My Favorite Theistic Arguments - Part VI - The Moral Argument

The previous parts dealt with things which are observed outside of us – the nature of the universe, miracles, and so on.  Today we’re going to look at an argument that requires a bit of introspection.  Today we will give a brief sketch of that most provocative argument:  The moral argument.

Over time I’ve become more convinced that comprehension of this argument is a supernatural gift of the Holy Spirit.  The most common response from non-Theists to this argument is the complete inability to understand what it is getting at.  So it is probably not a good argument to start with, but is more helpful to a person who is on the fence.

With that said, let’s begin:



The Form:

Premise 1:  There is a distinction between knowing the content of the moral standard, obeying it, and being able to explain where an objective moral standard comes from.

Premise 2: If Atheism is true, objective moral truths and duties do not exist.

Premise 3: Objective moral truths and duties do exist.

Conclusion:  Atheism is false.


Explaining Premise 1:

Before one can proceed through this argument, you first have to do the tiresome work of helping the person understand what is and is not being said.  So I devote the first premise to drawing out some important distinctions.  Without being absolutely clear on those distinctions, you cannot progress forward.


Knowing What is Right:

Knowing the content of true morality is called “Moral Epistemology”.  It refers to questions like:

• How do we learn about morality?
• What behaviors are moral and immoral?

There are countless ways people address these questions - culture, intuition, philosophy, religion, ect.  An Atheist's ability to discern right from wrong is not controversial.


Doing What is Right:

Doing what is right is a question of personal moral virtue.  And indeed, a person can do this without conscious belief in God.

In fact, Christianity has always held that the conscience is an integral part of a human nature.  Every fully-functioning person has the ability to distinguish right and wrong and conform to the good …. to some extent. This fact is even in the Bible, found in Paul’s letter to the Romans:

“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves.  They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts.” – Romans 2:13

Having an Full Explanation of Why it is Right:

The real question is regarding what is called “Moral Ontology”. This addresses questions like:

• Is there a moral standard that exists independently of human opinions?
• If so, where did such a standard come from?  What makes it exist?
• Is our duty to pursue goodness a real thing, or an inclination instilled by evolution and culture?

To draw this into focus, ask yourself:  Does morality have an objective standard?  Is the statement…

 "It is morally wrong to torture animals for fun " 

….as absolutely true as:

"2 + 2 = 4 "  

Or to put a finer point on it, you can ask:

“If you had a world where 100% of people thought torturing animals was virtuous and good... would they be as objectively wrong as a society of flat-earthers?”

Or is morality subjective?  Is it ultimately rooted in cultural norms, evolutionary conditioning, and human preferences. Do the words “good” and “evil” point only to fictional concepts we invented to describe behaviors we like and dislike?

If that is the case, then any moral claim is just a statement of subjective personal taste.   You have yours and I have mine.




Explaining Premise 2:

This is where the distinctions established in Premise 1 will be vital, because you’re going to have to slowly, carefully, and gently walk the person through what this premise says… and doesn’t say.


Thing Which Isn’t Being Said 1:  “Atheists cannot believe in morality.”

When most people hear, “If Atheism is true, objective moral truths and duties do not exist.” … they often hear, “Atheists cannot believe in morality.”

And you’ll get this reaction:

That, of course, is not the purpose of this argument.  In fact, in my experience, the Atheists I’ve encountered are some of the most fiercely moralistic people I know.

When you encounter this objection, it’s time to back up to Premise 1 and make these distinctions clear again.


Thing Which Isn’t Being Said 1:  “Atheists cannot behave in a moral fashion.”

The second reaction you’ll get is a person thinking you’re impugning the moral character of everyone who doesn’t believe in God.   Something like this:

Again, the personal morality of Theists vs Atheists is irrelevant to the question at hand.  It could be that all Atheists are saints and all Theists are devils… it wouldn’t matter.

Either way, time to revisit Premise 1.



What Is Being Said:

Objective Morality is a standard of moral good and evil that isn't grounded on human opinions.  The moral facts contained within this standard would be true even if every human on earth thought they were false.

However the qualities of moral goodness and moral badness are not physical properties of matter, nor are they mathematical formulae.  They are abstractions which human minds interpret from events.

So any attempt to create a scientific standard of objective morality must begin by interpreting scientifically measurable events according to some human opinion of moral worth.  This serves as a makeshift moral ontology – grounding Goodness and Badness in that opinion.

It may be a widely held opinion, but it is itself not a scientific statement – it isn’t true in the same way that 2+2=4 is true.  It is a dogma which is simply asserted without any possible scientific validation.  Three common examples are:

• Human happiness is moral Goodness.
• Human flourishing is moral Goodness.
• Adherence to the Golden Rule is moral Goodness.

While each may sound perfectly reasonable, they are just human opinions.  The question remains as to whether that opinion can be proven as true within the framework devoid of God.  And the answer is no.

Science is descriptive, not proscriptive.  It cannot tell us why human flourishing is objectively morally better than octopus flourishing.  We might think so... but of course we would.  Our DNA tells us to think that.

So here’s the bottom line.  Any attempt to create a naturalistic standard of objective morality will first depend on a subjective assumption to get it going – rendering the whole thing subjective.  And when you begin to challenge the provability of that assumption, the only defense given is indignation and outrage.

Under the philosophical framework made available by Atheism (in all of its myriad of forms) all attempts at creating a moral standard collapse into subjectivity.  There cannot be any real moral FACTS.  Regarding objective standards of morality, you are left with this statement by Richard Dawkins:

"In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”- Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life

So if a Naturalist / Atheist is willing to be honest and consistent, he will not be able to ascribe absolute moral qualities to anything.  Even the worst possible things.


Explaining Premise 3:

Hopefully you don’t have explain Premise 3.  The human mind naturally interprets actions and events with the sort of objective moral accounting that is metaphysically unavailable if there is no God.

So your task is just to say, “Trust your intuitions.  There is no good reason to doubt that they are reporting the truth to you.”

[Return]