddess oriented) and one gets a complicated, unnecessary morality codex designed to permit righteousness to supplicants if obeyed.

The true reward of morality without “god” is the absence of the unnecessary complications of religion leading to a logically sound, secular society that upholds common sense morality instead of dictated morality. There is nothing that can be labeled “absolute” in accordance with an obsolete set of complex morality codes when applied to sensible morality absent of “god’s” influence. Surely a secular person when compared to a religious person would still not murder another human being without righteous morality. The suggestion that a secularist is so different from a theist when gauged upon moralistic values only betrays an immature ignorance and failure to properly define the moralistic values when subtracting a deity or deities from the equation. The notion that the religious are “right” and the atheists are “wrong” is such a gross failure of deductive reasoning. It portrays the religious as an elitist group and supports ignorant bigotry to run rampant against anyone that falls from their narrow definition of “right” vs. “wrong”.