Belief In Morality Is No More Rational Than Belief in God

Introduction

Atheism Leads to Moral Nihilism

In the last post, titled “Atheism Leads to Moral Nihilism,” I presented my arguments for why atheism, by which I only meant the metaphysics of reductionistic materialism which Western atheism predominantly subscribes to, leads to a form of moral nihilism known as meta-ethical error theory.

In this post, my intention is to expand on the conclusion of the last post. Specifically, my intention is to argue that, as long as we accept a materialist metaphysics, belief in morality is not defensible on the grounds of reason, but instead requires a leap of faith.

Another way to phrase my argument is as such: if we assume that a materialistic (i.e., western atheist) worldview is true, then we have no more reason to believe in the existence of objective morality than we have to believe in the existence of an objective, personal, anthropomorphic God. That is, neither moral realism or theism are well supported by a reductionistic, materialistic, scientific worldview. Therefore, belief in morality requires no less a leap of faith than does belief in a personal, anthropomorphic God. Therefore, any atheist who subscribes to such a reductionistic, materialistic, scientific worldview should either a. embrace the epistemological validity of leaps of faith (i.e., accepting faith as a valid source of belief, and therefore opening up the possibility to belief in God and Morality), or b. reject the epistemological validity of leaps of faith (thereby rejecting faith as a valid source of belief, and therefore rejecting the possibility of belief in God and Morality).

Context

“I don’t need to believe in God to be moral”

“I don’t need God to tell me what’s right and wrong”

“I don’t need to believe in God to know what right and wrong is”

These three quotes are all formulations of the same underlying idea: morality doesn’t depend on religious belief.

This is an idea that is most often endorsed by atheists whenever they are faced off against their ideological opposition–theists.

This idea has always bothered me, not because it is wrong, but because it fundamentally misses the mark in another way.

Technically speaking the atheist is right: Systems of ethics can be constructed and followed in a perfectly coherent manner without the slightest reference to the existence of God.

And yet: The atheist misses a fundamental aspect about morality. Belief in morality is no more rational than belief in God. Therefore, though the atheist is correct about the fact that morality does not depend on God, the atheist fails to consider the fact that belief in morality depends on the same leap of faith that belief in God depends on.

Morality Requires a Leap of Faith

Ultimately, there seems to be no good reason within Nature (within a purely naturalist, materialist, scientific account of reality) to believe that morality exists—and herein lies the crux of the issue: the atheist is no more justified in believing in the existence of objective morality anymore than the traditional theist is justified in believing in the existence of a transcendent, anthropomorphic God. Both forms of belief are equally as non-rational (mind you, I don’t say “irrational,” I only say non-rational, because the reasons for believing in both morality and God both supersede rationality).

The theist believes in God for the same reason the atheist believes in morality, because they both feel it at their core. It is an ineffable conviction without good reason to be, other than “it simply must be true.” It is, in short, a leap of faith.

This speaks to central point of my overarching argument: the belief in morality requires just as much of a leap of faith as does the belief in God, i.e., the reason for believing in God is no less valid than the reason for believing in Morality. No rational argument can suffice to demonstrate the existentiality of either God or Morality, thus only a supra-rational argument will suffice. That is, only an argument beyond reason can ever prove the existence of God or Morality, which is just another way of saying that no argument can prove the existence of God or Morality, only a leap of faith can.

Leaps of faith are individual matters; no one who takes a leap of faith in God is rationally justified in believing that God exists on the basis of faith, because faith itself is not a rational justification, it is a supra-rational justification. Likewise for morality, no one who affirms morality can affirm it on the basis of reason, thus those who retain the belief in morality despite the absence of good reason must relinquish their claim on rational justification and affirm their claim on supra-rational justification, i.e., a leap of faith.

The Irony of Atheism

Herein lies the ultimate irony, the atheist who mocks, derides or merely critiques the irrationality of theism due to its lack of rational justification and its dependence on leaps of faith, are themselves culprits of this exact same kind of thinking, except whereas for the theist this leap of faith concerns the existence of God, for the atheist this leap of faith concerns the existence of morality.

The non-rationality of belief in objective morality seems to fly over the heads of many atheists. Moral realism is one of the critical, intellectual blind spots which a lot of atheists seem to be suffering from at the moment.

It is ironic that the atheist who has so far been willing to reject leaps of faith when it concerns the existence of God has no qualms about affirming a leap of faith when it concerns the existence of morality.

The irony goes deeper, however, than merely being an intellectually embarrassing blind spot–it is a self-defeating irony. If, after all, the atheist continues to insist on a belief in morality knowing full well that it is a leap of faith (it is something that they just feel to be true despite a dearth of rational justification) then why not consider giving theism a try?

If the hearts of atheists are open to leaps of faith when it concerns the existence of morality, why not be open to leaps of faith when it concerns the existence of a transcendent, personal God? I do not mean this in a mocking sense. On the contrary, morality already serves the role of being a transcendent, super-natural source of value and meaning for some people, so why stop there? Why not pursue that transcendent, super-natural source of value and meaning in the form of an entity, God, who is meant to represent all of that and more? Morality already basically fulfils the role of God for most atheists—it is an invisible, super-natural force that commands you to do the right thing! Morality is indeed no more rational to belief in than God, so why not seek out the personal, comforting God in a leap of faith as well?

In other words, as long as leaps of faith are valid when it concerns morality, why not when it concerns God?

This opens the atheist to a dilemma.

The Dilemma of the Atheist

The dilemma of the atheist is as simple as this: either accept the validity of leaps of faith for both morality and theism, or reject the validity of leaps of faith for both morality and theism. Either accept that atheism leads to moral nihilism, or accept, in and through faith, that morality and God are real.

Conclusion

Ultimately, whenever the atheist proclaimed that “I don’t need God to be moral,” or “I don’t need God to know what is right and what is wrong,” the atheist was somewhat right, but not entirely—belief in morality does not require belief in God, but belief in morality is nevertheless inexorably tied to belief in God, in that both require an embrace of faith.

Morality does not depend on God, but one cannot be a consistent thinker that believes in morality without also believing in God (in the anthropomorphic, personal sense).