Must Atheists "Steal From God" to Make Moral Claims?

A glib Christian apologist named Dr. Frank Turek insists atheists must "steal from God" in order to assert moral claims and rights. Is this true?

Dr. Turek has a radio program, podcast, book and ministry called "I Don't Have Enough Faith to be An Atheist." Here you go: CrossExamined.org - Your source for Christian Apologetics | We are a Christian Apologetic Ministry founded in 2006.

His schtick is that he confronts atheists head-on.

This is nonsense, of course. Atheists don't care what Brother Frank thinks about anything. The purpose of Christian apologetics is not to convince atheists. The purpose is to reassure believers their beliefs aren't as silly, irrational and baseless as many atheists claim.

Along these lines, Brother Frank shrieks at the beginning of every radio program, "Know why people are so easily talked out of Christianity? BECAUSE THEY'VE NEVER BEEN TALKED INTO IT!!!"

Every time – I can't resist – I answer (to the radio), "People aren't talked into Christianity, Frank." Karl Barth, one of the greatest theologians of the twentieth century, would agree – he had nothing but disdain for this sort of "convince 'em" apologetics.

Truth in blogging: Several years ago, I sent Turek an email along the same lines as what I say here. He never responded to my email but used it as fodder for three – three! – radio programs. He mischaracterized what I had said, gave me no opportunity to respond, made the same points he always makes (over and over and over), and – but of course! – questioned whether I was "really a Christian" as I had "claimed."

The fact is, I'm happy to confront atheists on matters where I believe they can legitimately be confronted. For example, the materialism that is at the root of much atheism (because materialism is inherently atheistic) can be confronted on multiple levels, including the best modern science. I've debated with atheists on other forums for years and mostly they hate me.

But nothing is gained by trying to make atheists look silly with glib arguments that won't withstand scrutiny. Turek's "stealing from God" argument is one that I don't believe will. (This argument is at the very foundation of his ministry. You can scarcely believe the emphasis it receives.)

The argument is easily stated: Without God, all moral claims are mere human opinion. If an atheist asserts something is "right" or "wrong" (or is a "right" he possesses), this is just his opinion and you're free to assert a contrary opinion. Thus, in making such assertions the atheist is "stealing from God" as though there were some higher standard of morality.

Sound good? Yes, at first blush – especially if you're already a Christian.

You can see what Turek has done: He has defined morality as requiring a divine standard, as though morality were as simple as this.

In fact, the nature and source of morality and whether there really is any such thing are deep philosophical issues. See the excellent entries at the online Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: "The Definition of Morality," The Definition of Morality (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy), and "Moral Theory," Moral Theory (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).

Does Turek get to impose the Christian standard of morality on everyone? What about Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Muslims and others? Are they "stealing from God" just as the atheists supposedly are? What about the ancient Egyptians, Romans, Aztecs and Sumerians? Were they stealing from God? What if a Hindu insists Turek is stealing from the Hindu pantheon? What if an atheist insists Turek is stealing from an imaginary God to give his mere opinions more weight than they deserve?

Hmmmm.

We as Christians might say all non-Christians were and are simply following the law written in their hearts by the one true God as Paul describes in Romans 2:15-16. But this doesn't quite work either. Humans have had some wildly different notions of right and wrong. The Egyptians, Romans and Aztecs were highly sophisticated societies, yet some of their notions of right and wrong would make most of us today throw up. Even Christian communities through the centuries have had some distinctly odd notions of right and wrong. Whatever is written in our hearts is, at best, only a very broad and instinctive morality.

But let's meet Turek on his own terms and say that morality and rights do in fact require some higher standard. In the abstract, if I say torturing babies is wrong and you say it's right, those are indeed mere opinions. I can give you reasons why torturing babies is icky and cruel, but it's difficult for me to argue that it's morally wrong without reference to some standard higher than what I think.

Does this standard have to be God?

Contra Turek, I don't think so at all. Let's say both parties to the argument are atheists, Sally and Fred. Sally, the one arguing that torturing babies is morally wrong, is going to say something like, "Good grief, Fred! Virtually every society that has ever existed has believed torturing babies was wrong! Virtually every society has had criminal laws against it! It's viscerally repulsive to any sane human! You're just nuts!"

What has Sally done? She has appealed to the higher standard of societal consensus. Her argument that torturing babies is wrong is far more than her mere opinion.

But wait – societal consensus is subject to change. Cultures across the globe may have very different notions of morality at the same time, let alone 1,000 or 10,000 years apart. Is this a problem?

Now we can add to what Turek has done: He has defined morality not only as requiring a higher standard but a fixed one as well. If you read the philosophical discussions of morality, you will see that Turek's narrow definition and understanding of morality is by no means the only one.

Turek's is the Christian definition and understanding – which, even on its own terms doesn't really hold up to historical scrutiny – but atheists certainly aren't governed by it. They are free to say, "Our higher moral standard is the consensus of the society in which we live, as reflected in its codes, laws and norms. The fact that this consensus may change over time is neither here nor there. Unlike you, Dr. Turek, we don't agree that morality must be determined by a fixed divine standard."

Doesn't the Bible illustrate this reality? Do the Old and New Testaments strike you as describing a fixed, unchanging morality? Did Jesus Himself not significantly alter some of the Old Testament commands in favor of what we might call a "higher morality" driven by the more flexible concepts of compassion and mercy?

The problem today is that on many of the hot-button issues there simply is no consensus. Not only is there no consensus, but on some issues diametrically opposed viewpoints each command close to 50%. Within each of those 50% are large numbers of people who insist they are Bible-believing Christians. Worse yet, many hot-button issues are not merely a matter of whether a particular conduct is right of wrong but involve a complex interplay of multiple competing "rights" claimed by both sides.

In short, I believe Turek's "stealing from God" argument is shallow and superficial. It's the sort of thing that sounds good at first blush – to a Christian anyway – but won't withstand scrutiny. It's an apologetic aimed at those who already believe. It stacks the deck by defining morality in such a way that only a fixed divine standard can qualify (and even then begs the question as to why Hindus and other theists should recognize the Christian God as their standard).