The Incoherence of Atheistic Morality
Atheism, in its various forms, has long struggled to provide a coherent and logical explanation for the existence of objective morality. Despite the valiant efforts of prominent atheist thinkers, their attempts to ground morality in naturalism or human convention ultimately falter.
The Moral Lawgiver Problem
One of the most significant challenges facing atheistic morality is the need for a moral lawgiver. The concept of morality implies a set of objective rules and principles that govern human behavior. However, without a transcendent moral authority, it becomes difficult to justify these rules and principles.
David Hume’s Is-Ought Gap
As David Hume famously argued, it is impossible to derive an “ought” from an “is.” In other words, one cannot logically deduce moral obligations from natural facts about the world. This creates a chasm between descriptive statements about human behavior and prescriptive moral claims.
Atheists often respond by positing that morality is based on human well-being, happiness, or flourishing. However, this approach raises more questions than it answers:
- What constitutes human well-being? Is it not a subjective determination that varies from person to person?
- Who decides what promotes happiness? Is it not a matter of personal opinion or cultural relativity?
- How do we determine what is in the best interest of humanity? Is it not a complex, context-dependent question that defies simplistic answers?
The Euthyphro Dilemma
Bertrand Russell’s solution to the moral lawgiver problem was to argue that morality is based on human feelings and emotions. However, this approach is vulnerable to the Euthyphro dilemma:
- Is something good because God (or a moral authority) commands it? If so, then morality becomes arbitrary and subjective.
- Or does God command it because it is already good? If so, then morality exists independently of God, rendering Him redundant.
Atheists often opt for the second horn of the dilemma, but this raises further questions:
- What makes something inherently good or bad? Is it not a matter of personal taste or cultural convention?
- How do we know what is good or bad without a moral authority? Is it not a matter of individual interpretation?
Evolutionary Explanations
Some atheists argue that morality evolved as a means to promote human survival and cooperation. While this may explain certain aspects of moral behavior, it fails to provide a comprehensive account of objective morality.
- Why should we care about the well-being of others? Is it not simply a matter of self-interest or genetic predisposition?
- How do evolutionary pressures account for abstract moral principles? Do they not transcend mere biological imperatives?
The Impasse of Atheistic Morality
Atheism, in its various forms, has failed to provide a coherent and logical explanation for the existence of objective morality. The moral lawgiver problem, Hume’s is-ought gap, the Euthyphro dilemma, and evolutionary explanations all highlight the difficulties inherent in grounding morality in naturalism or human convention.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the concept of morality does imply a moral lawgiver. Without a transcendent moral authority, objective morality becomes an unjustified assumption, vulnerable to subjective interpretation and cultural relativity. Atheism, despite its valiant efforts, has failed to provide a coherent and logical explanation for the existence of objective morality.
References
- Hume, D. (1739-1740). A Treatise of Human Nature.
- Russell, B. (1912). The Problems of Philosophy.
- Dawkins, R. (2006). The God Delusion.
- Hitchens, C. (2007). God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.
By recognizing the impasse of atheistic morality, we are compelled to reexamine our assumptions about the existence of God or a higher power. Perhaps it is time to consider the possibility that objective morality requires a moral lawgiver – one who can provide a coherent and logical explanation for the existence of moral principles and values.