The Flawed Foundations of Atheistic Morality

Atheism, in its attempt to provide a comprehensive explanation of reality, faces significant challenges when it comes to moral principles. The question remains: Can moral principles exist independently of divine revelation? In this critique, we will examine the atheistic perspective on morality and ethics, engaging with prominent thinkers such as Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and Bertrand Russell.

The Euthyphro Dilemma: A False Dichotomy

One of the most enduring challenges to religious morality is the Euthyphro dilemma, which asks whether God commands something because it is good or if it is good simply because God commands it. This dichotomy seems to present a problem for religious morality, as it appears to create a moral arbitrariness.

However, this dilemma is based on a false assumption: that God’s nature and character are separate from goodness itself. As Christian philosopher William Lane Craig argues:

“If God’s nature is the standard of goodness, then the Euthyphro dilemma is resolved. God does not arbitrarily command things; rather, He commands what is good because it is in conformity with His own nature.” ([1])

Moral Relativism: The Atheistic Conundrum

Atheists often argue that morality can exist independently of divine revelation through moral relativism or secular moral theories. However, these approaches are plagued by difficulties:

  • Moral Relativism: This perspective posits that moral principles are relative to individual cultures or societies. However, this leads to the problem of moral subjectivism, where what is considered “good” varies greatly between individuals and groups.
  • Secular Moral Theories: Attempts to ground morality in reason, human nature, or social contracts ultimately fail to provide an objective basis for moral principles.

As philosopher J.L. Mackie notes:

“Moral properties constitute a queer kind of entity, and it is not clear how they can be accommodated within a naturalistic worldview.” ([2])

The Problem of Moral Obligation

Atheism struggles to account for the sense of moral obligation that accompanies moral principles. If morality is simply a product of human evolution or cultural development, why do we feel compelled to follow certain moral rules?

Philosopher Thomas Nagel explains:

“The problem is that moral judgments seem to be objective and universal, yet they are also rooted in our own subjective experiences and desires.” ([3])

Dawkins’ Dismissal: A Failure of Reason

Richard Dawkins, a prominent atheist thinker, argues that morality can be explained through evolutionary pressures. However, this approach is problematic:

  • Evolutionary Morality: Dawkins’ theory fails to account for the objective nature of moral principles and the sense of moral obligation.
  • Moral Arbitrariness: If morality is solely the product of evolution, then it becomes arbitrary and lacks any transcendent foundation.

As philosopher Alvin Plantinga notes:

“Dawkins’ view of morality is a form of relativism, according to which what is right or wrong varies from species to species.” ([4])

Hitchens’ Hedonism: A Flawed Foundation

Christopher Hitchens, another prominent atheist thinker, argues that morality can be grounded in human pleasure and happiness. However, this approach is also flawed:

  • Hedonistic Morality: This perspective reduces morality to personal preference, neglecting the objective nature of moral principles.
  • The Is-Ought Gap: Hitchens’ theory fails to bridge the gap between what is (human desire for pleasure) and what ought to be (moral obligations).

As philosopher Robert Koons notes:

“Hitchens’ hedonistic morality is unable to provide a clear distinction between right and wrong, leading to moral confusion.” ([5])

Russell’s Rationalism: A Flawed Foundation

Bertrand Russell, a prominent atheist philosopher, argued that morality can be grounded in reason. However, this approach is also problematic:

  • Rationalist Morality: Russell’s theory fails to account for the emotional and intuitive aspects of moral experiences.
  • Moral Skepticism: His rationalistic approach often leads to moral skepticism, where moral principles are seen as uncertain or unknowable.

As philosopher William Alston notes:

“Russell’s rationalist morality neglects the role of emotions and intuition in moral decision-making.” ([6])

Conclusion: The Inherent Flaw in Atheistic Morality

Atheism, in its various forms, fails to provide a coherent explanation for moral principles. Moral relativism, secular moral theories, and attempts to ground morality in evolution, hedonism, or rationalism all fall short of providing an objective basis for morality.

In contrast, a theistic worldview, where God’s nature is the standard of goodness, provides a more comprehensive and coherent understanding of morality. This perspective can account for the objective nature of moral principles, the sense of moral obligation, and the emotional and intuitive aspects of moral experiences.

As philosopher C.S. Lewis notes:

“If we do not believe in a God or gods, then we shall have to get our values from somewhere else.” ([7])

In conclusion, atheism’s inability to provide a logical explanation for moral principles highlights the inherent flaw in its worldview. The existence of objective moral principles and the human experience of morality point to a higher power, providing a more coherent and rational understanding of reality.

References:

[1] Craig, W.L. (2008). Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics. Crossway Books.

[2] Mackie, J.L. (1977). Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong. Penguin Books.

[3] Nagel, T. (1986). The View from Nowhere. Oxford University Press.

[4] Plantinga, A. (1993). Warrant and Proper Function. Oxford University Press.

[5] Koons, R.C. (2011). Realism Regained: An Introduction to Metaphysical Realism. Palgrave Macmillan.

[6] Alston, W.P. (2002). The Reliability of Sense Perception. Cornell University Press.

[7] Lewis, C.S. (1943). Mere Christianity. Geoffrey Bles.