Does An Atheist Morality Really Exist??

Does An Atheist Morality Really Exist??

There is no basis for an ethic apart from the theistic worldview.
What determines right and wrong?

If you say the individual, then you must admit that what Hitler did to the Jews was acceptable. I hope no one would say such a thing.
If you say the community determines right and wrong, then the same as above is true as well. The community of Nazis decided that it was right and desirable to exterminate the Jews.

In this kind of utilitarianism, might makes right. If there is a larger group who believes something is right then they are justified to force others to live a certain way. For instance, if a society thinks that is right for a man to be able to have sex with any woman he wants – even raping her – then one would have to acquiesce to this.

Again, who is to say that the majority in one culture is wrong and the majority in another culture is right? That is, how can people say that the entire Third Reich was wrong? According to an atheist ethic, it is impossible to say this. On what is the morality based?

When we set this on paper, we see the ridiculous nature of such a way to view ethics and morality. This is the way that one must live to be somewhat consistent in their morality. Apart from God, there can be no true morality. One community cannot tell another group that they are wrong.

God is the fount from which flows morality and right living. He has defined what is good and what is evil. As Francis Shaeffer has said, an atheist cannot be consistent (rational thought post and contradiction post).

Additionally, if someone who does not believe in God says, “I operate from the maxim: ‘Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.’” This maxim cannot be separated from the person who gave it: Jesus. A non-Christian cannot say, “I can believe in what Jesus said, but I don’t have to believe in him.” What will the non-Christian say is “good”? How he defines this is dependent on his own subjective experience…and then we go back to the beginning of this post — goodness cannot be defined by the individual.

One cannot live in the world of the atheist. Where there is no God that is worshiped, there can be no objective reality. This is why there is such a desire to do away with any notion of God’s existence. If this is done in the person’s mind (for it can never be done!), then they have no accountability for the wrongs they have done…they have freedom from judgment (at least in their minds!) and can feel free to do as they please without remorse…for who can tell them they are wrong?

For those of you that would disagree, how would you respond to this conclusion? What are some arguments that others of you have heard that would contradict this post? Essentially, the non-Christian cannot live a consistent, nor coherent, moral life.

  • Joe
    Posted at 17:23h, 15 January Reply

    Well said. There is no a priori morality outside of Christ!

  • Matthew Wireman
    Posted at 05:01h, 16 January Reply

    Thanks for the comment, Joe.

    You’re right, outside of Christ there can be no explanation as to why and how we as humans are moral creatures. I will talk more about the inconsistency of an atheistic worldview in the days to come…stay tuned.

    I would like to see, though, what kind of rebuttals or issues anyone takes with my assertion…

  • heyirishman
    Posted at 05:52h, 16 January Reply


    Could you define what you mean by a moral act. Because, on the one hand you are correct (If you are talking only to Christians). But on the other, you are not (if your audience is broader). Because it depends on what we mean by morality. I understand a moral act to be an act in conformity with God’s law which can be rewarded. An athiest may understand a moral act to be one wherein he satisfies his own ethical code only.

    But, I have met many an athiest who would say that he doesn’t necessarliy have to believe in God to feel he needs to love his parents or give to the poor etc. He says that doing good has an “intrinsic value.” If I do not believe in God, does that mean that whenever I give to the poor, my giving has no value?

    Essentially, the athiest is not interested in the eternal value or meaning or an action. He is not interested in the notion of reward either. The athiest says: “I don’t need the notion of a reward, or debt to Christ, or freedom from guilt to motivate me to do good…I do my moral acts because the are good in and of themselves.”

  • Matthew Wireman
    Posted at 19:19h, 16 January Reply

    Thank you very much, heyirishman,

    I really appreciate your clarifying questions. A moral act is what is good and right. This pertains to three areas (as explained in CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity, Book III): Aim, Behavior, and Character. That is, morality cannot be based merely upon action – there is also motive and aim. The difference between motive and aim can be explained by example better than I can do with abstract expanation. In euthanasia, the motive is compassion for the person who is suffering whereas the aim is death.

    The Bible does not teach that we earn points with God. I do not doubt there are many Christians who have this false notion. We are told that a relationship with God has been devastated by sin and only a perfect person can have an unblemished relaitonship with God. Since even our nicest deed is shot through with evil intentions, if you dig down deep enough, a human is not able to have such a relationship with a pure, holy, and just God. That’s why the Christian flings himself upon the mercy of God in Christ – most exemplified by his death on the cross.

    My issue with someone saying, “I do good things because they’re good” is that he has only scraped the surface when it comes to true morality. 1) What is his status of “good” based upon? 2) If everyone lived by an individualized morality, the world would be in even worse shape than it is (Hitler would not be seen as wrong and the world would have had no right to quench his passion to kill).

    3) I do not think an atheist can explain what true morality is (as it must be objective) nor can he explain why he does good things. Why do good things rather than bad things? There is no rational based upon a coherent atheistic worldview. I hope some of the CS Lewis quotes are helpful a well when thinking through this.

    Does this make sense? I hope I was clearer. Was there anything that you felt I didn’t make clear? Would you agree with this assessment? At what point would we part ways in my logic?

    Thanks again for taking the time to respond! I love it when people think through and seek to know…

  • heyirishman
    Posted at 20:35h, 16 January Reply


    Let’s take giving to the poor. Is giving money to the poor moral? The atheist may give his own hard earned money to the poor, have good intentions, and do so in a humble way. Is this action not moral? Why not?

    What makes giving to the poor good or moral?

    If we say that a moral act is one that:

    “is good and right…pertains to three areas (as explained in CS Lewis’ Mere Christianity, Book III): Aim, Behavior, and Character. [and that] morality cannot be based merely upon action – there is also motive and aim,”

    …we are saying no more than the atheist, for the atheist would hold all of the above. Granted, I have not read all the details of Lewis’ book.

    However, if we take “Aim,” that’s where the atheist and Christian would part ways. Because, when the Christian gives to the poor, he does so not only for the betterment of the poor, but also to please God. The atheist however, has no interest in pleasing God, because he doesn’t acknowledge Him. But, the question is, is it necessary, when performing a moral act, to be consciously thinking to oneself: “I am doing this to please God”? If a Christian were to give to the poor without being consciously aware that he is doing the act to please God, is that act thereby rendered not moral or neutral?

  • Matthew Wireman
    Posted at 21:05h, 16 January Reply


    I am not saying that an atheist cannot be moral. I hope that is not what I have conveyed. What I am saying is that there is no grounding for a morality based upon an atheistic understanding of the world.

    I know that there are many, many atheists who do good things. But like I said in my comment above, in an atheist worldview, how do they judge what is good?

  • heyirishman
    Posted at 12:56h, 17 January Reply

    Matthew: How does the athiest determine what is good or not? I think that it depends on the athiest. Personal feeling, common good, general consensus, etc. But then, admitedly, there are many Christians who differ on certain points of doctrine. The use of contraception is one example. Smoking is another. Drinking alcohol is another. So, how do these Christians themselves determine what is the correct thing? Will God hold us accountable to a standard which he has not made clear?

    The athiest will quote to you what you yourself admited: there is no slam dunk proof for the existance of God. So, if there is no such proof, then there is no proof that he doesn’t exist, and we are both living (at least with respect to the smoking and drinking and contraception mentioned above) on common ground.

    I hope I am not too confusing at this point :)

  • Matthew Wireman
    Posted at 16:22h, 17 January Reply


    You are opening up a whole other discussion when you bring in people’s convictions. Though important, it is not on the same level of argument, nor importance as the existence of God.

    You’re right, I did say that there is no slam dunk proof for God’s existence, but if you go to my first post on the topic of God’s existence (entitled “Many Buckets”) you will see that although there is not one proof that will win the argument, there are several proofs that point us to a solid defnese of the existence of God.

    Some may say this is playing with words, I think they may just be getting lost in the words rather than being able to see and show where there would be any hollowness in what I am saying. It comes down to the fact that finite brains cannot contain the exhaustive knowledge of that which is other-worldly (for lack of a better term).

    Briefly, the atheist and the Christian are not in the same boat as you might think when it comes to convictions. The Christian is led so far as he can be with regard to revealed right and wrong. The other issues, smoking, drinking, movie-going are relegated to what is known as adiaphora, which are matters of indifference or permissible acts.

    I would highly suggest reading CS Lewis’ Mere Chrisitianity, Book I.

    My main premise regarding the atheist and morality is that he does not have a solid footing to stand on if he uses only atheistic presuppositions. He must borrow from the theistic worldview. Why do right? I would suggest that it comes from the image of God that is pressed upon the individual. And in a few days I will go further in my argument where the atheist has no grounding for logic and argumentation. Stay tuned…

  • heyirishman
    Posted at 19:57h, 17 January Reply


    I’m just in this for the enjoyment of the topic…

    Personally, I think that the causality proof for the existence of God is pretty slam dunk, if you ask me. Anyone who denies this is merely supressing the obvious truth.

    But the point is not what we think. The point is what to say to an athiest when you meet him. Otherwise you just end up talking past one another, and both parties get annoyed. So, I think that the best thing to do at that stage is to show that the Christian viewpoint is more reasonable, not that they’re just *wrong*

    I think that it would be good to admit that the athiestic viewpoint is logical to a point. Paul commended the Greeks for their religiosity (sp?). You gotta give credit where credit is due. For example, if you start out doing a math problem with a faulty equation, you may use all the correct steps in solving the problem, but you will just arrive at the wrong answer. And in an exam, even though you will get the wrong answer, you will still be awarded some points for having used mathamatical logic to arrive where you arrived. I think that we should give the same to the athiest. Otherwise, they will think that we are so full of ourselves and all that. To say to some athiest: “but your view doesn’t make sense” is (to them) like calling them an “idiot”… and we all know what Jesus said about calling people idiots. So, I think some sensitivity is called for. Give the athiest his due, I mean, afer all, *theoretically* and *hypothetically,* it is *possible* that we all just appeared. So, the athiest argument is one from mere possibility, which in and of itself, should be recognized as an argument. But, as you and I know, the possibility is probably 1 in a million billion or something.

    I would go on to say that the Christian viewpoint is a lot more reasonable than the athiest’s. I think that this is a good way of saying it, because in saying this we are not denying that the athiest has reason…

    What would you say to the athiest if he said to you that he does moral acts because they give him a sense of personal fulfilment? I would like to hear what you have to say.

  • J.D.
    Posted at 19:23h, 19 January Reply


    Your post is so far off the mark I don’t know where to begin commenting. So I won’t waste my time doing so.

    As for your many posts trying to “prove” the existence of God, you’re sadly missing the beauty of the whole thing. It’s about faith. If we could prove it, faith becomes meaningless.

    I think I’m done reading your blog. No offense meant, but I can’t take this anymore. That’s why we have free speech, though, right? You can keep blogging away but I don’t have to look at it.


  • heyirishman
    Posted at 22:56h, 19 January Reply

    Come on now j.d. Get a grip.

    I don’t think that Matthew has once stated that you can prove the existence of God. He said himself that there is no slam dunk proof. I don’t know if you read that part. But what he does do is show how belief in God is reasonable…hence the arguments for the existence of God. These arguments demonstrate that it is not illogical to believe that God exists… rather, it is very logical.

    If there were no arguments for the existence of God, then you would have to say that your faith runs completly contrary to reason, which, I for one cannot hold.

    I believe that our Christian faith is a reasonable faith, otherwise, whenever you try to introduce someone to Christ, you might as well say: “hey I have this great faith that I want to introduce you to…but before I do that, let me tell you that it doesn’t make any sense, it’s completely illogical and it even contradicts our basic reasonable instincts.”

    I don’t think so.

    Rather, you would want to say: “Hey let me tell you about this awesome faith; it is a reasonable faith.”

  • Matthew Wireman
    Posted at 03:52h, 24 January Reply

    j.d. ~

    I am sorry if I offended you. My intention was to present proofs, not prove the existence of God. As heyirishman said, I want to show the rationality of faith in God.

    I do not agree with you that the beauty of faith is that it is trust upon a reality not some blind leap. The picture I get is in Indiana Jones’ Last Crusade…he is told that there is a bridge he must cross. He knows there is a bridge, though he does not see it. He trusts the directions to be reliable and he takes a step, though he does not see.

    If you go to my post Locke, Lost, and Faith I think you will see where I am coming from.

    I’m not offended that you will not read my blog anymore, but I do wish you would. I think it would help explain my understanding of faith in Christ – that it is a firm foundation. I would like to hear where you think I am off the mark. I may not have explained myself as clearly as I would have liked (I have been known to do that before).

    Again, thank you for your comment…

  • Ubiquitous Che
    Posted at 22:50h, 27 April Reply

    Does atheist morality really exist?

    Why yes…. Yes it does.

    It is from innate human compassion that all morality flows – not God.

    I know I come over as very adverserial; I just don’t shy from a strong position. I welcome – nay, I insist upon – your critical analysis and discussion.

    Have a nice day!


Post A Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.