The Inadequacy of Atheistic Morality: A Logical Critique

Introduction

Atheism, as a philosophical and metaphysical stance, posits that there is no God or higher power governing the universe. While this perspective has gained significant traction in modern times, it raises fundamental questions about the nature of morality. Can morality exist independently of a divine entity? Does atheism provide a coherent explanation for moral principles and values? In this essay, we will argue that atheism fails to provide a logical and consistent framework for understanding morality, ultimately relying on arbitrary and subjective moral relativism.

The Euthyphro Dilemma: A Classic Challenge

One of the most enduring criticisms of atheistic morality comes from Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue. The Euthyphro dilemma poses a fundamental question: “Is what is morally good commanded by the gods because it is morally good, or is it morally good because it is commanded by the gods?” [1] This challenge highlights the tension between moral objectivism and divine command theory.

Atheists often respond by rejecting divine command theory, opting for moral relativism instead. However, this approach leads to a subjectivist morality, where moral principles are reduced to personal preferences or cultural norms. As philosopher William Lane Craig notes, “If there is no objective moral lawgiver, then there is no objective moral law.” [2]

The Problem of Moral Arbitrariness

Atheistic morality often relies on evolutionary explanations for the emergence of moral principles. However, this perspective raises significant concerns about the arbitrariness of moral values. If morality is solely a product of natural selection, why should we consider certain actions morally right or wrong? Why shouldn’t we prioritize self-interest over altruism?

As Richard Dawkins admits, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.” [3] In this framework, morality becomes a mere byproduct of evolutionary pressures, lacking any objective basis.

The Failure of Moral Progress

Atheistic morality also struggles to account for moral progress. If morality is solely a product of human convention or cultural evolution, why should we expect moral principles to improve over time? Why shouldn’t we be content with the status quo?

As Christopher Hitchens notes, “We do not know, and cannot know, what our successors will think of us.” [4] However, this perspective neglects the fact that humanity has made significant moral strides throughout history, such as the abolition of slavery or the recognition of human rights. Atheism fails to provide a coherent explanation for these advancements.

The Inadequacy of Secular Ethics

Atheists often appeal to secular ethics, such as utilitarianism or virtue ethics, to ground their moral principles. However, these frameworks are ultimately based on arbitrary assumptions about what constitutes human flourishing or well-being.

As philosopher J.L. Mackie argues, “Moral properties constitute a distinct class of properties, and… they cannot be reduced to non-moral properties.” [5] Secular ethics, therefore, rely on an unjustified leap from descriptive facts to normative moral principles.

The Problem of Moral Obligation

Atheistic morality also struggles to account for moral obligation. Why should we feel morally obligated to act in certain ways if there is no objective moral lawgiver?

As philosopher Michael Ruse notes, “Morality is not something that can be derived from the facts of science.” [6] In an atheistic framework, moral obligations become mere suggestions or personal preferences, lacking any binding force.

Addressing Counterarguments

The Argument from Evil

Atheists often argue that the existence of evil and suffering in the world undermines the case for a benevolent deity. However, this challenge neglects the possibility of a morally sufficient reason for permitting evil, such as soul-making or the greater good.

Moral Relativism

Atheists may respond by embracing moral relativism, arguing that morality is purely subjective and culturally relative. However, this approach fails to provide a coherent explanation for moral principles, reducing them to arbitrary cultural norms.

Evolutionary Explanations

Atheists may appeal to evolutionary explanations for the emergence of moral principles. However, as we have seen, these perspectives raise concerns about moral arbitrariness and fail to account for moral progress.

Conclusion

In conclusion, atheism fails to provide a coherent and logical explanation of morality. By rejecting divine command theory and opting for moral relativism or secular ethics, atheists rely on arbitrary assumptions and subjective moral frameworks. The Euthyphro dilemma, the problem of moral arbitrariness, the failure of moral progress, and the inadequacy of secular ethics all highlight the limitations of atheistic morality.

Ultimately, a coherent explanation of morality requires an objective moral lawgiver, providing a basis for moral principles and values that transcends human convention and cultural evolution. As philosopher Alvin Plantinga notes, “Theism provides a much more satisfactory account of morality than does naturalism.” [7]

References

[1] Plato. (n.d.). Euthyphro. Retrieved from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics/#Eut

[2] Craig, W. L. (2013). The Absurdity of Life Without God. In J.P. Moreland & K.A. Reynolds (Eds.), Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (pp. 357-375). Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press.

[3] Dawkins, R. (1995). River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life. New York: Basic Books.

[4] Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything. New York: Twelve.

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

[6] Ruse, M. (1982). Darwinism Defended: A Guide to the Evolution Controversies. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

[7] Plantinga, A. (2011). Where the Conflict Really Lies: Science, Religion, and Naturalism. New York: Oxford University Press.