It strikes me that Christians have devoted far too much time and energy trying to convince unbelievers of the existence of objective good and evil. While there is admittedly a divide that appears to be irreconcilable, this is not a quarrel over the premise, but a territorial dispute over where to draw the lines of demarcation. The zealous atheist provides much of the strongest evidence that not only a god exists, but that the specific deity is the singular God of the Bible.

You may be wondering how exactly the sector of humanity that expresses the most vehement denial of the Judeo-Christian God affirms his existence, but that is precisely what I plan to demonstrate. One of the miraculous characteristics of God is how he reveals himself even to those most blinded to the reality of who he is.

By way of illustration, imagine you identify as a born-again follower of God and accept that his writings are true. Over time, through scientific investigation and irrefutable proof unearthed by unbiased sources, some problems emerge. It becomes clear that no single god could have brought about all of existence. Furthermore, the conditions found in nature reflect chaos rather than order. You are forced to explain inherent contradictions between what you claim to believe and what is seen in reality. Your frantic attempts to defend clear scriptural claims that contradict what is self-evident leads you to twist yourself into knots; showing yourself to be more committed to what you want to be true rather than observable reality.

We see the absurdity in such a situation, but let’s put the shoe on the other foot. By rejecting a creator, one is forced to embrace naturalism (aka materialism) – the notion that there is no external cause for anything that we see. Any professing atheist who denies this would be the mirror image of the man trying to reconcile inherent contradictions rather than admit his faith is untenable. The fact that celebrated beacons of atheism try to address the existence and complexity of life by inventing theories of multiverses and panspermia showcases such desperation.

This will not be a deep dive into apologetics. My objective is to demonstrate that despite their protestations, the issue is not that self-described materialists don’t believe in God, but they don’t believe in their own propaganda. They fail in their attempt to thread the unbelieving needle; trying to discredit their opponents by starting from assumptions only possible if the Judeo-Christian God exists.

We must consider the competing worldview assumptions of each side based on the inherent assumptions within their own arguments. While many have not committed to the fixed position of the atheist that there is no God (a stance that self-identified atheists themselves try to obscure with equivocations when called out as God-denying absolutists); the same applies to anyone on the spectrum from agnosticism to zealous atheist.

There is no middle ground. Either there is a Creator God or there is not. While other faith traditions may hold to belief in a God, they don’t offer falsifiable assertions regarding matters such as origin and moral duties. Christianity alone puts meat on the bone and is willing to stand on substance.

I have often spoken of my former Hindu colleague who would debate me for a time over matters of faith and morality, but was reticent to allow her own her religious views to be inspected under the microscope. Never was I critical or rude since her non-affirmation of specific beliefs would have required me to uncharitably and wrongly try to project faith convictions onto her. What I do know is that Hindus necessarily believe in reincarnation based on good works, but I could not nail the Jell-o to the wall as I never heard a cogent and definable set of objective standards for earning divine favour through deeds. Christians know that our works will not earn us into heaven, but we are accountable for what we do and don’t do as an expression of our faith – and the standards are clear. The question I would have loved to ask was: How do you know what choices earn you a reincarnational upgrade or will cause a descent down the most favoured species ladder.

Other faiths share a similar problem. Islam is a different matter since, despite being widely celebrated by the unbelieving left; their rewards come from killing infidels and keeping women submissive on earth until they become property to satisfy men’s indulgences in the next life. Unbelieving leftists are favourably disposed toward this demographic even while they hold some values in common with the Christians they hate (i.e. opposition to abortion and the GLBTQBECONTINUED agenda, etc.). Somehow, they are sanguine with atrocities such as “honour” killings and stoning women for being raped. Admittedly, this arranged marriage of convenience is not because they profess support for such deeds, but they become apologists, informing us that such bad actors do not represent the Islamic masses. Alternately, a Christian praying outside an abortion clinic is a potential terrorist. After all, if they are willing to engage in this silent witness over the slaughter or innocent human life, just imagine what vile behaviour might emanate from one so radical.

We must recognise that we are facing a binary choice. Either the world was created, or it wasn’t. Both of these alternatives carry an array of necessary implications that are not transferable. If the unbeliever wishes to claim the trophies that come with aligning themselves with the Christian worldview, they must go all the way and embrace it all in toto. Failure to do so makes them, not their opponents, the true hypocrites.

1. We agree that the world is made up of natural laws.

     For the sake of clarity, natural laws are those that exist regardless of one’s personal opinion. This extends to a number of different areas from science to ethics. We know that unbelievers promote claims that certain scientific determinations are unimpeachable. They bolster their views with laws based on the moral implications arising from what are routinely identified as “scientific consensus”. Under efforts to bring about the dechristianization of the west, laws and regulations have ballooned. Despite one of the favoured talking points used to divest society from biblical influence, we were told that a nation cannot legislate morality. In fact, that is precisely the purpose of laws and, in point of fact, secular laws tend to be most mired in emotional pleas to validate their causes (i.e. hate crime legislation and deferential sentencing and treatment based on group identity).

Now some may insist that since these standards are mutable and ever-evolving they are not grounded on a presumption of objective measures, but are based on whimsy and the prevailing zeitgeist. This may be true of how these laws are implemented, but this is not what they concede. The fact that they create systems to impose and mandate compliance with their values suggest they see them as weight-bearing walls that dare not be compromised. They instead insist that changing laws are the result of our evolutionary progress. They even have the chutzpah to call themselves progressives.

You don’t insist that people follow the science and trust the experts through measures that include coercion, mandates, regulations, and rule of law unless your premise is that you are operating from objective standards. If they do not believe what they are saying, their actions belie what they say and it also means they lack the capacity to grasp reality or morality.

Since I know my readers are astute, you have doubtless recognised the flaw in my argument. Those who impose the measures and go along could simply be fabricating their claims and are merely vision-casting their wishes under the guise of science and morality. This would mean they are making up what they are saying and their claim to be grounded in objective standards is a farce, meaning we can ignore everything they say. Appealing to experts and scientific certainties are automatically forfeit. Their words become the substance of what Aristotle cynically describes as what rocks dream about: Nothing.

On the other hand, when Christians make truth claims, they do it based on the assumption of natural laws and thus are properly grounded. A perfect example of what I mean is when “educators” claim that everyone is racist. Hearing such a statement tells us only one thing – that the speaker is a racist or believes him, her, or zirselves to be. The rest is mere projection.

They leave themselves out of the running for making any determination – including that they have determined through science that there is no God. Their own belief system nullifies their right to make such an assertion. That complicates matters when it comes to the next point.

2. We agree that humans possess rational minds and free will.

      No one consults a psychotic person for guidance or input on matters of reality or a sociopath for ethical guidance – well, at least in theory. This demographic lacks the capacity to edify us on anything other than mental illness. In fact, the existence of individuals recognised to be divorced from reason means that persons not falling into that category are rational. It also means that this is a characteristic among humans that distinguishes us from animals who react solely out of instinct.

Choosing between options, making ethical decisions, punishing wrongdoers, or devising and testing a hypothesis are some qualities we all assume that humans possess. For instance, what does it mean to create laws to deter criminal acts – let alone hate legislation – if we are victims of our biology (aka: moist robots).

If you are the product of chance, it is not just that there is nothing to hang objective duties on, but enticing any behaviour would be impossible. You have no control over your thoughts and feelings, especially when no one can explain how such ethereal concepts even came into being. No persons (not found to be mentally incapacitated or lacking in empathy) assume that what we do is outside of our control. We may look at influences and experiences that impact what we do (nurture), but with no God then everything by default is nature since we are only material.

No unbeliever can explain the existence of a mind. They may be able to demonstrate that brains physically exist, but a brain is not the same as a mind. Brains are the repository of the elements that allow us to think and reason, but it is distinct from the immaterial mind. While globalists attempt to control our minds and psychics claim to read them, they can only mimic such abilities.

The believer is certain that God alone can read our minds because he created them and is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Risibly, atheists like to insist that it is Christians who deny that man has free will because of the professed view that God can know what we will do before we do it. This ignores their own difficulty in explaining, let alone acting, according to free will. In fairness, concepts such as predestination – especially as espoused under Calvinism – have caused me to struggle with reconciling the notion of free will.

We know that the Bible – notably in Paul’s epistles – speak of predestination, so this does not come from nowhere. On the other hand, theologians try to understand what this means in the context of what we know. I believe that the core of this conundrum rests on the fact that predestination is the sole province of God and is therefore beyond our capacity to have clarity about in this life.

What I can say is that believing that there is no free will leads one inevitably to fatalism. This means that the dispute between Catholics and Protestants over faith and works vs sola fide becomes moot. We can neither have faith nor do good works if all that happens is a cosmic play where God holds the puppet strings. Evangelism becomes pointless not only because God has already decided our fates, but because we don’t have the autonomy to choose to evangelize. We also cannot follow God’s commandments, forgive, or submit to suffering if all is fated. The Bible makes clear we have the freedom and his omniscience about what will happen and what we will do is not the same as compelling us to act.

3. We jointly believe in objective truth.

     I know we have been treated to philosophers like Oprah Winfrey pontificating about the subjectification of truth (“my truth” and “your truth”). On the surface, this would seem to be an argument in favour of the atheist view that truth is unknowable, but stick with me and I will explain how this is all a fraud.

Let’s say you are genuine in your atheist convictions and denounce any pretense that God exists. Setting aside the incoherence of believing you are able to make an independent and informed decision to reach such a conclusion, what does this mean in terms of your personal agency?

First, you would never pray because you would only be talking to the air. You wouldn’t do what new atheists like Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris or Richard Dawkins do (or did) and call out God for being evil or hypocritical. This would be like denouncing unicorns for their limited flight patterns or tepid glitter sprays. Again, ignoring the fact that you lack the capacity to convince a Christian to renounce their beliefs, how can you fault them for trusting in a book that their genetics cause them to put faith in? Worse yet, your efforts to do so only justifies their position and makes yours ridiculous. How does thinking evolve when there is no source to ground the process.

Making truth claims while hitching yourself to materialism is like arguing with God about why he doesn’t exist. Such individuals could call themselves deists – believing in a god behaving like an absentee father, bringing them into being and walking out of the universe, leaving them to fend for themselves. This would still deprive them of the requisite foundations for truth and morality since there is no disciplinarian around to keep them in line.

Take it from me that atheists love to argue in favour of what they deem to be a skillful attempt to debunk Christian teachings and ethics.  You can’t discredit a truth claim if you know you are actually only expressing an opinion. Many atheists are also more fervent at trying to win converts to disbelief than the vast majority of Christians are in their outreach to unbelievers. Why bother if this is a mere chasing after the wind. Their dogmatism exposes that they believe in their convictions; thus proving that they regard them as more than mere opinion.

The clearest evidence, however, is that those who have ejected God from the culture have replaced the void with their own set of dogmatic beliefs. There is no need to proselytize others to your way of thinking through trainings, mandates, legal sanctions, or other measures when this is merely a clash over preferences. We may want others to come over to our way of thinking if their conduct impacts my life – based on the Christian principle that all people have inherent value – but they are imposing demands over our deeds and thoughts with regard to matters that have nothing to do with them. In short, they assume all of the above to be relevant based on their own conduct.

My sister had a mug that read, “Everyone Is Entitled to My Opinion”. That was intended to be humorous because we know that opinions are personal and should hold no sway over others. That is the “live and let live” philosophy “liberals” claimed to advocate before they because hyper-censorious and inflexible in what views they adopt and insist that you also embrace.

The subjectification of truth was not an attempt to deny objective truth, but to eradicate the boundaries so they could be redrawn in their own image.

4. Atheists and Christians alike insist that moral standards of right, wrong, good and evil exist.

This has already been established based on the content already addressed. It is self-evident that those who reject God live lives based on the implications only possible if God exists. They only appear to be in a battle with Christians, but they are really at war with their own worldview assumptions.

This brings us to the matter that their claims about truth and morality are profoundly at odds with those derived from Christianity – or so it appears.

Those tempted to concede that the atheist may believe in truth and objective morality, but attribute this to the process of evolution rather than God may use this to deny divine origins. In fact, since they reach completely conflicting claims about truth and morality, doesn’t this discredit the claim that God is the sole arbiter of truth? Haven’t we surpassed the former standards that were non-inclusive in favour of the superior welcoming arms of tolerant acceptance for all? Here is the evidence that this is flawed thinking.

1. How can a chance progression of beings that lack grounding in any guiding process claim the existence of objective moral duties? We lack the agency required to either determine, test, or validate any set of standards for truth or conduct. We need only ask ourselves whether an Aristotelian rock can define truth or morality and are faced with the undeniable fact that a rock cannot even ask the question let alone derive a cogent or testable answer. Only the Rock of Ages can furnish that.
2. The so-called “evolved” principles being adopted now are merely recycled from civilizations that were collapsing and/or were rescued by the clarity and virtue that came about due to Christianity. Rome and Greece were admired as the pinnacles of enlightenment. It was Christianity that refined Rome; ending the barbarities of the gladiatorial games among other perversions. The Greeks created the concept of the philosopher kings whereby earthly authorities were deemed to be uniquely equipped to set the standards of a culture. Both are based on hubris and self-indulgence rather than evolution and merely paints the Christian and commensurate value system as an obstacle to be defeated or eliminated.
3. The appearance of uniformity of belief comes from a process that one might label, manufacturing consensus. As I’ve dealt with in numerous past articles, the state imposes woke ideologies through propaganda, censorship, intimidation, a weaponized legal system, coercion, and numerous other tools. In fact, the idea of a democracy, as the saying goes, is two wolf and a sheep deciding what to have for lunch. This is simply will to power and might makes right. The problem is even worse when the electoral process is corrupted. The fact that only one side claims the right to exploit election laws to guarantee their side gets into power or can investigate election fraud tells us a lot about their true moral standards or belief in commonly held moral values.
4. There is no evolutionary explanation to bring about shared set of moral principles or claims about truth. Ironically, one of the charges levelled against the existence of objective values derived from a sovereign God is the fact that different cultures have reached divergent views about what constitutes morality. They claim this is about environment rather than a natural or supernatural source, but this would then undermine their entire naturalistic worldview. In Matt Walsh’s brilliant documentary, “What is a Woman,” he interviews a remote African tribe who laugh at the notion that there are more than two genders or that a man can become a woman. To our current gatekeepers, transgenderism is true because acceptance of it is moral. It is moral because it is grounded on emotion arguments of promoting inclusion and stopping the “trans identifying” from committing suicide. Such arguments are from neither truth nor objective moral standards.

The best way to highlight the insincerity of unbelievers on guiding ethical principles is that they exploit language that extolls genuine virtues, but to mask the underlying malintent. A perfect example that allows us to burn several strawmen at once is found in the advocacy for abortion.

Defense of abortion is based on 3 widely accepted moral pillars – choice, rights, and privacy.

Choice is a distinctly Christian ideal since we are handed the ultimate decision of whether or not we will accept the sacrificial gift of salvation offered by our Lord. He stands at the door and knocks, but he doesn’t muscle his way in. We’ve already covered that the atheist cannot even explain choice, but they sure see it as a value when it comes to eliminating an inconvenient child.

The American Declaration of Independence speaks of unalienable rights derived from God. There is no foundation for rights apart from a creator, yet atheists see them as virtuous. We also know that they argue from the presumption that rights are external to the wishes of the individual. If you are fine with government dictating rights if their rulings allow for abortion, but protest when this “right” is taken away, this means that they see rights as extrinsic to the prevailing zeitgeist.

Privacy can only be admirable if it can be proved that loss of privacy is objectively wrong. Privacy assumes the worth of the individual since the this is not extended to animals or nature. Under Christianity, it is also a way of establishing limits between what is acceptable in the public sphere and what should be reserved for the private.

While extolling these as virtues, those making the arguments are being disingenuous. Pro-lifers made lots of hay out of exposing the hypocrisy of those insisting on choice to kill take a life inside the woman’s body while denying her right to keep a needle from being injected into her body. They are also more likely to oppose crisis pregnancy centres, maternity homes, school choice, gun ownership, or whether or not to mask. They espouse the right of the mother to abort her baby, but not the right of the child to live. They want privacy respected for the mother asking the doctor to kill her child, but seem indifferent to sharing one’s “vaccine” status or the hoovering of personal information by social media.

Romans 1: 18-32 establishes that the ungodly and unrighteous will be subject to God’s wrath and be given over to a depraved mind. He goes on to list a number of the signs of such people. It is a perfect description of the spirit of the age we now face which is held up as the model for Canada, the west and the world. This passage is not only a statement of truth, but also one of objective morality.

Finally, we are told by Christ in John’s gospel:

“…If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.” – John 8:31b-32

By contrast we read further in the same talk:

“If God were your Father, you would love me, for I came from God and I am here. I came not of my own accord, but he sent me. Why do you not understand what I say? It is because you cannot bear to hear my word. You are of your father the devil, and your will is to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks out of his own character for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

The fact is that the Judeo-Christian God alone explains the existence of what we would call a conscience – able to distinguish good and evil. He also provides the only foundation for objective truth. This, and not naturalism, explains the shared views of the reality of natural laws and objective truth and ethics. The fact that those without God have twisted and perverted these realities through their blindness by following the deceiver does not discredit, but gives the final evidence of the truth of the scriptures and the supremacy of our creator.