The Inconsistency of Atheists Denying Objective Morality

I stumbled across this video today, and I think whoever put it together did a pretty good job. It demonstrates the inconsistency of atheists denying objective morality while affirming that there is moral good and evil.

And while we're on the topic of atheism and morality, I would like to point out that no one is claiming that atheists are immoral; when Christians say that atheists can't be good without God, we are merely pointing to the obvious fact that there must be a moral standard in order for an atheist to claim that something is right or wrong (which they do, often contradicting themselves as this video will show) -- and if there must be a moral standard, then there must be a Moral Lawgiver (whom we Christians say is God). Keep that in mind as you watch this video...





Comments

  1. M AndrewsFriday, August 19, 2011 at 6:44:00 PM EDT

    I'm not comfortable with drawing the line straight from a moral law to a moral lawgiver. It's sort of begging the question and so I think this phraseology should be avoided. I think my favorite argument is the moral argument, however I think it would be wise to just discuss the objectivity of moral values and duties. If they exist independently of human rationality and are binding and valid, then what are they rooted in? Objective moral values aren't just some type of abstract entity that floats around and human beings partake of goodness or not. I suppose either the atheist doesn't fully understand the difference between objective and subjective moral values (as is evidenced when they try to back into social contract theory or anything similar), the difference between epistemology and ontology, or they must hold that objective moral values do not exist. With the latter position Craig likes to say that the way we perceive the realm of objective moral values is the same way we perceive the physical world but we don't question the existence of the physical world so why should we doubt our intuitions about the existence of objective morality? Attempts to point to our genetic disposition to behave in ways that favor survival and such commit the genetic fallacy if they are asserting that these values are therefore subjective, or it is confusing epistemology with ontology. Atheists that deny objective moral values/duties exist are being consistent with naturalism/materialism but are not staying true to human intuition and a deep rooted belief in the objective validity of certain moral values and they cannot possibly live in a manner consistent with their disbelief. I read an article recently in which some philosopher who didn't believe in moral absolutes blatantly admitted (without a good reason) that his disbelief in moral absolutes doesn't carry over into his lifestyle. http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/08/01/does-philosophy-matter/
    Atheists that affirm objective moral values/duties are being inconsistent with naturalism/materialism and have no transcendent, trustworthy source or anchor for believing these values/duties are objectively valid and binding.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Christiana SzymanskiSaturday, August 20, 2011 at 4:19:00 PM EDT

    coltrane02,

    While I completely agree with your assessment on the moral predicament that atheists have, I do want to point out that I am not simply drawing a straight line from moral law to moral Lawgiver and using that as the only evidence for objective morality; there is so much in between as you demonstrated (the moral argument). However, I felt I needed to clarify that Christians are not saying that atheists are immoral, but that they must have a standard by which to base their lives -- that is, that morality is not subjective, it is objective (which I touched on in another post). And the video posted above shows that atheists are committing a logical fallacy when they say that they don't believe in objective morality but then make objective decisions of what is right and wrong. For some reason, though, one atheist seemed to think that I was calling all atheists immoral after reading one of my posts (though I made no such claim); thus, I made that destinction here. I hope to tackle objective morality in more detail here on the blog soon.

    Thank you for sharing your thoughts. I love that last line you shared: "Atheists that affirm objective moral values/duties are being inconsistent with naturalism/materialism and have no transcendent, trustworthy source or anchor for believing these values/duties are objectively valid and binding." Sums it up quite well. And I will check out that article... I have encountered an atheist or two who have affirmed the same position.

    ~ Christiana

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

All comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Please keep in mind that the topics are not open to debate; however, I do allow (and encourage) friendly discussion and dialogue. Check out the comment policy for details before commenting. Thank you for visiting!

Popular Posts

Did Pontius Pilate actually exist?

Image
Antonio Ciseri's painting of Pontius Pilate presenting Christ to the crowd. For years, skeptics have claimed that Pontius Pilate, the one responsible for Jesus' execution, was nothing more than a mythical figure. Is this true? And whether or not it is true, what is the significance of this? The implications of this are simple: if Pontius Pilate, did not exist, then the critics are right in stating that the Bible is in error. However, if he did exist, then it proves once again that the Bible is accurate in its details. Let's begin by examining Matthew 27:2. It reads, "And when they had bound Him, they led Him away, and delivered Him to Pontius Pilate the governor." Was Pilate really a governor? Luke 3:1 seems to agree: "Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea , and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias t...
Read more

April Fools

Image
Today is April Fool's Day. While I am not too enthralled with the idea of playing tricks on people, I wanted to share a little story with you all (no offense meant to those to whom it refers): An atheist complained to a Christian friend, "You Christians have your sacred holidays, such as Christmas and Easter. Jews celebrate their national holidays, such as Passover and Yom Kippur. But we atheists have no recognized national holidays. It's unfair discrimination." His friend replied, "Why don't you celebrate April first?" On a more serious note, I would like to remind you all that we are called to be "fools for Christ" (1 Corinthians 4:10). This does not mean that we are to act stupid in the name of Christ; rather, it means that we are to go about God's business -- even if it makes us look like fools in the process. Today is as good a day as any to go out and spread the Gospel, to be a fool for Christ!  P.S. Don't forget : The Online ...
Read more

Quote of the Week: Ravi Zacharias On The Problem of Evil

Image
"When you say there's too much evil in this world you assume there's good. When you assume there's good, you assume there's such a thing as a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. But if you assume a moral law, you must posit a moral Law Giver, but that's Who you're trying to disprove and not prove. Because if there's no moral Law Giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil. What is your question?" ~ Ravi Zacharias, in response to the objection, "There cannot be a God, because there is too much evil in this world"
Read more