Introduction
"Inevitably, moral choices based on our own moral compass will often be wrong choices. And wrong moral choices can result in consequences ranging from minor disappointments to major disasters emotionally, relationally, physically, and spiritually."
This quote from Josh and Sean McDowell's book "The Beauty of Intolerance" was posted to social media a few weeks ago, and it sparked some interesting responses from atheists and agnostics. Here is one such response that I feel needs a bit of unpacking and a response.
"Atheists and agnostics can still have a strong moral compass that is informed by reason, empathy, and a desire for human flourishing. In fact, many atheists and agnostics base their moral choices on the principles of humanism, which emphasizes the importance of compassion, rationality, and ethics in guiding our behavior."
The Atheist's Moral Compass- Stealing From God
This is an effort to show that an objective moral compass is compatible with atheism. But there are serious problems with each proposed source of this compass; they all depend on God existing. Atheists CAN have and use a moral compass without believing in God. If they say that they get their humanism from...:
- ...their intuition. Well, God created that (the moral law written on their hearts).
- ...what works in the world. God created the world (physics and human psychology) to work in this way too.
- ...their reason. And God is necessary here for two reasons (via the Image of God that grants us access to His eternal logical character).
The atheist who wishes to claim objective morality exists and is knowable, necessarily must (in the words of Frank Turek) steal from God. God has made this world in such a way that everyone uses the moral compass He has written on their hearts.
Just as we do not necessarily need to know (or even acknowledge) the source of a quote we found on the internet to know that it is true, atheists and agnostics do not need to acknowledge where their moral compass comes from to know that it is generally reliable. They can certainly be good without believing in God, but they cannot be good with God existing because without God existing there would be no moral compass.
The Ultimate Source of Humanism
I find it interesting that this atheist should also explicitly appeal to humanism. Consider this observation from cultural critic and Christian apologist, Dr. Os Guinness:
"There is no question that the God who reveals himself in the Bible has been the direct source of three striking features of human existence at its most attractive: first, the highest humanism in history—humanism in the sense of championing the supreme human dignity and worth of the human individual; second, the surest grounds for the founding and developing human freedom, both personal and political; and their, the greatest and most sustained critique of the abuse of power in history."- The Magna Carta Of Humanity
His point is that atheist is NOT the source of humanism. It is the Bible. In "The Magna Carta of Humanity" Guinness goes on to explain how the "supreme human dignity and worth" are established by the fact that humans are created in the Image of God. This is exclusive to the Judeo-Christian worldview; thus the idea of humans' intrinsic value and worth (humanism) is necessarily grounded in Judeo-Christian theism not atheism. Any atheist who truly holds to the supreme dignity and worth of humans (humanism) logically cannot also hold to their atheism and remain logically consistent. They are mutually exclusive views of reality. That is not to say that an atheist cannot believe both; it is just to say that the beliefs are not consistent with one another.
The Moral Freedom of Atheism
I would submit to the atheist that they should want to maintain logical consistency, so I would also say that they need to either deny humanism or deny atheism. Of course, I am going to encourage the atheist to deny their atheism because (among numerous other reasons) I believe that the dignity and worth of humans is much harder to deny intellectually and philosophically than atheism is. However, it is quite easy to emotionally deny the dignity and worth of humans because that permits the fulfillment of untold desires that would do great harm to other humans- if God does not exist, then harming another human for any reason is not truly wrong or evil, and no one can make such a bigoted judgement.
Conclusion
It comes down to this. What are you more committed to: your emotional desires or logical reality? Your emotional desires necessarily lead to atheism, with its unrealized amoral and alogical autonomy, while logical reality leads us to the God of the Bible as the necessary foundation that limits our moral and logical autonomy based on His eternal moral and logical nature and humans being created in His Image. If you have chosen to deny the emotional route and take the logical route, I will also submit to you the evidence that Jesus Christ rose from the dead to demonstrate that he IS God and that forgiveness for any and all previously committed sin, when you were emotionally holding onto your moral autonomy, is freely given if you accept His sacrifice.
For more on this topic, I highly recommend checking out these books:
- Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air
- The Beauty of Intolerance: Setting A Generation Free To Know Truth and Love
- Stealing From God
- The Magna Carta of Humanity
