Can you be an Atheist and a Moral Objectivist?

According to Frank Turek:

·       In his book The Moral Landscape , [atheist Sam] Harris takes the position that objective moral values really do exist, and they can be explained without invoking God. He claims that if we just use our reason, we’ll see that “human flourishing” is the standard by which we determine something is good or bad. Anything that helps humans flourish is good. Since reason and science can tell us what helps humans flourish, there is no need for God to ground objective moral values. If Harris is correct, it seems that he has successfully shot down the moral argument for God.

How does Harris obtain this principle of “human flourishing?” He claims that he derives it from reason. However, atheistic “reason” tells us that we are just another animal. If this is so, why do we assume that humans are special and it’s all about “human flourishing?” Why not “cat flourishing” or “cow flourishing?”

Reason or science alone cannot answer this question. Science can observe phenomena but not values. It can see what is but not what should be. Likewise, reason can only function once it has been given a value. It is like conducting science without the laws of science. It cannot say that murder is wrong until it is informed that life is good. By itself, reason cannot tell us, “be good to one another.” Why not instead, “look out for number 1?” Reason cannot mediate between these two.

I had thought that living authentically as a nihilist was the most rational way to live. Before Christ entered my life, it seemed to me that living rationally was a matter of living authentically, according to my feelings. I had been doing “good” because it made me feel good about myself. However, this made me feel like a hypocrite. I was acting altruistically, but I couldn’t find any reason to believe in altruism or other-centeredness. I was just doing it for me, and it didn’t feel right, so I ceased doing “good.”

Of course, Harris will invoke the concept of “human flourishing.” But why should humans flourish? There is absolutely no rational answer for this question. Instead, Harris has secretly imported a moral absolute that only God can support.

Well, isn’t this concept of “human flourishing” supported by the vast majority of humanity? Probably, but this is irrelevant! The mass of humanity had believed that the sun revolved around the earth. Did this make it true? Of course, not! Our opinions do not create physical laws or even moral laws or absolutes, even if everyone agrees.

Well, can’t pragmatism – that which gives the maximum benefit to the maximum number of people – suffice as a basis for moral absolutes? For the same reasons that reason and science cannot suffice, pragmatism also cannot suffice. All three first require a moral absolute. You can have the greatest recipe to bake bread, but it will do you no good with the constituent products.

After all, why should we seek to give maximum benefit to the maximum number of people? There are no scientific or logical reasons to support this idea. However, once we have a God-given, immutable, and transcendent basis for this idea, reason, science, and pragmatism can then begin to amass data to help us understand how to give maximum benefit.

The Existence of Evil and the Non-Existence of God

In a recent debate with the Christian apologist William Lane Craig, the atheist philosopher Alex Rosenberg put out a challenge:

• “If Dr. Craig could provide me with any kind of logical, coherent account that could reconcile the evident fact of the horrors of humanity…with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent agent, then I will turn Christian.”

While Craig expressed delight at the possibility of Rosenberg’s conversion, I fear that reason has little to do with it. We believe what we want to believe! Besides, it seems that Rosenberg has set the goal-posts unreasonably high. To what extent can he expect anyone to “reconcile…the horrors of humanity…with the existence of a benevolent, omnipotent agent?”

Of course, we can’t do so completely. I can’t understand why my parents died without having come to a faith in Christ, despite our prayers. I don’t understand why my God allowed hurricane Sandy to devastate so many homes or the Asian tsunami to kill so many hundreds of thousands. I don’t know why He allowed Hitler, Lenin and Stalin to kill their millions.

However, I know that there is much that I don’t know. Nor should I be so presumptuous as to dismiss God because I can’t understand Him completely. After all, we can’t understand even the basics of science. We have only the most rudimentary knowledge of time, space, matter, and the laws of science. However, we don’t reject science because we lack exhaustive knowledge of these things! Consequently, Rosenberg unjustifiably rejects the idea of God because he has encountered a perplexity that no one is able to completely reconcile.

Rosenberg is also committing a logical fallacy in his challenge. He must rely on the existence of God in his attempt to deny Him. What’s the matter with “the horrors of humanity?” What makes them horrors? Is there any problem with genocide? Perhaps this is just a more advanced application of the principle of survival-of the-fittest? Instead, we can only conclude that genocide is wrong if there is an unchanging good – an objective answer-sheet – against which we can measure the validity of certain conclusions.

I like apologist Frank Turek’s illustration of this principle. If students draw maps of Norway, the teacher can only correct them if she has the absolute standard - an absolutely correct Norway map.

Without God, there is no Norway map or any basis to have objective moral standards. Without God, each one of us becomes “courts of last resort.” Without objective, transcendent, universal moral standards, it’s impossible to rationally talk about evil or “horrors.” Without God, these are merely concepts we invent to give a “meaningless life” the semblance of meaning.

Instead, if Rosenberg is truly concerned about “the horrors of humanity,” he needs to find the ultimate map – a rational basis by which he can speak and act coherently about these horrors. Denying God, he leaves himself with nothing more than moral relativism, and this posture condemns all of his moral judgments as arbitrary and subjective.

Perhaps Rosenberg needs to understand that he depends upon God more than he now imagines. Perhaps that might be the best proof of all.