Are Atheists "Holier Than Thou?"

Every now and then I come across an atheist who claims that atheists who choose good behavior are more moral than religious people (particularly Christians) who choose the same behavior. The reason that they give for this is that Christians need the fear of hell to scare them away from bad behavior whereas atheists do good for the sake of the behavior's being good. This is simultaneously a character attack as well as a philosophical attack. Both deserve to be addressed; however, today I will focus on the philosophical.

To get at the philosophical problem, a few sets of questions need to be asked:

What does "good" mean? Is that meaning true for everyone whether they believe it is true or not?
What reliable tools can be used to accurately compare behaviors to that definition?
What reliable, truth-seeking faculties can utilize such tools properly to help the atheist judge a behavior as "good"?

Atheists need to be able to give a definition of "good" that is true for everyone. Without a definition, there is no comparison to be made, and since they are making a claim that is objective (true for all humans in all cultures at all times) their definition must be objective as well.

They need logic (the tool) to be able to compare and present arguments that demonstrate that a behavior meets that definition. Without a tool to judge whether the claimed comparison is accurate or not, claiming that a behavior is "good" (or "evil" for that matter) is just a matter of opinion, and has no applicability beyond the person making the claim.

Atheists also need a truth-seeking brain that can properly use the tool to make this determination. Just like any other tool, logic is useless without someone or something to use it. Our brains use the "measuring" tool of logic to measure the soundness of arguments and the truth-value of their conclusions. If we cannot properly use a tool that measures truth, then we cannot determine the truth-value of claims.

Unfortunately, the atheist has NONE of those three. If atheism is true, morality can, at best, be defined relatively (something can be true for one group of people but not another group). Logic is invented not discovered, thus reality (because it existed prior to logic's invention) is not governed by it. And the brain is the product of a process that is survival-seeking not truth-seeking, thus it is merely pragmatic in the visible moment and will use the invented logic not for truth but for what feels good or to survive at that time- even if logic was discovered, the brain will never trust the tool when the tool reveals something that is antithetical to pleasure or survival in the moment.

So, does the atheist need hell to be good? No, not at all. If good cannot be objectively defined, then "good" is just another term that we can use however we want- it does not require a definition. And since there is no tool or faculty that can reliably judge a comparison of a behavior to any definition, then no one can justify saying that any behavior is not "good" with or without "hell." Thus not only can the atheist be and is good without hell, so can everyone else be and is good without hell.

If Everyone Is "Good"...

Of course, because of how this view can remove all moral boundaries and restrictions, this view is quite appealing. But before we jettison God, three sets of questions must be asked of the person who leans towards being okay with this:

The subjective set of questions: How does this make you feel? Do you feel fear of what someone else may do to you or those you love and get away with it because they call it "good" (e.g. vandalizing, stealing, raping, murdering, etc.). Or do you feel a freedom because you can be one of those people who can do whatever you want to others no matter how it affects them and get away with it because you call it "good"?

The objective set of questions: Is this how reality actually works? Is it true that morality can only be defined relativistically? Is it true that it is "good" that people have freedom to call rape and murder "good"? Is it true that there is no reliable tool by which to make any kind of moral (much less, reality) judgments? Is it true that our brains are only focused on survival and not truth?

And the final set of questions that brings these two sets together:

Are you willing to bring your subjective feelings into alignment with the objective truth of reality? Are you willing to grant everyone else the same "freedom" you wish to have yourself, and are you willing to hold yourself to the same moral standard that you want to hold everyone else? Are you committed to what is true or to what feels good?

Reality

The reality of the situation is this: if God does not exist, then good and evil are not objective, logic is not a reliable tool to judge claims about reality (including whether behaviors are good or evil), and our brains cannot be trusted to properly use the tool of logic. These realities make life unlivable. If atheism is true, then these false beliefs are simply "useful fictions" for explaining the paradox of reality: humans should not exist, yet they do exist. If you are entertaining the idea that God does not exist, are you satisfied with being told lies simply so that your life can merely appear to be livable?

If God does not exist, then life is unlivable, and the suffering we face is because we are constantly trying to do something this world cannot support: it cannot support our or any other being's living. If God does not exist, life is a foreign object in this world. Our suffering is due to the fact that this world's immune system is trying to remove us from it, and this world WILL win. Thus life is defined by suffering, and for what? Our suffering is purposeless and so is life and living, if atheism is true.

The good news is that none of this is true because atheism is false. God DOES exist, and there is ample evidence that He does, including the existence of objective morality, the fact that logic is not invented, that our brains are reliable tools for finding truth (despite our feelings) if we train it to use the objective tool of logic, but particularly the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thus even though life is full of suffering, life is not defined by it. Our suffering does have a purpose, and life IS livable. But we have to make a conscious choice to accept this reality: the reality that God does exist, that we cannot be good without God declaring us such, and that Jesus Christ is the only way through which this is accomplished for us.