Featured Yes, atheists can have objective morality

It is common for Christians to argue "without God, there are no objective moral values." But this is false and unbiblical, and in fact requires a morally relativistic and morally subjective definition of morality.

The statement "without God, there are not objective moral values" comes from a theory of morality called "Divine Command Theory." This says that evil behavior X is wrong because God says it is wrong and has promised to punish X. But the Bible, from Genesis 1 onwards, teaches Natural Law Morality. See the attached chart with distinctions between the two.

It is important to recognize that both of these worldviews, Divine Command and Natural Law, are theistic in their origin—neither denies the existence of God. However, it is true that an atheist could sign on to Natural Law Morality, whereas an atheist could not be a Divine Command Theorist. All an atheist would have to say to affirm Natural Law is that there exists an objective, universal human nature, and that there is a certain harmony, or order of behavior, between human nature and the rest of Nature. This harmony is most conducive to certain universal human purposes: such as survival of the species and long term, holistic pleasure (happiness) for all human beings. On Natural Law, for the theist or atheist, an act like murder is wrong because it violates the harmony between human nature and the Natural Law/Created Order. Murder is detrimental towards the goals of survival of the species and long-term holistic happiness for all people. When a person commits murder, they not only harm their victim, but they also harm themselves. This is an objective standard of morality that an atheist could affirm, however, a belief in God provides a much stronger anchor for Natural Law Morality. It is much easier to posit such a moral order based on a God who intentionally designed that moral order. And it may be much more motivating to those tempted to wrongdoing to fear a God who will also punish their destructive actions (it is important to note that on Natural Law Morality, God still actively punishes sin). Certainly, Natural Law Morality has much firmer grounding in a Creator God rather than atheism.

But the non-necessity of a belief in God leads many Christians to be wary of Natural Law Morality. Many Christians have the belief that if God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist, and thus a belief in God is necessary to combat moral subjectivism and moral relativism. As Dostoevsky’s evil Grand Inquisitor says in the Brothers Karamozov, “Without God, everything is permitted.” But this belief is false. In fact, Divine Command Theory breeds moral subjectivism, moral relativism, and authoritarianism, while Natural Law Morality provides a much firmer basis for moral objectivity.

The great irony here is that Divine Command Theory actually is a morally subjective and morally relativistic view. On Divine Command Theory, morality is grounded in a subject, a person, and NOT the objective order of creation. The subject is God, and morality is relative to what God commands. The charge can be made that what God says is moral on Monday could be immoral on Tuesday. It seems that a Divine Command Theorist would have to affirm that even rape would be morally obligatory if God commanded it.

What Divine Command Theory fails to do, functionally, is to affirm God as Creator. Divine Command Theory could just as easily function with a god such as Zeus, who exists within Creation and exercises vast powers to punish behaviors he dislikes and reward behaviors he likes. But what Zeus cannot do, as the Creator God can, is to say, “This is the way I have designed the universe and its Natural Laws, and to violate these laws is to destroy yourself.” Divine Command Theory depends on a view of Creation, seemingly, in which there are no real consistent laws of Creation or human nature to judge something good or evil. The only law is God’s revealed commands concerning what pleases Him and displeases Him, what He will reward and what He will punish.

It should be easy to see why structuring morality according to a powerful authority with the power to punish would lead to authoritarianism in our human institutions. According to this view, a moral structure is an authoritarian structure. The way to maintain morality is to set up a properly functioning authoritarian hierarchy. “Why is Behavior X wrong? Because there is a very powerful authority who will punish Behavior X. But what if that powerful authority does not exist? What if I become the powerful authority? Then Behavior X might be fine, right?” Divine Command Theory is a might makes right philosophy—morality is grounded in authority, not in Creation. And sin/wrongdoing is not destructive, it is just a path to happiness that the deity or authority happens to dislike and has promised to punish. But whatever is defined as sin or wrongdoing would be completely fine if the authority was deposed. Thus, Divine Command Theory inevitably leads to Human Command Theory, which inevitably leads to massive harm.

I would argue that trying to combat moral relativism with Divine Command Theory is like trying to put out a fire with gasoline.

Some will object that Natural Law Morality “constrains God” by setting up an independent standard over and above God to which He must submit. But Natural Law does not constrain God at all, for God is the one that created the Natural Law in the first place. Natural Law simply expects God to be consistent with His own definition and establishment of what is good, and claims that God has imprinted this goodness in the created order, as Genesis 1 repeats over and over and over again when God observes His creation, “And God saw that it was good.” Note that the text says, “God saw that it was good.” To see is to observe a property that the thing has. The text does not say that God "said" it was good—as if the goodness of the creation only existed in God’s preference and declaration. God didn’t create something neutral or without order and then say, “this is what is good.” No, God created it with goodness and this goodness is observable, that is, objectively verifiable.

Other Christians are wary of Natural Law Morality because they believe it leads to deism. Deism generally means that God created the world but does not personally intervene in any way, to punish or to reward or to save. The Deity simply lets the universe function according to Natural Law only.

But Natural Law Morality does not deny that God punishes sin, or that God sovereignly orchestrates and intervenes in human history. Natural law affirms that God saves by grace, and salvation comes through confession and repentance of sin. What Natural Law Morality denies is that God’s punishments are necessary for sin to be destructive. On Natural Law, sin is destruction. Natural Law Morality agrees that God promises to punish murder for example, but disagrees that God’s punishment of murder is the reason that murder is wrong, or the only reason murder results in destruction for murderers.

Lastly, some people will want to hang on to Divine Command Theory because it provides the basis for the most popular argument for God’s existence. I think we still have a good moral argument for God’s existence, but we need to make significant corrections.

Here is the popular moral argument for God’s existence:

1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values do exist.
3) Therefore God exists.

Premise 1 is wrong. That’s like saying “If God does not exist, objective nutritional facts do not exist.” That is just not true. Health is an objective thing, regardless of the existence of God. Survival is an objective thing regardless if there is a God. Human happiness is an objective thing, regardless of whether or not there is a God. If there is a universal human nature, and there is an order by which humans survive and achieve holistic pleasure for all, then there is an objective good for humanity. One may ask, “But why is it objectively good that humans survive, are happy, are healthy, etc.?” I agree with atheist Sam Harris on this point, who says that asking it is “to hit philosophical bedrock with the shovel of a stupid question.” One could just as easily ask the Divine Command Theorist, “Why is the glory of God good? Why is it good for humans to enter heaven and avoid hell?” Anyone can play the 3-year old “Why? Why? Why?” game into infinity. To establish an objective moral standard, we need an objective purpose. A purpose is a desire. If there is a universal human nature with a universal human desire, then there is an objective moral standard.

So what we Christians should rather argue is that “If God did not exist, we would not have the objective moral values that we, in fact, do have.” The human being is a Godward creature (a creature oriented to God). God is the source of our happiness. If there was no God, then the human being would not be a Godward creature.

And so a better moral argument for God’s existence would be:

1) A universal human desire for God would not exist if God did not exist.
2) A universal human desire for God exists.
3) Therefore, God exists.

 

Can someone not take the poll unless they read the post or something?

Or are you saying that you are afraid to disagree with me?

 

Agreed!

The post is really about the definition of morality, not atheism.

 

“The OP seems to declare "natural law" as an objective law, yet nature cannot exist without God.”

True! God is necessary to explain why the universe exists.

But even in an atheistic worldview in which the universe exists without God, natural law would still exist, and therefore objective morality.

 

Atheists certainly do not believe nothing exists. They believe the universe came into existence by material forces and life came into existence through evolutionary forces. Such processes depend on consistent laws.

Atheists and Christians will disagree over WHY a natural law exists. But they will agree THAT a natural law exists. And that natural law is sufficient to ground objective moral values.