Hard To Defend

I've said in other places that when someone does something to hurt us, we know in an instant that what they've done is wrong – objectively wrong. We don't have to think for even one second if this is something that society approves of or if it is sanctioned by the law. We know experientially that objective morals, values, obligations and duties exist. Yet atheists struggle with this concept because if the universe arose by natural means then objective morality simply cannot exist. The reality of Objective Morality makes atheism hard to defend. For example:

“I think there is a certain degree of plausibility among atheists in the view that without some kind of transcendental intelligence in the universe there can be no objective moral laws. Moral laws are maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions are to be deemed moral or immoral. But how could such laws exist in the absence of a mind or sentience in the universe at all? Are moral laws objective in the way that laws of nature are? They don't seen to be, for few would argue that the law “murder is wrong” existed in some Platonic realm of ideas when galaxies were forming over ten billion years ago and there was no sign of consciousness anywhere in the universe.

The use of the word “law” implies and objective existence of unchanging moral maxims independently of sentience. Yet it appears that there can be nothing objective about so-called “moral laws”, because it seems absurd on its face to say that maxims which tell sentient beings that certain actions of sentient beings are moral or immoral could exist in the absence of an even greater sentience.

It seems to me that all ethical codes must ultimately be man-made, and thus there could be no objective criteria for determining if human actions are right or wrong. Admitting that moral laws are man-made is equivalent to acknowledging that ethical rules are arbitrary and therefore human beings are not obligated to follow them.

But ethics does not come into play in the history of the universe until very recently – when Homo sapiens appeared. It is possible that moral laws have existed since the Big Bang, but that they could not manifest themselves until sentient beings arose. However, such a view implies that there is some element of purposefulness in the universe – that the universe was created with the evolution of sentient being “in mind” in the mind of a Creator. To accept the existence of objective moral laws that have existed since the beginning of time is to believe that the evolution of sentient beings capable of moral reasoning (such as human beings) has somehow been predetermined or is inevitable, a belief that is contrary to naturalistic explanations of origins which maintain that sentient beings came into existence due to contingent accidental circumstances.

If moral laws are part of the natural universe then the universe cannot be unconscious – it must be, in some unknown sense sentient.”

Keith Augustine in Defending Moral Subjectivism

Greta Christina & the 1st Church of Atheism

It brings a tear to the eye to listen to leading Preachers in Atheism imploring their flock to greater heights in moral living. 

Do good. 

Be good. 

For the sake of Atheism show the world what being an atheist can do for your character.

How disheartening it must be to run away from organized religion because it tells you how to live, only to smack headlong into organized Atheism and find it telling you how to live.

Ah, me, could life be any sweeter?


You see, if people are already good, and atheists are infamous for telling us that they don't need God because they are good, then you shouldn't t need to encourage those kinds of people to BE good. One should be able to assume that they're already doing good things. Reality proves otherwise but . . . still.


We Christians, on the other hand come to Jesus  because He's allowed us to recognize that we ARE NOT good. It makes perfect sense for our leaders to encourage us toward better behaviour because in reality, we're immoral to the core. But atheists? 


If you need material for a comedy series, take a peek at atheism. There's enough there for a life-time.

When speaking of “ought” and “should” and “objective morality,” atheists are using language borrowed from a world-view to which they are in direct opposition. On atheism, moral values simply cannot be applied to feelings, motives, thoughts and behaviours. Ideas of moral responsibility, regret, praise or blame, are anathema to a deterministic, natural universe. Of course, like the laws of mathematics, and the laws of logic, atheists claim that we invent the laws of morality rather than discover them.

Understandably, and I do understand, atheists would love for moral freedom of choice, and objective morality itself to not exist. Many a famous atheist has announced that his love of, and acceptance of atheism rests firmly on his desire to not be beholding to any restrictions on his lusts and desires. “Let's just do it like they do it on the Animal Channel.”

Hugo and Morality

In comments on my post What is this Evil, Hugo has been trying to tell me that he, an atheist, has a moral base for how he lives that is objective in nature. Of course he is wrong. In fact I believe that in previous comments he's even said that he believes morality to be realitive to the situation. Either Hugo has changed his stance, which atheists can and do regularly, precisely because their morality is not objective or he's forgotten what he's said. Regardless, here's why he's wrong.

. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations (def. below) do not exist.

. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. We know, and we know absolutely when someone does something “wrong” to us. We don’t have to wonder for one second what our community or society thinks about what the person did to us. We KNOW that we were wronged. We believe that objective morals exist at the moment that we’ve been wronged. So why does that point to God being the source of objective morals?

Just as physical laws are fully realised in the physical world, objective moral laws (Spiritual laws) are fully realised in Jesus and Father God. As I stated before, our daily interactions with others shows we know beyond doubt that objective moral order is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things. Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.

. Objective moral Goodness and Obligations are based on God’s character. God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inescapable expression of His Just and Loving nature. And, since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands that come out of His Divine character, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God.

. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, self-destructive.

This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Objective morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, or that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity. Nor is it based on the ebb and flow of the community’s likes / dislikes etc..

Why choose God as opposed to you or me or Hitler?

God by definition is the least arbitrary stopping point, the least arbitrary point of final authority. That's what it means for morals to be objective. They have a grounding in a final and ultimate authority.
God doesn’t just exemplify goodness. He IS goodness.
God doesn't just exemplify justice. He IS Justice.
God doesn't just exemplify love. He IS love.

Almost everyone is willing to recognise an ultimate standard of goodness or at least authority. Atheists might choose the government or the community but it most often boils down to themselves. What do I want? What do I like? What do I think is best for me?

Choosing the individual as the ultimate standard of good and bad, right and wrong sets up obvious and irreconcilable issues of conflict.

Any moral construct (don’t rape, don’t discriminate etc.) that is "invented" or adopted by mankind and that is truly good for society, will BE good for society because it coheres with an objective moral principle that exists independently.

Objective means it is right and true regardless of whether you agree with it or obey it or even know that it exists. Again, “objective” (not arbitrary or relative) because it comes from the Ultimate source of Truth, Goodness, Justice and Love - our Creator.

If man-made moral constructs work across time and culture:
. They will work because they are objectively and ultimately right.
. They will work because they are based upon standards that are objectively and ultimately sound.
. They are objectively and ultimately sound because they originate from the character and command of our Creator who is the ultimate source of Truth, Goodness, Justice and Love.

The Christian base for objective morality is based on Truth. In our interaction with others, when wronged, you and I know in an instant that it's based upon Truth. Because it's based upon Truth it helps in the survival of the collective.

The stated atheist base for morality is based upon it's “perceived” ability to aid survival. In reality, the atheist base for morality is what will allow them to do what they want, get what they want. It may or may not work over time. It is something that will change with the ebb and flow of human desire, likes and dislikes, current ideology and the ability to meet our immediate need. As such, at any given time, it may or may not entail truth and therefore is not objective.

Who Will Save Us?

I’m sure you’ve heard the line, “You can’t legislate morality.” Yes? It’s kind of silly, when you think about it. We can and do legislate morality all the time. There are hundreds if not thousands of laws on the books attempting to do exactly that - legislate morality.

And, if your country is made up of moral people, it works quite well. However, if, as is happening even as I type, social desires slide inexorably toward immorality, then no amount of rule enforcing will make any difference.

I grew up in the 60's when the brilliant among us (and I believed them) decided that it was morality itself that was in fact destroying us. We needed a new society, the secular geniuses said, where each one of us could do exactly as we thought right in our own minds. “If you can’t be with the one you love (have sex with) baby, love the one you’re with.” Well that experiment has pretty much run its course, and your perspective on whether it’s been a success or failure depends on where you stand - morally.

Have you noticed how our Newscasts of all types are packed to the brim with accounts of corruption - increasing and unstoppable corruption? A fairly predictable response to rampant corruption is to introduce new rules. The problem of course is that new rules, old rules or any rules won’t get to the heart of the problem because, as Jesus said, the heart is the problem.

For out of the heart come evil thoughts—murder, adultery, sexual immorality, theft, false testimony, slander.
Matthew 15:19

Hardly anybody, it seems, has even the slightest clue that integrity matters. If the government is made up of a representative sample of the general population, and the general population is corrupt. What then? If the general population is so corrupt that it believes that morality is itself immoral, who will save us from ourselves?