The Failure of Atheism to Account for Morality

As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. In this video, let's look at the inability for the atheistic worldview to offer objective morality.


First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can even be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s aren't.


Objective morals are those that are based outside of yourself. Subjective morals are those that depend on you, your situation, culture, and your preferences. Subjective morals change, can become contradictory, and might differ from person to person. This is the best that atheism has to offer us as a worldview.


Think about it, in atheism, there is no moral right and wrong. There is no moral "should and shouldn't." Why? Because when you remove God, you remove the standard by which objective moral truth is established. In atheism morality is up for grabs.


In an atheistic worldview, lying, cheating, and stealing are neither right or wrong. They are phenomena to which, if the atheist so decides, moral values can be assigned. Sure, the atheist might say that we all should want to help society function properly, and it does not benefit society as a whole to lie, cheat, and steal. But, this is weak intellectual reasoning.


If you say that such theft is wrong, then why is it wrong? If it is your opinion that it is wrong, that is nice, but opinions don’t make ethical standards. If you said that it is wrong because it is wrong, you are just begging the question. Besides, that would mean there was a moral standard outside of yourself to which you must answer and that would imply a Moral-Law Giver.



Let me reiterate by saying that atheism offers a subjective moral system that is based on human experience, human conditions, and human reason. By its very nature, such moral evaluation is relativistic, dangerous, can change, can become self-contradictory and can lead to anarchy.


True morality is not merely a collection of concepts agreed upon because it helps stop the guy with the gun from taking your food. There is something more, and the Bible offers us more.


It offers us an objective set of morals: do not lie, do not steal, do not commit adultery, do not bear false witness, etc. These morals don’t change depending on your opinion, your situation, or your personal preferences. They are based on God’s character, and since God doesn’t change, these morals don’t either. Therefore, it is always wrong to lie, to steal, to commit adultery, and to bear false witness but not so in atheism’s empty moral vacuum because morality is formed in a subjective manner.



This is confirmed in philosophy as well by Hume and Kant dealing with pure material reason. Not so much Hume but Kant was forced to recognize there was more than material reason, something that transcends pure reason. Pure materialist reason is the well understood playground of the atheist.

Sounds like atheists want the opportunity to make Gods for and of themselves so they can change the rules which ever way the wind blows?

 

Theism has no better answer. Divine command theory is just as absurd, if not moreso. As with most theist arguments, it doesn't actually provide an answer. It just shifts responsibility and introduces a new slew of unanswerable questions.

Theistic morality doesn't really offer any "objective" standard other than "don't disobey God." Slavery? Okay when God commands it. Infanticide? Okay when God commands it. Murder? Meh, sometimes good, sometimes a sin. The only "objective" law is to not disobey God, and God's orders are inconsistent.

 

To add, genocide is wrong, unless you take the women as sex slaves and kill the men and children.

 

That depends. When it came to the Amalekites, even the women were to be killed. The Bible is inconsistent when it comes to how to treat civilians during war.

 

Why is theft wrong? Because I don't want anyone stealing from me. Why is murder wrong? because I don't want me or any of my family murdered. So, I get together with the people in my tribe/village/city/state/country and I say, "hey, since none of us want to be stolen from or murdered, why don't we make an agreement that we won't steal from or murder each other and come up with a punishment for anyone who does?"

Doesn't that make more sense than a book of dubious origin?

 

"atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. "

Theism has it's issues too....

[video=youtube;HVuw1wEuaAQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HVuw1wEuaAQ[/video]

.

 

exactly

Unknown - God - Everything
Unknown - Everything

it actually makes it worse as now you have to explain how an all knowing being just popped into existence

 

You're right, I was only focusing on the Canaanites. My mistake.

 

Atheism is not a world view, it is merely a lack of belief in gods.

As is any theist's views, not all theist's versions of objective morality are the same. So where has your objective moral argument got you?

Objective morals are based on your religion, those morals differ. Ask those nutters who flew planes into the twin towers and they will state it was a moral act. So much for the superiority of objective morals.

See above how belief in a god gives you nothing extra, in fact it gives you less, because if a moral is really god given then it cannot be challenged.

There is no atheistic worldview so I can only speak for myself, but I can certainly except situations where lieing, cheating and stealing would be acceptable morally.

If your god tells you to kill a human a day then you consider that is correct because that persons god or gods said so, strange ideas.

Theism of it self offers less, because you cannot argue with whatever gods morals you follow, and there are some pretty odd morals out there from gods.

That's better, now you are showing your true colours, it is your gods objective morality you wish us to follow, you want us to reject all those other gods objective moralities and follow yours. Why should I chose your god rather than someone elses.

As do all other gods, you have not given one reason why your gods moral objectivity is anymore valid than anyone elses. If an atheist lives in a moral vacuum then at least it is one where he is free to decide by logic and reason what is wrong or right.

Sounds like you jumped from explaining objective morality to saying your gods objective morality is the correct and only one, how did you do that?

 

You refer to a video, but you didn't supply one. Are you copying a transcript or something?

Yes, atheism doesn't add anything on its own. It merely opens up for people to adopt other ideas. Now, for those who have been brought up with the notion that morality hinges on God, this can be a problem. People like Stalin, Pol Pot (and arguably Hitler) were brought up with the idea that morality relies on God, so when they lost their theism they were without moral authority.

Most modern atheists do not take this approach, though. There are many ideas of exactly how to put together a morality. Some of those can be considered as absolute as the theist approach. One I like for its simplicity is "Don't harm, do help". It has some caveats, of course, but the point is that while you may present a "but what if I decide not to" idea, that's in essence no less absurd than "what if I decide not to take Gods word for what is moral" in the theistic approach. It should be pointed out that this is not the only approach, though.

These ideas find the inescapability in humanity (that's why it's called humanism) instead of God. And humans are much more likely to lose their faith in the existence of God than humanity.

 

Certainly the first part is copied from a transcript here,

The Failure of Atheism to Account for Morality

by Matt Slick

As a worldview, atheism is intellectually bankrupt and is wrought with philosophical problems. In this video, let's look at the inability for the atheistic worldview to offer objective morality.

First I need to clarify that atheists can be morally good. They can even be people of integrity. But that isn't the issue. Having good morals doesn’t mean you have objective morals. One atheist’s good morals might only be coincidentally consistent with true objective morality where another atheist’s aren't.

https://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality

Judging from other posts I would suggest a hotch potch of other articles, this explains the formulaic answers and annoyance when the answer is not as predicted.

Looks like the whole thing is plagiarized from that article with some omitted and a very small bit added.

Is there anything in the Bible regarding the morals of intellectual honesty?

 

Let me add the part of the article that the OP left out, and provide an answer,

So, after an economic meltdown when an armed stranger is approaching you on a dark road and you are taking food home to your hungry family, who would you rather the stranger be: a Christian who believes stealing is wrong and that God is watching or the atheist who sees a need and points his gun at you as he adapts his ethics to suit the moment?
https://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality

I would not care what the armed strangers faith is I would just hope he was a reasonable human being who had a well worked out moral code, enough that we could discuss his needs and if possible I could help him out, whether that person was a christian, muslim, hindu or pastafarian is irrelevant, as is whether their morals are subjective or objective. What I do know for sure is that an athiest is very unlikely to kill me because I am of the wrong religion, which sadly cannot be said of a theist in some circumstances.

 

this is your problem. there is no such thing as objective morality. morality is an entirely man made philosophical concept and entirely subjective.

 

You have really been picking on the atheists lately, but what about the other religions of the world. Buddhists don't believe in God, but they are not anarchist hedonists.Hindus don't believe in Jesus, but they are not running through the street wantonly killing everyone they meet. They have their morality, thus morality is subjective.

Even within Christianity, morality is subjective. What if you stole bread to feed your family, killed in self-defense of your country or lied to protect the innocent, are those still sins? If this is up to debate, then you are looking at a subjective morality.

 

Oh, forgot the link.

That is not correct by any stretch of the imagination, there are not many ways to put together morals together unless you are prepared to lay out the ground work for how your synthesis came into being?

Your premise tautologically conflates understood epistomolgy because the only approach that atheists have available to them, using their reasoning, they are stuck with material rationalization for their existence, and within the realm of material rationalization they cannot reach morals since material pure reason does not embrace qualitative concepts within its boundaries so the whole premise falls on its face.

People typically lose there belief in humanity a long time before turning to God. You rarely see people losing their faith in God and turning to humanity, your theory appars to deny observed norms.

The Practicality of Pure Reason: http://www.academia.edu/299351/The_Practicality_of_Pure_Reason_Kants_Theory_of_Moral_Motivation

Atheists are making a whole series of unqualified claims with no philosophical or metaphysical support which would purport to overturn thousands of years of academic work.

I dont see that happening in the academic world without one single iota of argumentative proof.

the link: https://carm.org/failure-of-atheism-to-account-for-morality

• The failure of atheism to account for existence video
• The failure of atheism to account for rationality video

Related Articles

• What is atheism?
• The Failure of Atheism to Account for Existence
• The Failure of Atheism to Account for Rationality
• Is atheism viable?
• "I lack belief in a god"
• Answers to positions held by atheists
• Concerning atheist attacks on Theism
• There is no proof that God exists
• Why do you believe in Jesus but not Santa Claus?
• Naturalism is self-refuting

In other words if atheists want to reinvent philosophy et al, and present a convincing arguments, as you can see they have one hell of a lot of work ahead of them.

Presently atheist theories tend to follow hume and the early work of kant and seem to dead end at that point.

 

I would argue that universal morality is not subjective, violates no religion and thus is adequate to fulfill the requirements of the 2nd amendment as well. Thats on a grand scale, otherwise morality is both subjective and objecting depending, how can I say on its direction. I posted a link above that fairly well explains kants work on the subject that should help you better wrap your mind around it.

Yes they are still sins and would fall under fixing a wrong with more wrong. The precise house of cards incidentally that our 'defacto' gvmnt in the US is built on.

Anarchy is hands down the ideal way to live but I dont ever see that being a possibility given human propensity for greed and corruption.

One only need go as far as the boards to see how the extremes some members will go to convince through every known method of subterfuge. I mean to the extend they contradict themselves in the same sentence and when shown the errors they simply deny it, move the goal posts, redefine it, or run off on another red herring argument in attempts to leave the impression they were not defeated and have no case and a lost cause. Now imagine gvmnts that deal in trillions.

 

...so when atheists say, "should or should not" are they exemplifying their supposed knowledge,... which they believe they have,... about what is "good or what is evil?"


5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, (i.e.; Ishtar, Eros, etc), knowing good and evil.

 

If religious people fail at grasping reality, many atheists fail at giving a sense to that same reality. Not all atheists are moral relativists (yet) but the path of atheism leads straight to that thing.

 

Reasonable people usually end up moral relativist, theist or not.

Most atheist I know are perfectly willing to give up on the question 'why?' to pursue all the other questions, 'what?' 'how?' 'where?' and 'when?'. They take the stance that its inevitably a nonsense question, unanswerable.

Which works out fine as long as you force yourself to absolutely never consider reality from a subjective view. Easier for some than others I guess.

 

How do you account for a lack of universal agreement on the topic of morality in religion?

Nor is there a universally agreed upon morality in religion.

Says who and by what authority?

Yet our prisons are populated mainly by Christians.

Harm is the boundary that seperates an action from an immoral action. Religion has a history of labeling harmless action as immoral.

All ethics are opinion based.

Just as it is stilly to say it is right because it is right.

What it implies to me is the judiciary of the State.

The Bible was written by man and at best is man's interpretation of God and at worst a work of fiction.

You left out conditional rape as espoused in Deuteronomy 22:28-29. The Bible is also used to judge harmless action as immoral such as homosexuality.

Oh yes they do. Just look at the divide in Christianity on the issue of same sex marriage.

You are fooling yourself if you think that materialism is limited to atheists as I know some materialistic Christians.

As do Christians, except in Christians they say their subjective interpretation of the Bible is inspired by God thus right. The problem being that it is unlikely that any two Christians interpret the Bible in the same way. When there are literally billions of interpretations of the Bible how does one conclude which is inline with the word of God as opposed to just a subjective opinion?

 

And how are you going to decide which morals are objective if not by subjective selection?

 

Don't you think that moral relativism is equally dangerous as religious zealotry is? The religious is the one who, at the prospect of a terrible evil or illness, will answer that life is sacred and thus you'd commit sin by choosing death. Proving a decent amount of blind stubborness.

But the moral relativist is the one who can send you straight to death without even thinking if that's right or wrong.

 

With or without religion, good people can behave well and bad people can do evil; but for good people to do evil — that takes religion.
Steven Weinberg

 

Atheists start off saying that sexual promiscuity, and abortions, and pre-marital sex, and No Fault Divorce, and Welfare to single mothers raising little bastards is all OK.

They begin by denying that Reality will destroy their societies.
Hence, all atheists fai at giving sense to Reality.

 

Atheists do not realize that Reality is the Creator described in the Bible, and that the Truth is His son and image.

Hence, they do not understand the Reality,...that fatherless children are the bastards that grow up and destroy societies.