The Morality Conundrum for Atheism
The Correct Question to Ask
Over the past two decades, I have read, watched, and listened to debates about morality; its origin, definition, purpose, and application have been analyzed for centuries. It’s no surprise that humanity has debated (and will continue to assess) this topic of morality — after all, it is universally asked by humans. I have no grand expectation that sitting in my office, I’m going to write anything today that is exhaustive nor thoroughly convincing to all of humanity — let alone the 20 followers of this Medium publication.
What I don’t want to do in this article is call out or debate/argue with any atheist… This is why I’ve titled this article in such a way as to focus on Atheism, not Atheists — not looking to debate people but the idea in regards to the question of morality.
What I want to do in this article is to re-focus the debate around the correct question. Conversations can be managed and controlled simply by asking questions. The question is what frames the ongoing conversation or debate. What question is asked and how it is worded will create the context and proper nuances for the subsequent conversation or debate. The question is important.
What is the Correct Question?
Again, after listening to podcasts, interviews, debates, and reading books — both scholarly and informal — for over twenty years on this topic, I’ve noticed one thing in common in Atheism’s response throughout this discussion concerning morality: The incorrect question is answered. It’s like a straw-man argument is made so that atheism’s response can destroy it in one fell swoop! The incorrect question has been asked in a variety of ways over the years, such as, “Can an atheist have morals?”, “Can atheists know the difference between right and wrong?” or “What is the morality of atheism?” All of which poses the wrong question.
Likewise, the correct question can be asked in a variety of ways, and it is this:
“What is the objective standard for morality within Atheism?”
Or, “What is the universal basis for morality,” “Does an absolute standard for morality exist within an atheistic worldview?” The question is not whether an atheist has morality but what is the basis for said morality? Is the basis or standard universally true? With that as the correct question to ask, allow me to explain why this is a conundrum in atheism.
What is the Problem?
I have many friends who are atheists. Many things they love and deem as good, I, too, love and deem as good (human empowering and preserving life, for example). Similarly, many things they hate and deem as bad, I too hate and deem as bad (child abuse and corrupt authority, for example).
Atheists have a very keen sense of what is good and bad in the world. They do, in fact, have morality. To say otherwise is not only incorrect but is also offensive.
Atheism believes humans to be the product of the Big Bang theory and that over hundreds of millions of years, the genome of all species has slowly evolved from a protobiont to a fishapod to a tree-dwelling homid to eventually modern homo sapiens. We are just “matter in motion,” continually evolving over time.
Here’s the problem with that worldview: It does not account for why something is universally considered morally good or bad.
Within evolution, there is a herd mentality where species will help each other, and there is a war mentality to kill each other. Animals hunt and protect. These decisions (whether to hunt or protect) are not universally agreed upon within the evolutionary-atheism worldview.
Someone reading this might object, stating, “Keith, the standard by which atheism determines whether to help or harm is if it will help civilization prosper.” But that is a subjective basis for morality. And THAT is the crux of the issue! Genocide is only considered bad from the perspective of those dying, but from the perspective of those killing, it is good and necessary, from that viewpoint. Genocide, like the Holocaust, is simply “Survival of the fittest” in the evolutionary process of natural selection… a necessary mechanism that drives evolutionary change. It’s what protoplasm does under these conditions. Another example is the abuse of a child might be deemed as bad by some, but not from the perspective of the abuser. The eating of another homo sapien might be considered immoral, but not to the one doing the eating. Cannibalism is surprisingly common among the animal kingdom (which, according to atheism, are our ancestors). From the chimpanzee to the praying mantis, there is nothing morally wrong with cannibalism if we are all animals. If we were to be consistent with an atheist worldview, then there is no objective standard for “evil” in the world. Again, the universe doesn’t care.
John Lennon’s Imagine and Cosmic Justice
Let’s move the discussion along from morality here on earth to matters of justice in the cosmic context. Societies might enter “social contracts” for the survival of one’s society, but that is a different thing than a universal basis for right and wrong.
The late-great songwriter and atheist John Lennon penned what many see as an anthem of the sublime possibilities of a world without God, heaven, or hell. The opening lyrics to his song Imagine are:
Imagine there’s no heaven
It’s easy if you try
No hell below us
Above us, only sky
If this was reality, then I would imagine a far different world as reality contrasted with Lennon’s. Every atheist admits that at the end of the day, there will be no universal, cosmic judgment. Humans will not be held accountable at the end of their lives. Some will have the time of their lives, and others will suffer miserably, and it’s a wrap!
The righteous indignation that both I and my atheist friend have over the mother drowning her newborn will find no satisfaction in ultimate justice and accountability at the end of life. Which is ultimately dissatisfying and downright sad in such meaningless pain. Honestly, think about that:
Atheism does not believe in cosmic judgment.
Only what happens here on Earth is what to expect, and that’s it. That is not a comforting reality to me that I would ever want to Imagine. No thank you, John.
There is a Universal Standard for Morality
The moral relativism of atheism is deficient. For there either is a moral absolute, or everything is morally relative (and if everything is morally relative, then when an atheist deems something as “good” or “bad,” it is only good or bad to him/her; it’s subjective).
From the worldview that believes there is a universal, objective standard for morality, probably the most popular modern form of the moral argument was given by C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity.[1] He not only gives the most complete form for the argument in the most persuasive way, but he also answers major objections. The moral argument of Lewis can be summarized as follows:
1. There must be a universal moral law, or else: (a) Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do. (b) All moral criticisms would be meaningless (for example, “The Nazis were wrong.”). [c) It is unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is. (d) We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do.
2. But a universal moral law requires a universal Moral Law Giver since the Source of it: (a) Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do) and (b) Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are).
3. Further, this universal Moral Law Giver must be absolutely good: (a) Otherwise, all moral effort would be futile in the long run since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right. (b) The source of all good must be absolutely good since that standard of all good must be completely good.
4. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good Moral Law Giver.
Objections Answered
1. The moral law is not herd instinct. Lewis essentially answers this objection by pointing out that what we call the moral law cannot be the result of herd instinct, or else the stronger impulse would always win, but it does not. We would always act from instinct rather than selflessly to help someone, as we sometimes do. If the moral law were just herd instinct, then instincts would always be right, but they are not.
2. The moral law is not a social convention because not everything learned through society is based on social convention. For example, math and logic are not. The same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every society, past and present. As I mentioned earlier about “Social contracts,” … That would not happen until there was an objective moral law that binds humans. Further, judgments about social progress would not be possible if society were the basis of the judgments.
3. Moral law is not to be identified with the laws of nature, for moral law differs from laws of nature. Nature’s laws are descriptive (is), not prescriptive (ought), as are moral laws. Someone who tries to trip me and fails is wrong, but someone who accidentally trips me is not.
4. Moral law is not the invention of humanity because we cannot get rid of it. We did not create it; it is impressed on us from without.[2] If it were our imagination, then all value judgments would be meaningless, including such statements as “Hate is wrong” and “Racism is wrong.” But if the moral law is not a description or merely a human prescription, then it must be a moral prescription from a Moral Prescriber beyond us. Lewis notes that this Moral Law Giver is more like Mind than Nature. He can no more be part of Nature than an architect is identical to the building he designs.
5. Injustice does not disprove a Moral Law Giver. Atheism would argue from the injustice and evil in the world. No serious person can fail to recognize that all the murders, rapes, hatred, and cruelty in the world leave it far short of perfection. “But if the world is imperfect, how can there be an absolutely perfect God?” atheism asks. Lewis's answer is simple: The only way the world could possibly be imperfect is if there is an absolutely perfect standard by which it can be judged to be imperfect. For injustice makes sense only if there is a standard of justice by which something is known to be unjust. And absolute injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. Lewis recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist:
Just how had I got the idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust… Of course, I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too — for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus, in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality — namely my ideas of justice — was full of sense.[3]
Rather than disproving a morally perfect Being, the evil in the world presupposes a perfect standard. One could raise the question as to whether this Ultimate Law Giver is all-powerful but not whether he is all-perfect. For if anyone insists there is a real imperfection in the world, then there must be a perfect standard by which this is known.
Conclusion
I hope that this article has, at the very least, set into place what is the correct question to be debated regarding morality within an atheist worldview. But I will warn those who want to argue against a universal objective moral law: Real moral disagreements are not possible without an absolute moral standard by which both sides can be measured. Otherwise, both sides of every moral dispute are “right” due to relativism/subjective morality. For example, “Hitler did bad things” vs. “Hitler did not do bad things” cannot both be true in the same sense. Unless there is an objective moral standard by which Hitler’s actions can be weighed, we cannot know that his actions were bad.
Unlike the atheist worldview, this Christian worldview does offer an objective standard of morality. Christianity affirms God to be the Moral Law Giver revealed to humans through the divinely inspired 66 books of the Bible. The entire Bible, from Genesis to Revelation, is all about God’s redemptive plan through His Son, Jesus Christ.
Concerning the Law given in the Old Testament, Jesus said in Matthew 5:17–18,
“Do not presume that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke of a letter shall pass from the Law, until all is accomplished!”
Christianity is not a message about how only morally good people go to heaven. According to the Bible, there are no morally good people. This is why Jesus fulfilled the law… He kept it perfectly because we couldn’t. Humanity does not need their sins forgiven only but also needs righteousness. This dual need for forgiveness and righteousness is found in Jesus Christ, who not only died for sins to be forgiven but also lived perfectly for his righteousness to be accounted on behalf of anyone who treasures him as their Savior.
In short, is there an absolute standard for morality? Yes, it is God and His holy nature understood in the Bible. According to the Bible, will there be accountability and judgment at the end of time? Yes, there will be. Do you need to be morally perfect to go to heaven? No, Jesus has fulfilled the perfect moral law for anyone who trusts in him. Lastly, having faith in Christ is not an excuse to live immorally. For how shall we who died to sin still live in it (see Romans 6 for how the Spirit’s work of sanctification in a Christian’s life functions)?
Trust Jesus, who kept God’s perfect law on behalf of those who are not perfect.
[1] I have read Kant’s, Rashdall’s, Sorley’s, and Trueblood’s moral arguments (among others). Due to time restrictions, I cannot detail why these are not satisfying to me at this moment.
[2] Biblically speaking, this is explained in Romans 2:15, that God put His law in humanity, which is part of what it means to be made in God’s image.
[3] Mere Christianity, pages 45 and 46.
