The 3 Kinds of Morality (And Why It's Wrong to Assume Atheists Are Immoral)

What Is Morality, Anyway?

Morality, as a concept, is often severely misconstrued. Sometimes people assume morality and religion are the same thing. Others assume morality is obsolete, something we left behind in the 50s alongside sock hops and coonskin caps. Still others think it's a deeply personal, individual thing--even going so far as to insist that the government has no business "legislating morality." This last one always gets me laughing. Because, truly, if the government didn't legislate morality, it wouldn't do anything at all! (Which reminds me of another joke, but I digress.) Legislating morality is precisely the government's purpose. (Try to think of a law--any law--that isn't, at base, about how people treat one another or the environment.)

Morality is about relationship. These relationships may be individual (between a person and his/her pet or between an individual and his/her friend) or they may be societal (between an individual and society or between groups of people) or they may be spiritual (between an individual or group and a deity.) Outside of relationship, the concept of morality makes no sense at all. So, on that grounds, it certainly can't be a merely "personal thing." Morality is about how one person or group interacts with someone or something else. 

Morality is, by definition, about how we respond to the other occupants of this universe/reality, with respect or without it. So, to behave morally toward someone, is to behave in a way that shows respect toward and preserves that person's value. 

The Three Kinds of Morality

So here are the three levels of morality (in order of importance, with the first being the most important):

Religious Morality: how we respond to God.
Interpersonal Morality: how we respond to one another.
Environmental Morality: how we respond to nature (the animals and the world around us.)

Of course, an argument could be made that the way we treat the environment isn't about relationship, therefore, it's not a moral issue. However, such a view could be argued against on at least three grounds. One, since we all share the world, the way we treat the world also affects other people, thus making environmental morality just a form of interpersonal morality. Two, many animals are capable of forming complex relationships with humans, demanding that we treat, at least these animals, in a moral way. Three, since morality is about relationship, and healthy relationships require humility and compassion, to treat animals and/or the natural environment with complete disregard belies a lack of the basic qualities that make our behavior moral. So, one could argue that, if we are incapable of appreciating the natural world, we're also likely incapable of fully appreciating the other sentient beings that inhabit it, making such behavior a display of immorality. 

Can Atheists Be Moral?

Of course, a lot more could be said about these different types of moralities, but I want this to be a relatively short post. I'll just go on to point out that many Christians like to argue that, without God, morality itself wouldn't make sense. They insist that, for morality to be binding, God must exist. They also make the reciprocal argument that, since we observe morality, God must exist.

Now, you already know I believe in God. However, I must point out that, to the atheist or agnostic or those who don't believe in the same type of God Christians do, the above arguments sound quite insulting. Clearly, if someone doesn't believe God exists, they can still exhibit interpersonal and environmental morality. It's NOT the case that atheists are completely immoral people. That's ludicrous. Surely, we all know atheists who are excellent parents, dependable workers, loyal friends, etc. That is MORAL behavior and they are MORAL beings. 

As a Christian, I believe God not only exists but that He made ALL PEOPLE in His image--yes, the atheists, too. Part of what it means to be made in God's image is our deeply complex ability to form relationships. Since atheists are just as capable of entering into relationship as anyone else, that makes them moral beings--making their attitudes and behaviors either moral or immoral. (And when Christians are nasty to somebody, we are behaving immorally.) 

Now, I guess the bigger question is, if we don't believe in God and so ignore religious morality, but are absolutely stellar in the areas of interpersonal and environmental morality... is that enough? Well, if you're right, and God doesn't exist, then yeah, you're good. (Pun intended.) But if God does exist and you do not have a positive relationship with Him, then, no. You've got problems. Thankfully, Jesus (aka: God) is perfectly willing to help you rectify that situation whenever you're ready. He's already paved that road. Just let me know if you want directions on where to find it.

Are Christians Buying Into a False Faith?

Could it be that Christianity--despite its loyal masses and moral trappings--is a false faith after all? Could it be that Jesus wasn't Who He claimed to be--or worse--never existed at all? Could it be that when we cry out to God, no one hears us?

The Bible condemns such faiths, for faith--no matter how sincere--is only as valid as the object of that faith.

They say to wood, 'You are my father,' and to stone, 'You gave me birth.' They have turned their backs to me and not their faces; yet when they are in trouble, they say, 'Come and save us!' Where then are the gods you made for yourselves? Let them come if they can save you when you are in trouble! For you have as many gods as you have towns, O Judah. (Jeremiah 2:27-28)

So, if the Bible is so adamant about the futility of such faiths, then the "truth" the Bible puts forth had better be valid. In other words, there must be a great deal of evidence for the validity of Scripture as truth, or that verse would be nothing but a clever deception (not to mention the rest of it).

Interestingly, there is indeed a vast amount of evidence for the validity of Scripture--so much, in fact, there have been no accusations that have been able to stand their ground against it. What about the many accusations that the Old Testament was simply mythology? Ahh... but archeaology has brought silence to most of those and brought into serious question the rest. And, what about the theory Jesus never existed? Well, that has been soundly blasted out of the water. (For a small taste of this, see: Did Jesus Actually Exist?) And, what about the consipiracy theories--those that claim Jesus' disciples merely collaborated and made up the stories of Jesus so they could start a new religion? But, of course, those have been proven (through a study of extra-biblical historical documents, the religious and political history, the prophetic fulfillments, contextual coherency & accuracy, documental preservation, archeaology and eye-witness accounts) to also be false.

So, if there are so many evidences for the Bible's accuracy and validity and so few arguments against it, why doesn't everyone believe? Because spritual truth is given directly by God and only by God.

"The man without the Spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned." (1 Cor. 2:14) (See also Mat. 16:13-17)

It cannot be figured out. It does not come through study. It does not come by being born into it. It is a gift--and it is given only to those who have been called by God and respond to His call.

"No one can come to me [Jesus] unless the Father who sent me draws him. Everyone who listens to the Father and learns from him comes to me. This is why I told you that no one can come to me unelss the Father has enabled him." (John 6:44-45, 65)

Now, we are all called by God at one time or another. (See: Jeremiah 7:13, Matt. 18:10-14, John 3:16-17, 2 Peter 3:9) So, there are none that are not chosen to be His, but we are not all called at the same time nor in the same way. Also, even once we are called, we are not forced to believe. That is our choice--although God has made belief very available, simple and appealing. (I mean, what's not appealing about being forgiven for our sins, reunited with God--the omnipotent and loving Being who made us, having his all-knowing guidance during our lives and having the assurance of paradise with Him after we die?)

So, could Christians be buying into a false faith? No. Not as long as that faith is in Jesus Christ--fully God and fully man--as defined by the Scriptures (both Old and New Testaments but no other books). The question then is, why haven't you accepted Jesus yet? Is it because God hasn't called? Or, is it because you haven't answered? Hopefully, though, it isn't because you have rejected Him outright. If so, I ask you to take another look.

10 Theoretical Statements Christians and Atheists Can Agree On

1. We cannot "conjure up" God. If there is a God--a Supreme Being of some sort--we would not define His characteristics any more than we get to decide what the stranger moving in next door is going to be like. God defines Himself.

2. It is wrong to try to convince ourselves to believe in God. If there is a God who is all-powerful and interested in humanity, He would be able to communicate with us. He would be able to prove His own existence to us. We don't have to pretend to believe in a God that has no real power to connect with us on an intimate level.

3. If there is a God that is all-powerful and all-knowing, we, as limited beings that exist within time, would never be able to comprehend everything about Him. We would only be able to understand what He enables us to understand.

4. If God exists and if God is perfect, He would also be changeless. Perfection cannot be improved upon. Therefore, God would have no need to change Himself (i.e. His nature.)

5. If God is perfect and if God loves us, nothing we could do would ever make Him love us any less and nothing we could do would ever make Him love us any more. If perfect love exists, it would be a changeless love.

6. If there is a God who made me and who is all-knowing, He would know my innermost thoughts and desires. I would be, in some way, accountable to Him. He would want to have some kind of influence in my life. He must, therefore, also be, in some way, accessible to me.

7. If God is truly good, He would be extremely grieved by the evil that is so prevalent in our world. He wouldn't be able to sit by and do nothing; He would have to do something about it.

8. If God is truly perfectly good, there is no way I, in my imperfection, could ever be with Him or figure out how to reach Him. If there is a way, He must have provided it. I could not come up with it on my own. It would be foolishness to think that, in a relationship between a perfect being and an imperfect one, the perfect being would expect the imperfect one to do all the work, make all the decisions and figure out on its own how to attain perfection. It would be like asking your newborn baby to build a vehicle out of the junk in your garage, get behind the wheel and drive to Malaysia. It's just not going to happen. We can't reach God--no matter what we do (or don't do). He has to reach us.

9. If a relationship with God is possible, the start of that relationship and the maintenance of that relationship would be strictly between God and the individual. In other words, no one else--not a pastor, a friend, a family member or a religious institution--could handle the responsibility of maintaining it. You are not spiritually accountable to anyone but God (unless you choose to be).

10. For the biblical account of the origins of the earth and humanity to be true, they cannot contradict proven scientific facts. If God set up the world and nature and science, His account of it, if taken seriously, would help explain things, not cause greater confusion.