MORALITY. It’s something I feel most people desire to possess. Whether it be a Christian, a questioning unbeliever, or a staunch atheist, people from all three categories generally try to be a good person, whatever that may look like within their worldview. The question is not one of whether a person can desire to be moral. It’s one of whether morality can actually exist apart from God. I contend it cannot.
To expect a “moral compass” to work without the existence of God is like expecting a normal compass to work without the existence of north and south. It’ll have nowhere to point. Just as a compass requires the absolute existence of north and south in order to work, a moral compass requires the existence of an absolute standard for it to work. Apart from said absolute standard, there can be no way to measure right from wrong. Moral and immoral become nothing more than hollow words with no real definition or impact. If there is no absolute standard, man then becomes his own standard. But the fickle standard of mankind is no standard at all. It’s nothing more than personal fancies with no accountability. Within the atheistic worldview, actual right and wrong (henceforth referred to as morality) can never exist, so long as someone else disagrees and holds a different personal standard. If an atheist subscribes to a standard of morality, it is because there is first an appropriation of a theistic worldview that is required in order to make sense of their own.
I can readily admit it doesn’t take belief in God to subscribe to some level of morality, but that doesn’t mean such a subscription isn’t laced with inconsistency. Even if one wants to argue that atheists derive its sense of morality from culture, all that does is explain why people hold to so many differing standards of morality. I would go a step further though and assert that culture derives its sense of morality from theism. This is because theism is the only worldview that can even conceive of having a true absolute and authoritative standard. To go even one more step beyond that, I firmly assert only the God of the Bible (i.e. not merely theism in general) can be that consistent standard, but that is for a future article. For the purposes of this article, I would like to simply show how, in an attempt to hold to a theistic worldview of absolute morality, minus theism, atheism is only left with inconsistent and irrational thoughts of what that might look like. Hence all the differing standards. I maintain there is only one true standard and we either subscribe to it or we reject it, but we can never create our own authoritative and absolute standard so long as we possess non-authoritative and purely relative opinions.
I don’t think that’s a stretch, yet I get so much grief over it. I think it’s actually quite simple. My justification is rooted in logic itself. A relative standard can never be absolute, especially when it is rooted in nothing more than the minds of finite, non-authoritative, and opinionated people. Any absolute standard must come from an absolute and authoritative source. Now, one is free to argue what that absolute and authoritative source might be, but logic dictates it must exist in order for there to be an absolute standard in the first place. Whether an absolute source of authority must exist in order for there to be an absolute standard is a matter of fact. If the absolute and authoritative source does not exist, neither does the absolute standard. It’s just the logical necessity of the topic at hand.
While there are many ways to approach this topic, I’ve found my personal approach is to break it out into three questions:
- Is theism required?
- Within theism, what is required of it?
- Why is the God of Scripture the only one who can meet those requirements?
This article focuses primarily on the first question. Since atheism claims morals can exist without God, the claim needs to be challenged by the first question above. So what do we make of atheists who still adhere to morality? Is there a logical way to show them their inconsistency? By now, I think we should all see it isn’t really all that difficult. If morality exists but not in the absolute sense, by what authority do you tell another who disagrees with you that he is wrong? If morality is purely relative, it means the terms can be used interchangeably to describe literally anything. Every single time I have this debate with an atheist, they ultimately argue for the existence of morality with such vigor that they must certainly know it exists in absolute form. However, when pressed, they end up denying the very existence of it while, at the same time, continuing to argue in favor of it. It really does end up being a case of talking out of both sides of the mouth.
In the end, the atheistic worldview doesn’t have an answer for absolute morality, and it is relegated to merely being the opinion of society, subject to change at any given point. It can only exist in concept, which means it can never actually exist in fact and they are only words used to describe the temporary opinions of fickle men in a collective society. By that standard, rape could one day be glorified as noble and righteous. In such a society, they may call rape good and upright. Meanwhile, those being raped cry out that it is wicked. If morality is not absolute and is merely societal opinion, it means those crying out would be viewed as whining about nothing, and many atheists could theoretically be on the side that says rape is right because society says it’s right.
But this is where I once again part ways with the atheist. Some have said morality exists in concept only. But if the words change meaning with society, I would argue even the concept doesn’t truly exist in any absolute sense. They end up just being words that change meaning while ignoring any concept of unchanging and absolute actuality. Since we’ve addressed that, I’ll share some things I subscribe to. Since I believe morality must necessarily be absolute or else cease to exist at all, I must necessarily subscribe to a worldview that seeks to follow the absolute standard. In that standard, worshiping God with all our heart, soul, and mind would be an absolute right (Matthew 23:37). Murder would be an absolute wrong (Exodus 20:13). Rape would be an absolute wrong (Deuteronomy 22:25). Loving our neighbor would be an absolute right (Mark 12:31). Sharing the gospel of Jesus Christ would be an absolute right (Matthew 28:19-20). Obeying the law (except in cases where it demands disobedience to God) would be an absolute right (Romans 13:1).
All of this is included within the system to which I subscribe because I believe the Bible to be the Word of God, and I believe the Christian God to be the absolute standard. If I’m wrong, and there is a different absolute God (NOTE: no other god within other theistic worldviews is absolute and unchanging, so this is purely a hypothetical that can never be), that standard would be the true morality, and the standard I subscribe to would be incorrect. But without any absolute standard, even the very concept of morality is hollow, meaningless, and ceases to exist in any real sense.
If morality is truly only cultural, those are arbitrary standards that lack any real authority outside of its own jurisdiction. Going back to the previous example, what if a culture popped up right now that said rape is a good thing? The atheist would have to say rape is bad in the U.S. but good in that nation. Or maybe the atheist would then argue that his empathy is enough to know the other culture is in the wrong. There really is no way to tell, but that doesn’t change the underlying fact: it’s all baseless without God.
It is utterly inconsistent. I was recently having a discussion with a devout atheist. After a very straightforward line of questioning, he admitted he didn’t believe there is an absolute standard. He even admitted this rightly means there can be no absolute morality. Yet, he then came back and said he definitively knew rape is wrong because his empathy tells him so. But personal empathy is not an absolute or authoritative standard. It’s nothing more than one’s own personal feeling. In one breath, he wanted to argue that morality is cultural, but the next breath had him arguing that other cultures are wrong if they believed differently. If it’s merely cultural, how can anyone know with any level of confidence that something is wrong?
If an atheist says it’s wrong because his personal feelings tell him so, that means it’s only wrong for him. That’s a matter of personal conviction, not a matter of morality. It boggles my mind how they seem incapable of seeing this very clear distinction. They argue with such confidence that morality must exist even in the void of an absolute standard. They confidently assert that they can know morality even if there is no absolute standard to be seen. But to be confident in something is to have faith in it, which is quite ironic given the atheist fights so hard to show the world his alleged lack of faith. After all, even the Bible says that faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. It’s not merely hollow wishes. There is an assurance. There is confidence. Since the atheist says there is no absolute standard, and all such confidence is rooted in their own beliefs and feelings, it means they have faith in it. This means their entire argument is based on nothing more than their own faith in themselves to be the righteous standard that they desperately need in order to possess a moral compass.
But this is where they will typically once again defer to this man-made thing known as society. Unfortunately, a group of finite and non-authoritative people doesn’t all of a sudden make something an absolute standard. It just makes a group of people with a collective personal opinion that happens to agree for the most part. This is anything but authoritative or absolute. They’re still left with the dilemma of professing faith in something while feeling any who depart from it are wrong. They just have nothing to hang their hat on in this debate. The atheist will fight all day long to explain how morality can exist. When pressed for their absolute source, they almost always eventually admit there is no absolute source or standard. Yet, despite this admission, they will continue to argue as if there is. It’s because deep down, they know the truth and suppress it in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). I guess the Bible was right, after all.
~ Travis W. Rogers
The Particular Baptist 
Christians have quite a problem in that they all claim an objective morality from their god, but not a one can show that their particular list is god approved.
They also have quite a problem in that their morality is demonstrably subjective, depending on who someone is rather than any moral always attached to an action. That can be seen by how you excuse your god for things you would be horrified if a human did the same. This makes your morality little more than might equals right.
And funny how every cult makes the same claim as Romans 1, and not one of you theists can show your god merely exists, much less that it is some “creator”.
LikeLike
All of that sounds like nothing more than an attack on why you believe Christianity can’t claim morality. However, at no point did you give a defense as to why you believe atheism can have true morality. Is that because you agree there is no defense among atheism?
LikeLike
Atheism can indeed have “true morality”. You seem to think that “true morality” can only be objective morality defined by you and only you. am I right?
Morality is a human invention, and as such is subjective and can change. We humans aren’t stuck with the ignorance from thousands of years ago. As it seems you are already aware of, morality appears to be based on empathy and self-interest. We don’t want harmful things to happen to us, and we can imagine how others feel, so we use that to know what to do and what not to do.
Morals can be common but nothign shows that they are objective. The morals we see as common are there since they help civilization work. They have changed as was needed.
Still no evidence your god merely exists nor that any christian’s list of morals is what this god approves of. If you take this and add to it the fact that not one christian can do what jesus promises to his true believers per the bible, and it seems you are all simply making things up.
Atheism is simply a conclusion that a particular god or gods doesn’t exist. You are an atheist when it comes to gods not your own. I am an atheist when it comes to all gods since there is no evidence to support the claims of the many religions humans have invented. I get my concepts of what I find moral from other humans and my worldview that is mostly Epicurean with a bit of Stoicism thrown in, and yep, they are subjective.
Another problem christians, and other theists since muslims etc make similar claims, is that you can’t show that supposedly objective morals are any better than subjective ones.
LikeLike
If something is purely subjective, it means it doesn’t actually exist. Relativity is not actuality. At most, it can exist as a thought in the mind of a person. It extends no further than the forehead of the person who thinks it. What you are proposing is utilitarianism. However, you have provided no basis for why you desire to help make civilization work. What is the purpose in feeling empathy or having a desire to see society function as a cohesive and productive manner? To the atheist, it is entirely arbitrary and unable to be explained. You must place your faith in the unexplained and mysterious. It becomes your form of theism, because your own thoughts become the god that moves you and gives you purpose. In essence, you reject the God who is and exalt yourself instead. Ultimately, you have yet to answer how any man can enforce so-called subjective morality. Void of absolute authority, it would amount to nothing short of discrimination and persecution of anyone who holds to a subjective standard that differs from mob rule. If morality is not absolute or objective, it means there is no true standard of morality. It’s mob rule enforcing its own kingdom and silencing those who disagree, oftentimes with violent consequences.
LikeLike
Atheism can indeed have “true morality”. You seem to think that “true morality” can only be objective morality defined by you and only you. am I right? Morality is a human invention, and as such is subjective and can change. We humans aren’t stuck with the ignorance from thousands of years ago. As it seems […]
So, since Christians have subjective morality, that means your morality doesn’t exist. That’s quite a problem for you, Travis. Unsurprisingly, relativity is actualilty, and you simply make up yet more nonsense. This world isn’t built on only certainties.
I desire to make civilization work since I benefit from it. The purpose in feeling empathy and see society function helps the species to survive. Alas, for you, Travis, your lies about atheism fail yet again with your attempts to equate it with nihilism, and it not “arbitrary” at all.
Nope, no need to put faith, the belief in that which has no evidence, in anything unexplained or mysterious, and nope, no theism either since again, no belief in gods here. My thoughts moving me doesn’t make them a god to me. I don’t exalt myself either. I don’t think I’m a god nor that a god agrees with me and only me, like all theists do.
Humans have enforced subjective morality ever since we invented it, and we can see that by how Christians enforce their entirely subjective morality. We invent methods to do so, laws, gods, etc. Yep, it does require the determination of what set of morals to follow, and as we both know, Christians are notable for their discrimination and persecution of anyone who hold a different standard than they do. So, dear, is it mob rule in christanity? Per your own argument, it is.
Yep, morality isn’t absolute or objective, so your cult fails miserably, Travis. The standard of morality is indeed subjective.
LikeLike
You sound like a line from the Matrix: “There is no spoon.” Ultimately, relativistic postmodernism is a poison that lacks any logical sense. It’s a worldview that begins with “Do what thou wilt,” but it then goes on to say “but only if it’s in line with current mob rule.” In order to make sense of your own worldview, it requires you to speak out of both sides of your mouth. Even then, you must borrow from the Christian worldview. You have asserted your worldview makes sense, but you have not once demonstrated how or properly refuted my arguments. You’ve merely denied them. You’ve claimed to have empathy, but this empathy is unexplainable to a clump a cells driven by nothing more than random electrical impulses and chemical reactions. If anything, any empathy you feel would be nothing less than deception, because there’s no way for space particles to actually feel anything of purpose, value, or substance. Your feelings would be about as meaningful as the electrical impulses from a TENS machine or the chemical reaction of Mentos in Coke. However, I can say your empathy is meaningful because it comes from someone made in the image of God who, contrary to your claims, has borrowed from the Christian worldview to find value and make sense of his own. These are the arguments you haven’t even begun to address. Instead, you keep asserting your own while merely denying my claims, void of any actual argumentation on your part.
LikeLike
Curious how no one has to borrow from your ignorant worldview. Anything worthwhile in your ignorant set of books ws around long before your version.
and it’s always great when a christian knows they are lyign and has to claim that I’ve not “properly” refuted your false claims. I have refuted them, you just dont’ like what I show.
happily, those particles make a brain and yep, they can feel empathy, love, etc, no need for your god, or you, which always seems to be what really bothers christians.
LikeLike
You once again refused to address any of my points, said the equivalent of “nuh uh”, and then just restated your own position. I’ve explained why the random firing of electrical impulses within a collection of space dust can’t possess any sense of value or meaning, yet you claimed it does, despite providing zero logic behind your claim. It would be like seeking therapy from the 15 amp lighting circuit in your house. At least that one would be made by an intelligent creator. You desperately want to say morality is real, but you refuse to state where it comes from, have said it can’t be objective, and believe it can still be enforced upon others. But where does such authority come from, and how would it be anything less than discrimination toward others? You simply have no answer to this atheist dilemma.
LikeLike
And you make false claims again, Travis.
You explained nothing. You have baselessly claimed that your god is needed, and you have no evidence that it merely exists.
Brain cells don’t fire “randomly”, so your ignorance fails you again. And funny how we do have value and meaning, no god needed at all.
I don’t need logic, Travis when we can observe that your god doesn’t exist and humans have meaning and value. Happily, humans aren’t a lighting circuit, and your attempt at a comparison fails miserably.
Morality is real, and we both can see that. What you cannot do is show your god exists or is the source of morality, for the reasons I have already stated.
Show how morality is objective, Travis. Show the mechanism how you know this, not just that you have the feelies that your god exists.
You assume that there is a supernatural authority needed, a presupposition that has no evidence to suport it at all. This is why theists fail in their claims that their god is some source of morality. You each make the claim for a god approving of what you find moral, and yet your claims are no better than the next theist.
Authority comes from humans, and yep, it is imperfect. It is generally an authority that comes from consensus. Unfortuantely, for you, I do have an answer, and you still have nothing, Travis.
LikeLike
Curious how christains can’t agree on what this god wants or what its “image” even is, Travis. You all claim to be what this god wants, and yet not one of you can do what your supposed messiah promises in the bible. Not one “true believer” amongst you, it seems.
why do you fail at all of this, Travis: “22 Jesus answered them, ‘Have[b] faith in God. 23 Truly I tell you, if you say to this mountain, “Be taken up and thrown into the sea”, and if you do not doubt in your heart, but believe that what you say will come to pass, it will be done for you. 24 So I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received[c] it, and it will be yours.” – Mark 11
“Go into all the world and proclaim the good news[d] to the whole creation. 16 The one who believes and is baptized will be saved; but the one who does not believe will be condemned. 17 And these signs will accompany those who believe: by using my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes in their hands,[e] and if they drink any deadly thing, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover.’” Mark 16
“7 ‘Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened for you. 8 For everyone who asks receives, and everyone who searches finds, and for everyone who knocks, the door will be opened. 9 Is there anyone among you who, if your child asks for bread, will give a stone? 10 Or if the child asks for a fish, will give a snake? 11 If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good things to those who ask him!” Matthew 7
“1 Believe me that I am in the Father and the Father is in me; but if you do not, then believe me because of the works themselves. 12 Very truly, I tell you, the one who believes in me will also do the works that I do and, in fact, will do greater works than these, because I am going to the Father. 13 I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Father may be glorified in the Son. 14 If in my name you ask me[e] for anything, I will do it.” John 14
“ 7 If you abide in me, and my words abide in you, ask for whatever you wish, and it will be done for you. “ John 15
“13 Are any among you suffering? They should pray. Are any cheerful? They should sing songs of praise. 14 Are any among you sick? They should call for the elders of the church and have them pray over them, anointing them with oil in the name of the Lord. 15 The prayer of faith will save the sick, and the Lord will raise them up; and anyone who has committed sins will be forgiven. 16 Therefore confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The prayer of the righteous is powerful and effective. 17 Elijah was a human being like us, and he prayed fervently that it might not rain, and for three years and six months it did not rain on the earth. 18 Then he prayed again, and the heaven gave rain and the earth yielded its harvest.” James 5
Is it because you aren’t a true believer? or is it because your god simply doesn’t exist? Some christains claim that only the apostles could do these things, but then that makes other christians liars. You have quite a problem.
LikeLike
That’s like saying since scientists have differing findings on something, they must not be true scientists. Are you one of those “TrUsT tHe ScIeNcE” types? If so, are we following “the science” or just science? While I’m speaking a bit tongue-in-cheek, it’s to make a point. Being a Christian doesn’t necessitate 100% agreement on secondary or tertiary issues in the Bible. It merely requires a belief in the Gospel through faith. But I notice you didn’t touch on my point. You merely denied it and attempted to pull a switcheroo. All you did was make the following claim: Morality is real and doesn’t come from anywhere, our brains are ordered and not random, and logic isn’t required to make sense of things.” All that tells me is you agree you hold to an illogical and irrational position, are incapable of explaining where order comes from, and desire to adhere to some form of morality even if you have no idea where it comes from or what makes it good and upright.
LikeLike
Christians try that argument often and it fails since scientists deal in facts and christians have nothing more than baseless opinion. There is one answer in science, no matter if we have found it yet or not. There is no one “truth” with christians.
You are one of those trust the scientits types too since you depend science every single day.
Christians dn’t just diagree on what they want to claim are “secondary” or “tertiary” issues, they disagree on major issues: free will or predestination; who is saved, how someone is saved, how to interpret the bible, what morals does this god want. Again, dear, show me what morals this god wants, and I can show you a christian who claims otherwise.
And what happens is each christian says they are only TrueChristians(tm) and only they have the right answers to those questions, when not one of you can show that your claim is true.
it’s notable when a christian has to lie and claim I’ve not addressed your points. I have. Which ones haven’t I discussed?
You still have yet to show that morality comes form your god or that your god merely exists. Morality comes from humans, so you’ve lied already about what I’ve said. It’s also gerat that I never said anything about logic not being required. As for our brains being ordered, yep, and no need for your imagnary friend for that to happen.
order can come from physical laws, and they can be as eternal as your iamginary friend supposedly is.
Unfortunately, it seems you have chosen to lie abouta me to invent an excuse why you don’t have to support your claims. Quite a thing from someone who claims to worship a god who hates lies and liars.
LikeLike
just to make this stand out: Travis, how do you propose to show that your morals are what your god approves of?
LikeLike
We demonstrate it from His Word. That’s the standard against which all litmus tests much be measured.
LikeLike
Curious how christains don’t agree on the most basic things, Travis, like what morals their god wants. You all come up with different “truths” from your ignorant bible, showing that your morality is entirely subjective.
To call the bible a “standard” is simply a lie, demonstrated by how christians fail to agree and fail to show that only their version is the “right” one. That not one of you can do what jesus promises to his true believers, per the bible, it seems you are all frauds.
“We demonstrate it from His Word. That’s the standard against which all litmus tests much be measured.”
LikeLike