According to the sources, atheism fails to logically explain morality because its core tenets regarding human origins and the nature of the universe are inconsistent with the existence of objective moral values.
The sources provide several reasons for this failure:
- The “Matter in Motion” Problem: Atheistic evolution suggests that humans are merely “matter in motion” that evolved from rocks and slime over billions of years. The sources argue that it is illogical to apply moral judgments to inanimate matter, noting that “nobody speaks of ‘wrong rocks,’ ‘moral minerals,’ or ‘corrupt chemicals'”.
- The Animal Comparison: If humans are simply evolved animals, there is no logical reason for them to be subject to moral laws that do not apply to the rest of the animal kingdom. For instance, a dog is not considered “depraved” for stealing a bone, and a killer whale is not “guilty” of murder. The sources contend that if humans are just animals, objective right and wrong should not exist.
- Lack of an Objective Standard: For morality to be real and unchanging, it requires an objective point of reference or a “higher law” that exists independently of human opinion. Without a Moral Lawgiver (God), morality becomes relative and situational.
- The Atheist’s Dilemma: Atheism faces a logical contradiction when confronted with clear examples of evil, such as the mass murders committed by Nazi Germany. To remain logically consistent, an atheist must either:
- Admit that objective morality exists, which implies the existence of a Moral Lawgiver (God).
- Argue that everything is relative, which would mean that horrific acts like child abuse or mass murder are not truly “evil” but are merely “bad” on a certain day or in a certain culture.
The sources conclude that the human ability to even think about morality and recognize universal rules against murder or theft proves that humans are fundamentally different from animals and were created by a good God who established these standards.