How can atheists adequately account for the law of morality when according to their worldview, nothing exists except material things?

For the most part, atheists believe in a law of morality just like those who believe in a God. But according to the atheist world view where nothing exists but material things, what is the basis for believing in the existence of right and wrong? What are right and wrong? Are right and wrong material things? Are they natural objects in the natural world like flowers and rocks? Can you touch ‘rightness’ and how much does it weigh or how long is it?

If right and wrong are not natural objects in the natural world then what are they? Are they natural properties like the colour blue or the property of smoothness?

Right and wrong exist as standards above the mere preferences and tastes of cultures, societies and individuals. Atheists can not deny that they are universally perceived. But how can they adequately account for them according to their world view which insists that nothing exists except material things?

Christians believe that the laws of morality are non material moral properties that exist in the real world alongside natural objects, but that attach to actions rather than objects. The Christian worldview can account for the laws of morality because this view of the world includes the existence of non material spiritual entities like God, human souls and angels. But how could an atheist say this when he has already committed himself to a world view which essentially says that the natural universe is all there is?

There is absolutely no basis for anything like a moral law in a universe in which nothing exists but material substances. The preconditions for moral law simply do not exist in the naturalist worldview. There is no way to account for them.

For the atheist to be consistent, he must say that right and wrong do not really exist and that they are merely words individuals and societies have adapted to express their preferences. Ethics must therefore be personal and relative, that men and women, families and nations must simply choose for themselves what they will consider ‘right for them’ and ‘wrong for them’.

From “The Godless Delusion” by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley.

In the book "The Godless Delusion" one of the authors tells the story about an experience he had with an atheist professor of psychology.

The professor began by saying that right and wrong do not exist, they are merely cultural conventions, words societies use to describe what they approve and disapprove of. Take for example the Eskimo tribes in which the elderly are set on a block of ice and sent out into the ocean to starve to death or the primitive practice of cannibalism or the Indian practice of Sati in which many widows were burned alive on the funeral pyres of their deceased husbands. These are examples of how different cultures view right and wrong. For these people, these practices are good and right. It is their way, and who are we to speak against them?

If right and wrong really are merely subjective cultural conventions and really are relative from society to society as the naturalist (atheist) wordview tells us, then how could we ever say that one society was morally superior to another? We can not say that Hitler was wrong when he murdered six million Jews. All we can say is that we disagree with Hitler's views and that we don't like what he did.

Regardless of what some people say, we all believe in an objective law of morality. Even those who say that moral laws don't exist or morality is just relative from culture to culture actually show, by the way they think, speak and live that they really do believe in an objective moral law.

Even the atheist ethics professor believes in an objective law of morality. He immediately becomes a strict proponent of moral absolutes the moment soneone cuts in line in front of him at the checkout counter. "This isn't right! I was before you!" It will do no good to say to him at that moment, "Hey, morals differ from culture to culture, and who's to judge?"

The atheistic naturalist world view is not able to account for objective morality and our moral experiences as human beings. By contrast, the Christian theistic world view does provide a basis for objective morality.

The atheist knows that right and wrong are objectively real and he can't help his natural response to even a minor violation of the moral law. In his heart of hearts he knows it exists. God has inscribed an innate sense of justice on his very soul. The atheist can't erase is simply be telling himself over and over again that right and wrong are merely subjective social conventions. What ever he says be believes as an atheist, deep down, he cannot help but know the truth, even if he refusess to admit it to himself or anyone else.

Regardless of time and culture, people believe in an objective moral law.

Each of us demonstrate that we believe in a higher law of morality - something higher than our own opinions and preferences - something objective, beyond ourselves.

Atheists will typically respond that what we call 'right' and 'wrong' are merely cultural norms or societal conventions that have evolved over time. Subjective ideas of right and wrong that have come from the individual and which the group has agreed upon. They assert that the differences in morality from culture to culture and time to time proves the point.

But whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real 'right' or 'wrong' you will find that same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him, he will be complaining 'It's not fair, you promised.' Does this not demonstrate that all people regardless of time and culture believe in an objective moral law? Has there ever been a culture where breaking a promise was a virtue?

You might think you are justified in breaking a promise or that you haven't really broken a promise at all, but when the tables are turned you realise that your reasons don't hold water. Both parties know that it is objectively wrong to break a promise. The quarrel is not about the rightness or wrongness of breaking promises but about whether this law has been broken and whether the offender was justified in doing so.

From 'The Godless Delusion' by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley

Each of us continually demonstrate that we believe in a higher law of morality - something higher than our own opinions and preferences.

Everyone believes in right and wrong not merely as words we us to describe the things of which we approve or disapprove, or what we like or dislike, but as real standards that somehow exist in the real world. We demonstrate this belief continually in the way we speak.

Everyone has heard people quarrelling, they say things like...'That's my seat, I was there first'...'Leave him alone, he isn't doing you any harm'...'Give me a bit of your apple, I gave you some of mine'...'Come on, you promised.'... The person who makes these remarks is not merely saying that the other person's behaviour does not happen to please him. He is appealing to some kind of standard of behaviour which he expects the other person to know about. Your companion seldom replies, 'To hell with your standard.' He nearly always tries to make out that what he has been doing does not really go against the standards, or that if it does, there is some special reason for it. It looks as if both parties had in mind some kind of Law or Rule of fair play or good behaviour about which they agree. If they had no agreement about the 'rule of fair play' they might fight like animals but they would not be quarrelling in the human sense of the word.

Quarrelling means trying to show that the other person is in the wrong. There would be no sense in trying to do that unless you both had some sort of agreement as to what Right and Wrong are; just as there would be no sense in saying that a soccer player had committed a foul unless there was some agreement about the rules of soccer.

Christians believe that a personal God exists and has a particular nature and moral character. Moral laws reflect that nature of who God is. His character provides the source of morality as well as the standard for moral laws in the universe. Since every person is made in God's image, like God, we are moral beings. It's no wonder we know intuitively that right and wrong exist. It's no wonder we sense to the very core of our being that right and wrong are somehow "real things," not simply words we use to express our personal preferences. God has written these fundamental moral laws on our very souls.

From "The Godless Delusion" by Patrick Madrid and Kenneth Hensley