Is there any ground for objective morals without God? An atheist philosopher says no.

Atheist philosopher Peter Sjöstedt-H makes it perfectly clear in his book, Neo-Nihilism that without God man has no objective purpose and therefore there are no objective, universal oughts imposed upon man.

Peter tells us that the purpose of a knife is to cut, therefore it ‘ought’ to be sharp. A knife has a purpose as it was designed by man with that purpose in mind, but without God man has no purpose and when it comes to man there is no purpose intended, no absolute meaning to his existence.

Theoretical nihilism is the consequence of atheism, not existentialism, humanism, utilitarianism, contractarianism – not even socialism.

Socialists believe in egalitarianism: that everyone ought to be equal, Peter tells us.

A mindless accidental universe does not impose upon us the moral obligation of egalitarianism.

In the eyes of God, all men are equal – this principle has an ultimate grounding in God. What principle or law in nature demonstrates all things are equal? Where is this law?

After all, in a universe appearing out of nothing and for no purpose, nothing can go wrong because there is no right way it should go.

There are no immoral acts. In a universe spiralling out of haphazard, accidental, mindless, amoral, impersonal, non-rational and unintended processes there is no ultimate grounding for moral values.
Peter tells us that when one raises the question of, “What ought we do? An invalid question is being asked.

Peter confronts fellow atheists by telling them, to be honest, and to give up their notions of some moral binding order.

Philosopher, William Craig clearly understood this when he said I just can't see how one can say that the universe is purposeless and then, in the same breath, claim that there are ways we are supposed to be behaving. For, in a universe with no purpose I am not even supposed to be here; I just am, by accident. No proponent of evolutionary ethics has explained how an impersonal amoral first-cause, through a nonmoral process, has produced a moral basis for life.

Therefore - I conclude - with God moral relativism is false and without God, the imposition of certain principles that moral relativism smuggles in to be equally binding upon all, such as the principle of tolerance, equality, justice, respect for other people’s viewpoints have absolutely no justification or grounding whatsoever – they are just useful fictions.

I remember once asking a doctor in the cafeteria of the Royal Brisbane Hospital if he thought the principle of allowing other cultures’ and societies to live out their own determined moral values was a good thing.

“Yes of course.” He replied.

I then asked him if he thought what the Nazis did to the Jews and disabled was wrong or evil? He replied yes.

I made it clear to the doctor that he was not actually living out his noble principle, for in imposing a judgment against the Nazis he was by default asserting his value system as a universal standard whereby the Nazis could be condemned and held accountable to, but he had already rejected the notion of an objective universal standard in my opening question to him and therefore had just effectively shot himself in the head.

Without God there is no universal standard, I told him – without God, there is only an aggressive system of competing fictions. Such is the wisdom that flows naturally out of incoherent inconsistent viewpoints.

Greg Koukl in his book, Relativism:

Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air tells us that relativists violate their own principle of tolerance when they do not tolerate the views of others whose morality is nonrelativistic.

Greg reminds us that the relativists are going to have a hard time trying to explain why you shouldn’t impose your moral views without imposing their morality on you.

Without God there are no inalienable rights, endowed to us by our Creator – there is no transcendent dignity, value or sacredness to human existence whatsoever.

What rights? What values?
Evolution confers no rights, molecules are neither righteous nor unrighteous. Energy has no moral concerns. The universe does not belch out moral values. Matter is just matter, atoms just atoms, molecules just molecules and chemistry cannot and does not impose upon us moral obligations.

In a purely materialistic universe, we are nothing more than a bags of molecules; suffering is just a particular arrangement of those molecules.

Why then make a fuss about one arrangement of molecules over another?

Humanity remains ultimately undefined – who gets to define it?

Apart from God, there is no ultimate reference point to distinguish between what is human and what is inhuman. There is no ontological human compass - certain actions may be held in contempt by society because those actions jeopardise the safety and flourishing of others, but there is no ultimate anchor in which to place those OPINIONS – no commandments from the Divine to endorse or condemn.

For the Nazis of Germany, killing Jews was perfectly legal - in fact - it was deemed a noble act. As far as Hitler was concerned, the Aryan race was the supreme regal expression of humanity.

Pol Pot, Stalin, Kim Il Sung, Kim Jung-un, Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche, Genghis Khan, Idi Amin, Shaka Zulu, Vlad the Impaler, Saddam Hussein, Mao Tse-Tung, Robert Mugabe, Talat Pasha, Josef Mengele, Osama bin Laden, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Emperor Hirohito and Ivan the Terrible all equally had their views on what it was to be human.

Only the one who created us can define what it is to be human. Only the one who created us can give us an ultimate ontological reference point for judging between human and inhuman behaviour.

by Paul Ross