A Few Thoughts on Atheism and Morality

The other day in class, we had an Indian professor guest-teach for us who has done work with Ravi Zacharias, and it showed, because he was awesome. After speaking with him after his lecture, I began to think again about how Atheism can work in respect to the way an Atheist views morality. It seems like if you are an atheist there are only a few options: 1) You believe that there are certain things that govern what is right and what is wrong that goes further than simply the furtherance of the evolutionary process, but you assume that this moral sense comes from somewhere other than Yahweh and His law, 2) You believe that the evolutionary process (survival of the fittest, natural selection) provides a sufficient standard for a "bare-minimum" morality, or 3) You do not believe in morality at all (the most consistent Atheism). I want to quickly address these three issues, because I feel that it is very important for Christians to be able to converse with Atheists in an understanding way, but also not to act like a postmodern and smugly placate the Atheist by a false sense of humility. While there must be love in the gospel, God's truth cannot be compromised, and that is a point that cannot be stressed strongly enough.

1) To deny the existence of God but to agree with a moral law is the most honest, yet illogical form of atheism in existence. To believe that murder, rape, and cannibalism etc. are reprehensible acts, but deny a God that would create a conscience that enables one to be able to discern those things has only a few options to explain where this sense comes from (and these explanations include but are not limited to): A) general morality was spawned at the birth of the first human in the evolutionary process, B) general morality is given by society, C) general morality is passed down through family, or D) general morality is discovered based on what is best for each individual. I say general, because specific morality will differ based on more individualized experience and influence. Now I understand that these views do differ in the scope of their application to real life situations, but one coverall way to deal with them is to ask at what point they qualify the actions of others as wrong. That point will be different for mostly everyone, but the majority of Atheists that hold to one of these views will often say that Hitler and the Nazi German society were wrong for participating in and approving the holocaust; however, such a condemnation is not warranted with the aforementioned views on morality because such a condemnation would either be imposing one view on someone else, or pure conjecture (no authoritative basis to make such a claim), which either hints at a transcending moral law that is more than personal conviction or societal teaching, or it dismisses the statement as meaningless from the beginning. If this Atheist wants to continue to deny the presence of a transcendent spiritual being that created humans with a conscience (Romans 1), they will most often move on to the next view of morality.

2) For one to say that morality and moral precepts only exist in the realm of continuing the evolutionary process, i.e. the furtherance of the human race, they either have a very poor understanding of what they are saying, or they understand it and still refuse to say something logical. The reason that this idea is inconsistent with reality is because if "survival of the fittest" and "natural selection" were the guiding principles of the world, then Hitler should be the poster boy of evolution manifested in society as he eradicated homosexuals, cripples, mentally handicapped, and anyone with a birth defect (along with Jews and Christians obviously) because he understood that anyone that could not help the human race would hurt it, and cleansing the gene pool would be the kindest thing to humanity anyone could do, and from this view of morality, these are only logical statements. Hitler's attempted extermination of those that make a practice of circumventing procreation seems to be a more atheistically logical action. Another reason that this very rudimentary understanding of morality does not work is that even to say that human race should be propagated is a moral statement, and thusly needs an authoritative source to affirm it as true. This is impossible, because no such authority exists, which again renders that assertion of what 'should' be as equal in value of an irrelevant opinion. Anyways, if one were to be logical in their processes yet still deny the existence of God, they would most probably move to the assenting of no morality at all, which leads me to my last point.

3) For someone to outright deny morality altogether, they may have been so extremely hardened that they absolutely refuse to see the truth, they have had very negative experiences in childhood, or very negative experiences with religion; and unfortunately, that religion is quite often some form of Christianity. There are a few things to keep in mind when talking with an Atheist that outright denies morality and says things like murder, perjury, theft, rape, and all other horrific evils are completely acceptable (interestingly, most sociopaths will also agree with these things as well). I have heard of "consistent atheists" making completely absurd statements like, "because I was at one point a part of my mother, she has the right to kill, cook, and eat me for dinner whenever she would like" (incidentally, this same person was very offended when my friend was curt with him in an online conversation during a chess game, funny, I know).  There is not a whole lot that can be said to these people because they are quite often so hardened that they will not be able to see life in terms of anything spiritually, but one of the most, if not only effective thing to say to this person is that they live differently than the things they may endorse. While one may claim that his mother has some human right to his left ventricle or lungs, will he actually climb into a cauldron and be willingly be boiled alive? Probably not. While another may claim that rape is only taboo because of some cultural pretense, that same person (most often) will not willingly subjugate his baby son or daughter to a gang of convicted murdering rapists, much like the priest in Judges 19. Many of these 'tough' Atheists will talk a big game, but when life actually happens, they really do act out of something more than simply self-preservation. They still do make value judgements, and may even participate in altruism, however illogical that may be. They will have to believe that Hitler's extermination of approximately 14Million men, women, and children is all simply a matter of preference. There are no moral implications because of the inconsistencies of positions #1 and #2. When talking to someone like this, again, there is not a whole lot to say to this kind of person except to try to point out the inconsistencies between philosophy and reality and pray that the Holy Spirit changes their heart.

In thinking through all of this, I am SO glad that God decided to make known to me the graciousness of His love before I am forced to bow my knee in submission to Him.

If anyone has something to add, please leave a comment and I would love to continue to talk with you about this very serious subject. If you have gotten this far, it is possible that you have read the whole post, so thank you :)

Deus Spes Nostra