Featured Why Atheists cannot account for Objective Moral Truths

The foundation of the house is your meta-ethical position, what you believe to be true about ethics and morality. For instance: Moral beliefs are an expression of personal preferences or moral truth is based upon God’s holy character.

To summarize:

• There’s our actual behavior – our morally significant (or insignificant) choices and actions
• There’s our ethical system – what we believe to be right and wrong
• There’s our meta-ethical position – what we believe about the nature of our ethical system

​

https://reasonsforgod.org/moral-clarity-and-richard-dawkins/

 

Clarity about the difference between meta-ethics, ethics, and behavior is essential. When these issues get mixed up, angry disagreements arise. For instance, when Christians claim that “the atheistic worldview cannot support the existence of moral truth” (discussing the foundation), sometimes atheists hear this as an attack on the roof (“you are saying we are immoral”).

Similarly, sometimes atheists point out immoral behavior among Christians and say “this behavior is inconsistent with your (and our) ethical system, which makes you a hypocrite.” Christians can respond by saying, “Yes, that is bad behavior, and we resolve to change our lifestyles.” But if they respond, “But our ethical standards are the same here, so really, we agree” then they’ve missed the point.​

https://reasonsforgod.org/moral-clarity-and-richard-dawkins/

 

Part of the problem here lies in who says what is. One needs more than assertion. Defining morality according to an ideal rather than what is is the opposite of your tip.

I can agree with Pascal here, but he is merely pointing out self love. All men naturally seek their own happiness.

I wonder if your argument isn’t really that an atheist can come to believe in God. I’d agree he can, just not based on his atheism. That would be oxymoronic.

 

Happiness is not a subjective thing. Happiness is an objective thing. Happiness is an objective order, harmony, or correspondence between humanity and that which is external to humanity.

 

So, you're ultimately exploring a Creator vs Creation relationship without the Creator part of the equation present?

Your just exploring some 'relationship' of the Creation, alone, to nothing else in actuality, hypothetically?

Like the happiness found in the Beatitudes?

 

That ignores what I posted rather well.

The point remains that atheism does not lead one to God or to good or to right morality.

To put it another way, the natural law cited in your posts does not stem from or support atheism, nor is it discovered through atheistic premises or assertions.

 

No.

In order for this thought-line to be accurate, all men would need to find happiness in the same thing(s). Clearly some make themselves "happy" by torturing others, while others make themselves "happy" by getting the torturers off the street.

I agree with Pascal as well, but you've misunderstood his statement. All men seeking happiness is not an example of objective morality. Rather, it is a statement of sin and estrangement from God. All men seeking happiness is an example of what Judges says: "Everyone did what was right in their own eyes." The Bible describes this idea as the nature of what sin is (either explicitly or implicitly) in multiple places.

This particular statement in Judges is the definition of what it is to be a sinner--doing what is right in your own eyes. So, in this way, scripture stands against your premise. There can be no "Objective" truth among atheists when seeking happiness is "doing what is right in their own eyes."

This entire discussion is flawed because of the use (and misunderstanding of) "objective." What you've described among atheist communities as "objective morality" is actually "collective morality." Almost any society develops its own morality. What might be "objective" in that society is what the society has decided is moral. That does not make their morality moral; it makes the morality collective. Confusing those two things has led you into error.

The Archangel

 

For the record... Here is all of Pascal's statement from which the "All men seek happiness" quote is taken from:

425

Second part.—That man without faith cannot know the true good, nor justice.

All men seek happiness. This is without exception. Whatever different means they employ, they all tend to this end.[159] The cause of some going to war, and of others avoiding it, is the same desire in both, attended with different views. The will never takes the least step but to this object. This is the motive of every action of every man, even of those who hang themselves.

And yet after such a great number of years, no one without faith has reached the point to which all continually look. All complain, princes and subjects, noblemen and commoners, old and young, strong and weak, learned and ignorant, healthy and sick, of all countries, all times, all ages, and all conditions.

A trial so long, so continuous, and so uniform, should certainly convince us of our inability to reach the good by our own efforts. But example teaches us little. No resemblance is ever so perfect that there is not some slight difference; and hence we expect that our hope will not be deceived on this occasion as before. And thus, while the present never satisfies us, experience dupes us, and from misfortune to misfortune leads us to death, their eternal crown.

What is it then that this desire and this inability proclaim to us, but that there was once in man a true happiness of which there now remain to him only the mark and empty trace, which he in vain tries to fill from all his surroundings, seeking from things absent the help he does not obtain in things present? But these are all inadequate, because the infinite abyss can only be filled by an infinite and immutable object, that is to say, only by God Himself.

He only is our true good, and since we have forsaken Him, it[Pg 114] is a strange thing that there is nothing in nature which has not been serviceable in taking His place; the stars, the heavens, earth, the elements, plants, cabbages, leeks, animals, insects, calves, serpents, fever, pestilence, war, famine, vices, adultery, incest. And since man has lost the true good, everything can appear equally good to him, even his own destruction, though so opposed to God, to reason, and to the whole course of nature.

Some seek good in authority, others in scientific research, others in pleasure. Others, who are in fact nearer the truth, have considered it necessary that the universal good, which all men desire, should not consist in any of the particular things which can only be possessed by one man, and which, when shared, afflict their possessor more by the want of the part he has not, than they please him by the possession of what he has. They have learned that the true good should be such as all can possess at once, without diminution and without envy, and which no one can lose against his will. And their reason is that this desire being natural to man, since it is necessarily in all, and that it is impossible not to have it, they infer from it ...

426

True nature being lost, everything becomes its own nature; as the true good being lost, everything becomes its own true good.

427

Man does not know in what rank to place himself. He has plainly gone astray, and fallen from his true place without being able to find it again. He seeks it anxiously and unsuccessfully everywhere in impenetrable darkness.
​

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/18269/18269-h/18269-h.htm

Notice the superscription: "That man without faith cannot know the true good, nor justice." Clearly, Pascal's argument at this point (the point of the quote) is not that "happiness" is an "Objective truth."

The Archangel

 

"atheism does not lead one to God"

Really??? No kidding???

"...or to good or to right morality."

Why can't an atheist recognize the goods of life and happiness for all people?

I see absolutely no reason an atheist cannot recognize these goods.

 

"In order for this thought-line to be accurate, all men would need to find happiness in the same thing(s)."

All men do find happiness in the same things.

Temporary pleasure can be subjective, but happiness is objective. Because human nature is an objective thing with an objective order to it (and you have to believe that to be a biblical Christian by the way).

"Clearly some make themselves "happy" by torturing others"

No, it is impossible to be happy torturing others. The problem is that you don't know what happiness is.

"Rather, it is a statement of sin and estrangement from God."

No, seeking happiness is not a sign of estrangement from God. We are to seek happiness IN God.

What you've described among atheist communities as "objective morality" is actually "collective morality."

No it isn't. Even if everyone in the collective thought stealing was moral, stealing would still destroy the economy of the group and lead to suffering and the ultimate destruction of the community. Stealing would not lead to the objective goods of life and happiness for all.

 

It is demonstrably false that all men find happiness in the same things. Even the Pascal quote you attests to this.

Theologically, human nature cannot be an "objective thing" if Judges states (as it does) "everyone did what was right in his own eyes." What is more, claiming human nature to be an objective thing ignores completely that human nature is fallen. This "morality" that you're searching for must come from God in some way (perhaps not in the Divine Command way)... why else would scripture repeatedly say things like "there was no fear of God before their eyes?"

To go further... If the Fear of God is the beginning of knowledge and wisdom (as scripture clearly says), the atheist cannot have "real" (or "objective," if you will) knowledge or wisdom. If you were correct in your thinking, why would Paul need to write in Romans 1, "they suppress the truth in unrighteousness." Again, that Paul writes this demonstrates your premise to be false.

Tell that to the psychopath (term used generically, not clinically) who is doing the torturing. Clearly you have not experienced a person who derives enjoyment from the suffering of others. Whether or not you have that personal experience, history is replete with those who do such things while testifying to their own enjoyment of it.

Seeking happiness in God is what we are supposed to do. Piper is exactly right on that. Where you go wrong is seeking to define a subjective experience of "happiness" (probably related to those things which make you happy) as "objective" and universalize them into "objective" truth for everyone else... which is quite subjective.

The issue here is that you have set up the seeking of happiness--happiness as you define it--as an objective truth. What is more, you beg the question by assuming your premise to be true by assertion without offering logically consistent demonstration or proof.

It is absolutely collective, and not objective. Your own statement above demonstrates the point. That a society could (even for the sake of argument) define stealing as "moral" demonstrates your premise to be false. And still, there are plenty of societies that held as virtue those things you are likely to label "immoral" or "unethical." Perhaps your understanding of sociology, anthropology, and history is incomplete.

The Archangel

 

It is demonstrably false that all men find happiness in the same things.

So you don't believe all people find true happiness in God? You believe God is replaceable as the source of true happiness?

Theologically, human nature cannot be an "objective thing"...

Oh, so God didn't create an objective thing called "human beings"? Or "human being" doesn't have any consistent definition to it? Is that what Genesis 1 says? That God didn't create the world with any definition or order to it?

claiming human nature to be an objective thing ignores completely that human nature is fallen.

This is like saying "claiming that a burger is an objective thing ignores completely that the burger is rotten." No, rotten burgers do not disprove the objective nature of burgers.

Tell that to the psychopath (term used generically, not clinically) who is doing the torturing.

He is wrong about his own happiness. Happiness is long term holistic pleasure. A psychopath in torturing people is not satisfying his whole human soul. He is violently disordering his own soul and depriving pleasure from the most important parts of his soul.

those who do such things while testifying to their own enjoyment of it.

Just as I can be wrong about my own health, I can also be wrong about my own happiness.

That a society could (even for the sake of argument) define stealing as "moral" demonstrates your premise to be false.

How so? It is completely possible for 100% of people in a society to be false about what is moral. Morality has to do with what human nature is, and what the order of the universe is, not what people think it is.

Regardless of what people say about stealing, stealing will never lead to the life and long term holistic pleasure of all human beings. It is therefore objectively wrong.

 

Of course I didn't say that. As I stated, I agree with Piper. I don't think God is replaceable as the source of true happiness. However, it must be pointed out, that is most certainly not what you're arguing. You're actually arguing that morality and happiness can be found by the atheist outside of God. For your atheist, God is not necessary for morality or the assumed "happiness" that comes from conformity to a collective morality.

Again, that is something I didn't say. Human being does have a basic definition: Image bearer. But, the ordered humanity and the ordered world of Genesis 1 is lost after the sin and curse of Genesis 3. The world we live in is not the Genesis 1 world. This is pretty basic stuff here.

Also... that you are repeatedly setting up strawmen to try to knock down suggests the argument is not going well for you.

It depends on the "nature" of burgers, doesn't it? If a component of the "objective nature" of a burger is that it's edible, then a rotten (and, therefore, inedible) burger has a different nature than an edible burger.

So, you are going to claim, then, to define what happiness is for the psychopath? You're going tell a psychopath that the actions he claims to be satisfying (hopelessly horrific as they are) are not satisfying? What gives you the authority to define happiness for that person?

That you would try to define happiness for this person demonstrates that you are, in fact, universalizing your own subjectibe thoughts about "happiness" and trying to make them an "objective" truth for everyone. That's quite problematic for anyone to do... unless of course you're God. God can define what is good and evil, real and true, etc., but you can't.

As can the psychopath. +1 for my argument.

You are assuming "morality has to do with human nature." Again, you have neither explained nor defended this assertion in a logically consistent, or even competent, manner. You're begging the question here by assuming your definition to be true and universal when it is, after all, your own definition, which means it is, by definition, subjective.

As for stealing. Yes, stealing is objectively wrong. It's one of the 10 Commandments. Another +1 for my argument.

The Archangel

 

No, humans cannot be happy outside of communion with God. That is precisely the argument I use for God's existence. Please see my previous posts.

So, you are going to claim, then, to define what happiness is for the psychopath? You're going tell a psychopath that the actions he claims to be satisfying (hopelessly horrific as they are) are not satisfying?

Yes. He is not the authority on his own humanity. His humanity is what his humanity is. Just like I am going to tell a man who says he is a woman that he is wrong about himself. You wouldn't? Just like I am going to tell someone who thinks they belong in a marriage to someone of the same sex that they are objectively wrong about what will make them happy.

See, it is you who are adopting the morally relativistic and morally subjective worldview, in which each individual is the authority on their own happiness. It is your view that says "morality is grounded in a powerful authority who will punish behaviors they dislike" rather than the created order, that provides the environment where statements like "I am a man trapped in a woman's body" becomes tolerable. Because there is no objective order to the universe. Just the punishments or rewards of a deity.

What gives you the authority to define happiness for that person?

The same authority that allows me to say that 2 + 2 = 4. It isn't a matter of authority. It is a matter of truth.

You are assuming "morality has to do with human nature." Again, you have neither explained nor defended this assertion in a logically consistent, or even competent, manner.

Yes I have. See the original post. Morality means good and evil. Good means that which is beneficial to the fulfillment of a purpose. Purpose is a type of desire, and can be grounded in either the desires of God or of a universal human nature. If there is an objective human nature, and if that objective human nature has universal bedrock desires (goods) like life and happiness, then those goods constitute objective moral values.

Tell me where is my misstep.

Question for you: if God never lifted a finger to punish sin, or he delayed for a thousand years, would sin itself still plunge sinners into destruction and misery?

 

I agree that no human can be truly happy outside of a right relationship with God. This is now the third time I've stated such.

That you're using this as a proof for God's existence is the problem. The argument is not valid because humans in their fallenness do not define happiness the same way God would, the same way scripture does, or the same as each other. Happiness is not an objective truth. The seeking of happiness may be objectively true, but--again as Pascal says--the happiness is not found in the same thing. So, again, your conflation of these two things negates the argument itself.

So, you are a greater authority on humanity than the psychopath? The problem with your thinking here is that you're relying on scripture (which God has given to us) as the definer of morality and happiness. That a trans person is "wrong" about himself is biblically defined morality--God created them male and female. In this instance science follows. Male is objectively definable as an XY chromosomal makeup while female is objectively definable as an XX chromosomal makeup. To state that a man who thinks himself a woman is wrong is defensible both scripturally and scientifically. To define happiness as a "substance" or a "thing" has to be done in the same way--and you're not defining it that way.

The problem here, again, is your undefined "happiness." You want to be the definer of happiness and you suggest such is attainable by the atheist, but the problem is that scripture defines for us what true happiness is: Right relationship with God. The Atheist does not have scripture, nor does he care about it. So, therefore, he or she cannot know what true happiness is and, as such, he or she cannot attain it.

WIth the same-sex marriage example... I agree that they are not pursuing true happiness, but the several same-sex couples I know would never claim themselves to be unhappy. In fact, they would claim to be very happy. At this point, your argument is opening a ton of holes... For example, if you stop the trans person from being trans or you convince the same-sex attracted person to be straight, what have you gained? Nothing. Salvation is found in God alone, not in your definition of happiness. If you "convert" the same-sex attracted to straightness, he or she might find greater personal fulfillment, but they won't have found Christ.

I am in no way, shape, or form adopting a relativistic and morally subjective worldview just because I disagree with your poor and illogical arguments. It is preposterous of you to suggest such a thing. In fact, for you to suggest such a thing suggests you are putting yourself in place of God. This is demonstrated by your idea that you're free to tell anyone they're wrong, but no one seems free to tell you you're wrong.

I would argue there is order to the universe because God made it so. The sun, moon, and stars, for example, have predictable movements because God created an ordered universe. The same God who created the universe, as Creator, gets to define what is good, evil, real, and true--and He has done so in His word.

Where in scripture is 2 + 2 = 4???? Again we have the conflation of issues. You can say 2 + 2 = 4 because it is scientifically provable. But that simple equation is not found in scripture. The science of math here does not contradict scripture (because scripture is silent on the issue). So you can apply "scientific authority" to hold someone else to a definable standard. But, notice, that standard is not created by you as you are neither the inventor of nor definer of mathematics. You are applying an outside, objective scientific standard to the denier of 2 + 2 = 4, while denying that scripture is that standard that defines happiness.

No, you have not. Morality may be definable as "good" and "evil" but you need God to tell you what is "good" and "what" is evil. That's the point you're ignoring. Similarly you can say that humans have a purpose, but you haven't defined that purpose. Of course, as scripture would say, (and I'm borrowing Piper completely here),: The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him for ever. And, to state it unequivocally: I agree with Piper. But, where Piper argues his point from scripture, you're trying to argue your point philosophically, and you're doing a poor job with it.

Your misstep is essentially this: You're making "happiness" your God and suggesting that everyone worship it. Scripture alone defines happiness. Again, the atheist does not care about scripture. To expand on Piper for a minute... Happiness is the result of a right relationship with God, it is not the one-and-only cause of it. If you have read Piper and think he's arguing that mere "happiness" is the goal, you've gravely misunderstood him.

This is the part where I remind you that you've ignored every statement of scripture I've asked about... More on that in a minute.

But, what is sin? Is it it's own thing? No. Sin is rebellion against God. Like darkness is the absence of light (and therefore not it's own "thing"), sin is the absence of obedience to God.

What you're trying to argue for is what Lewis referred to as a "Square Circle;" it is something that is a no-thing--something that cannot be. God does punish sin and that punishment is stated as a consequence of disobedience before that disobedience occurs. As a result of the sin, curses are given to the snake, to woman, to man, and to creation. But, it is clearly God who brings the punishment. When Cain kills Abel, to whom does He appeal that his sentence is too harsh? It's God. Is there a "natural" consequence to Cain's sin? Biblically, the answer is no. God imposes a consequence.

If you were correct that sin is it's own punishment why would Paul need to write: "Now the law came in to increase the trespass... ? (Romans 5:20) Clearly, Paul's argument here is that law defines what sin is and the law was given to increase sin. If you were correct that sin is it's own punishment, Paul would have no need to write such things. If you were correct that sin is its own punishment, God would not have imposed consequences on Cain.

Perhaps your more grand misstep here is that you are arguing a philosophy while ignoring what scripture says while assuming scripture itself. So, in a sense, scripture for you--in your argumentation--is merely borrowed capital. That borrowed capital gives you your worldview but you argue that worldview from philosophy, not scripture. In this case, however, you have to do so since scripture so clearly and plainly renders your argument wrong.

The Archangel

 

That post has it nearly right, but gets stymied by conflating atheist with atheism.

Again, an atheist could come to believe in God, but not because his atheism led him there.

If you really want to know why, read the short article cited several times in my posts.

https://reasonsforgod.org/moral-clarity-and-richard-dawkins/

 

[7] For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot. [8] Those who are in the flesh cannot please God. (Romans 8:7–8 ESV)

The Archangel

 

"Happiness is not an objective truth."

Humanity is an objective, definable thing. If what brings long term holistic pleasure and survival to humanity is an objective order of behavior, then that constitutes an objective morality. I can merely make the case as a hypothetical to prove my argument that God is not necessary for there to be objective morality. Objective morality just means a purpose that exists regardless of someone's opinion of what it is.

"So, you are a greater authority on humanity than the psychopath?"

"Authority" does not define humanity. Humanity is what humanity is. "Authority" does not define what a tree is. A tree is what a tree is.

Again, the objective perspective asks "what is" not "who says."

That a trans person is "wrong" about himself is biblically defined morality.

An atheist can easily see that a trans person is wrong about himself. And many atheists do! See Richard Dawkins.

Is there a "natural" consequence to Cain's sin? Biblically, the answer is no. God imposes a consequence.

Okay, so when a person sins, and exchanges God for that which is not God, are they committing any act of disorder? Yes or no?

Also, since God is the source of happiness for humans, when humans rebel against God, are they not rebelling against their own happiness? How would such an act not result in unhappiness?

I merely asked a yes or no question of whether sin is self-destructive or not. You wrote a lot but didn't answer the question. Think more, write less.

 

You seem to write a lot and say nothing besides: humans are real like trees are real. (my summary of your long winded post)

 

There is a very clear debate going on here. See the attached chart for a refresher.

If that doesn't help, then I am sorry that you are unable to follow along.