Atheist Jerry Coyne explains why morality is impossible for atheists

Sherlock Holmes and John Watson about to do philosophy
Sherlock Holmes and John Watson about to do philosophy

Let’s review what you need in your worldview in order to have a rationally grounded system of morality.

You need 5 things:

1) Objective moral values

There needs to be a way to distinguish what is good from what is bad. For example, the moral standard might specify that being kind to children is good, but torturing them for fun is bad. If the standard is purely subjective, then people could believe anything and each person would be justified in doing right in their own eyes. Even a “social contract” is just based on people’s opinions. So we need a standard that applies regardless of what people’s individual and collective opinions are.

2) Objective moral duties

Moral duties (moral obligations) refer to the actions that are obligatory based on the moral values defined in 1). Suppose we spot you 1) as an atheist. Why are you obligated to do the good thing, rather than the bad thing? To whom is this obligation owed? Why is rational for you to limit your actions based upon this obligation when it is against your self-interest? Why let other people’s expectations decide what is good for you, especially if you can avoid the consequences of their disapproval?

3) Moral accountability

Suppose we spot you 1) and 2) as an atheist. What difference does it make to you if you just go ahead and disregard your moral obligations to whomever? Is there any reward or punishment for your choice to do right or do wrong? What’s in it for you?

4) Free will

In order for agents to make free moral choices, they must be able to act or abstain from acting by exercising their free will. If there is no free will, then moral choices are impossible. If there are no moral choices, then no one can be held responsible for anything they do. If there is no moral responsibility, then there can be no praise and blame. But then it becomes impossible to praise any action as good or evil.

5) Ultimate significance

Finally, beyond the concept of reward and punishment in 3), we can also ask the question “what does it matter?”. Suppose you do live a good life and you get a reward: 1000 chocolate sundaes. And when you’ve finished eating them, you die for real and that’s the end. In other words, the reward is satisfying, but not really meaningful, ultimately. It’s hard to see how moral actions can be meaningful, ultimately, unless their consequences last on into the future.

Theism rationally grounds all 5 of these. Atheism cannot ground any of them.

Let’s take a look at #4: free will and see how atheism deals with that.

Atheism and free will?

Here’s prominent atheist Jerry Coyne’s editorial in USA Today to explain why atheists can’t ground free will. (Note: link is dead)


And that’s what neurobiology is telling us: Our brains are simply meat computers that, like real computers, are programmed by our genes and experiences to convert an array of inputs into a predetermined output. Recent experiments involving brain scans show that when a subject “decides” to push a button on the left or right side of a computer, the choice can be predicted by brain activity at least seven seconds before the subject is consciously aware of having made it. (These studies use crude imaging techniques based on blood flow, and I suspect that future understanding of the brain will allow us to predict many of our decisions far earlier than seven seconds in advance.) “Decisions” made like that aren’t conscious ones. And if our choices are unconscious, with some determined well before the moment we think we’ve made them, then we don’t have free will in any meaningful sense.

If you don’t have free will, then you can’t make moral choices, and you can’t be held morally responsible. No free will means no morality.

Here are some more atheists to explain how atheists view morality.

William Provine says atheists have no free will, no moral accountability and no moral significance:

Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear — and these are basically Darwin’s views. There are no gods, no purposes, and no goal-directed forces of any kind. There is no life after death. When I die, I am absolutely certain that I am going to be dead. That’s the end of me. There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans, either.

Richard Dawkins says atheists have no objective moral standards:

In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, or any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference… DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music. (Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: A Darwinian View of Life (1995))

When village atheists talk about how they can be moral without God, it’s important to ask them to justify the minimum requirements for rational morality. Atheists may act inconsistently with their worldview, believing in free will, expecting praise and blame for complying with the arbitrary standards of their peer group, etc. But there is nothing more to morality on atheism that imitating the herd – at least when the herd is around to watch them. And when the herd loses its Judeo-Christian foundation – watch out. That’s when the real atheism comes out – the atheism that we’ve seen before in countries that turned their backs on God, and the moral law. When God disappears from a society, anything is permissible.

6 thoughts on “Atheist Jerry Coyne explains why morality is impossible for atheists”

  1. Wintery! Are you saying atheists can’t be good people?! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!

    I kid, of course. This is usually the next question I hear from atheists.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. This is the kind of discussion that can led to real conversion. When I was an atheist, I was outraged by some of the evil acts I saw people do. One woman injected drano into her victim – this was just a small part of the torture this poor girl received:

    Now, the natural law written on my heart (Romans 2:15) assured me that this was evil, depraved, wicked – whatever religious term one wishes to use. (And isn’t it amazing how quickly atheists can become, then deny, objective moralists when it is OTHERS’, then their own, behavior in play?!?) But, if there is no God, then all things are permissible. Sure, the criminals might go to jail or even to death, but death is the great equalizer on atheism, and there is no ultimate, or transcendent, significance to ANY life – victim or perpetrator.

    The irony is that our criminal justice system is at least based, if not very well operating, on natural law. We BEHAVE as though we believe in objective moral values and duties when WE are the victims, but not when we are the perpetrators. So, at the least, these kinds of arguments can lead to a recognition of inconsistencies and hypocrisies in our lives. At the end of the day, the moral argument was one of two that really helped in my conversion.

    And I might add that since the overwhelming majority of churchgoers are functioning as atheists, because they behave no differently from atheists except for an hour on Sunday mornings, such behavior is a serious stumbling blocks to those, like me, who were seeking an Objective Good. By not standing against things like abortion, by not crying out against Hell, divorce, gay “marriage,” etc, churchians show that they do not really believe the basic tenets of their faith – and such behavior keeps, and creates, a LOT of atheists. I had to find authentic born again followers of Jesus Christ in order to know that Christianity existed in America. They were not easy to find.

    If we really believe in objective moral values and duties, then we know how real and dreadful Hell is (Galatians 6:7). And we should be warning people of it. To not do so, is to deny our Savior and to “love” people into Hell.

    Liked by 3 people

      1. I like those arguments more too, but this is the one that convicts, because it (literally) gets to the heart of the matter. WLC admits that too.

        Nobody needs a Savior unless they are a sinner, and nobody is a sinner if sin does not exist. That’s why you will hear a lot of atheists say they have trouble with the word “sin.” Well, they should! :-)

        Liked by 1 person

  3. The curious question is why challenges like this never fail to provoke atheists. Why are they so keen to reject any hint that they are not also “good?” Why even care about morality, or anyone else’s opinion about such things? Indeed, I have even seen atheists attempt to take the moral high ground by insisting that, unlike theists, they are good for goodness’ sake. If “good” is just an arbitrary social construct, like dressing in green, then of course atheists can say that they are able to dress in just as much green as anyone else. All they are then saying is that they, too, can be morally fashionable; but as with the fashions of the Emerald City in The Wiz, such colors may change with the times.

    I find few atheists willing to admit what the logic of their worldview concludes: that their morality is, at bottom, a matter of preference. There seems to be something in them that rejects the trivialization of morality and the actual currency of their own virtue. Attendant with the objective view of morality (the Christian version at least) is the idea that we have associated moral intuitions to aid us in both the apprehension of and obedience to the moral law. The very reaction from the atheist is testimony to the fact that they share this moral intuition. Furthermore, the impulse to defend one’s moral character implies the reality and gravity of that which is being defended.

    And so, we have both the atheist’s urge to defend their virtue and the rejection of the idea that they are referring to something trivial when doing so. Just what are we expected to make of this in a cold, purposeless world? Are they saying that they are just as driven by animal instinct and social convention as us theists, or are they saying that they can somehow equally participate in a universe with transcendent, objective morality? They are either saying nothing of consequence or they are conceding everything.

    Liked by 3 people

    1. Your post is sheer brilliance.

      I think that it captures especially the New Atheists and their evangelism of their non-faith (blind faitheism). I think there was a time, as an older former atheist, when atheists were genuinely trying to grapple with just the sort of discrepancies, blunt and delicate, that you so eloquently pose. Certainly I was heavily influenced by these thoughts and the sheer meaningless of life on authentic atheism.

      Perhaps in those days, we were more stubborn insubordinates than ath-evangelists. I think there is still a small percentage of atheists that are trying to be rational, but as a rule, this generation has been more indoctrinated than those prior to it. I only had to admit that I was wrong in my conversion. The New Atheists not only have to admit that they are wrong, but that they have been brainwashed. As any former cultist will tell you, that is a much steeper burden.

      Liked by 3 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s