Critique of Atheism: Moral Relativism and the Fear of Objective Morality

Atheism, in its rejection of a higher power or divine authority, often relies on moral relativism to justify its stance on ethics and morality. However, this approach is fundamentally flawed, as it fails to provide a coherent and objective basis for moral decision-making. In this section, we will argue that the arbitrary and subjective nature of moral relativism reveal a deep-seated fear of acknowledging an objective, divine moral authority.

The Problem of Moral Relativism

Moral relativism posits that morality is relative to individual perspectives, cultural norms, or personal opinions. This approach rejects the idea of an objective moral framework, instead suggesting that morality is subjective and context-dependent. However, this stance raises several concerns:

• Arbitrariness: Without an objective standard, moral decisions become arbitrary and susceptible to personal biases.
• Lack of Universality: Moral relativism fails to provide a universal moral framework, leading to conflicting moral standards across different cultures and individuals.
• No Objective Grounding: Moral relativism lacks an objective foundation, making it difficult to justify moral judgments or condemn immoral actions.

The Fear of Acknowledging Objective Morality

Atheists often resort to moral relativism as a means of avoiding the implication of an objective, divine moral authority. This fear is rooted in the recognition that an objective moral framework would require a higher power or transcendent being to ground morality. By rejecting this idea, atheists attempt to maintain autonomy over their own moral decision-making.

However, this approach ultimately leads to a lack of accountability and a diminished sense of moral responsibility. Without an objective standard, individuals are free to create their own moral codes, which can lead to moral chaos and a breakdown in social cohesion.

The Cosmological Argument and Objective Morality

The cosmological argument, which posits that the existence of the universe requires a first cause or uncaused cause, provides a philosophical foundation for objective morality. If the universe has a beginning, it is reasonable to infer that there exists a transcendent being responsible for its creation. This being would possess inherent moral properties, providing an objective basis for morality.

Prominent atheist thinkers, such as Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, have attempted to refute this argument by suggesting alternative explanations for the origin of the universe, such as the multiverse hypothesis. However, these attempts fail to address the fundamental question: what is the source of objective moral values?

Counterarguments and Rebuttals

Atheists may counter that moral relativism allows for greater individual freedom and autonomy in making moral decisions. However, this argument ignores the fact that without an objective standard, individuals are left to navigate a moral landscape devoid of clear guidelines or consequences.

Another common counterargument is that morality can be grounded in human well-being or happiness. While this approach may provide some guidance, it ultimately relies on subjective interpretations of what constitutes well-being or happiness, failing to provide a universal and objective moral framework.

Conclusion

The arbitrary and subjective nature of moral relativism reveal a deep-seated fear of acknowledging an objective, divine moral authority. Atheists’ reliance on moral relativism is an attempt to avoid the implications of an objective moral framework, which would require a higher power or transcendent being to ground morality. However, this approach ultimately leads to a lack of accountability and a diminished sense of moral responsibility.

In contrast, the cosmological argument provides a philosophical foundation for objective morality, grounding moral values in a transcendent being responsible for the creation of the universe. By acknowledging an objective moral authority, we can establish a universal and coherent moral framework, providing clear guidelines and consequences for our actions.

References

• Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt.
• Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. Twelve Books.
• Russell, B. (1903). “The Elements of Ethics.” In Philosophical Essays (pp. 1-27). Longmans, Green, and Co.

This section has demonstrated the flaws in moral relativism and the fear of acknowledging an objective, divine moral authority that underlies atheistic thought. The next section will explore the limitations of natural selection in explaining the origin of complex features, citing relevant papers such as Michael Behe’s “The probability of convergent evolution and the number of new proteins gained in a specified interval” (1996).