The Christian group at UWS Penrith – Campus Bible Ministries (CBM) – put up some posters in search of Atheists. Not because CBM were interested in converting to a worldview without God. Instead the plan was to stage a debate. A number of Atheists came forward and a debate was planned.

The initial plan for Christian team ‘v’ Atheist team didn’t end up eventuating due to lack of organisation on their front. However, a debate – of sorts – recently happened. The Atheist bench introduced video clips by Richard Dawkins, which we hadn’t seen prior to the debate, and we argued against them.

The clip I was debating (second half of the clip below) was about the origins of human morality. Dawkins claimed things like: morals predate religion, morals are just part of the evolutionary process, having “good” morals helps us gain a good reputation, teamwork gives strength to humans, thus we as humans have an innate sense of what is right and wrong, not because of religion, but because of evolution. (I didn’t actually debate against evolution at all. I did however try to show what this Atheistic worldview would mean for us).

In some ways I agreed with Dawkins in my argument. Humans do have an innate sense of what is right and wrong. As Dawkins says, people’s views on right and wrong are “surprisingly widely agreed”, albeit with some variety of thought. Murder and rape being the wrong. Giving money to the poor, or a speaking word of encouragement being the right. Each of us knows a universal moral code exists.

I quoted Romans 2:14-25 which says “Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts…”. People know what is right and wrong, not necessarily because they’ve memorised the 10 commandments but because God made all people in his image – that is sharing part of his character – and because his law is written on our hearts.

The thrust of my argument was that Atheism doesn’t allow for right and wrong. It doesn’t allow us to appeal to a law, because there is no law other than the man made law of the land (which is merely man made and might as well be re-made to suit how we want it to work). The best Atheism can do is say just do what you feel is right.

The implications of such a worldview are staggering. If Atheists were honest with themselves they’d admit that they cannot condemn criminals because they are also just doing what they feel to be right. I quoted one of the men who took part in one of the vilest rape cases Australia has seen, who said – “It didn’t feel like nothing. I didn’t feel anything at all,” – and pointed out that if Atheism were true then he is no more right and wrong than you or I. He also just went by his instincts.

Dawkins of course doesn’t agree here, nor does Colin McGinn (the guy from the start of the clip). Dawkins says “as social animals we’ve worked out that we wouldn’t want to live in a society where it was acceptable to rape, murder or steal. We have a moral conscience and mutual empathy, and it is constantly evolving.” But if this is correct, who are we to say the people who don’t agree with the view held by society are wrong. At best they are merely different. The ‘majority rules’ system might sound good, but if some people disagree with what it says can we really claim they’re wrong. We’re all human. We’re all equal. And we’re all just doing what we feel is right. No one has any right to enforce upon anyone else their beliefs about right and wrong. Unless of course they believe an objective moral code exists.

Colin McGinn quotes an argument by Socrates saying: “How can God give this moral rule a foundation? Either the moral rule is itself, intrinsically a sound moral rule, or it can’t be given soundness and legitimacy from an external command.” This is a simple misunderstanding of God. The problem with the statement is it presumes that morality came before God, or is somehow separate from God. Instead we need to remember, if not for God humans would not exist, nor would morals exist. So God’s holy, perfect, and righteous character, is the only thing that enables us, who are ourselves created with some of that character, to know stealing is wrong.

So I concluded that the statements: rape is wrong and 1+1=2 are on par with one another. Both are objectively true. And if we think about it, whether we’re Atheist or Christian, we can’t disagree. An objective moral law does indeed exist and requires a lawgiver.

After a lively question time, we spoke with some of the atheists further and they’re keen to keep meeting up. Please pray for CBM at Penrith as plans are underway to have further conversations with the Atheists.

Found a flaw in my argument? Have I missed the elephant in the room? Never heard of Richard Dawkins or the God Delusion? Are these kinds of debates pointless? Should we just be trying to explain the Bible and avoid apologetic arguments altogether? Is evolution the greatest obstacle Christians have ever come up against? Post your thoughts below.