Thursday, December 31, 2065
Saturday, February 28, 2026
Answering the Objection that Christianity is Falsified Because Christians Aren't Morally Superior
I've encountered this objection often, and it has been phrased in various ways. Below I'll quote one version I recently saw on Facebook, and then I'll post my quick succinct response to the objection.
There’s a claim apologists rarely state outright, but it follows from their logic. If Christianity alone provides the one true foundation for morality… If humans are naturally sinful… If atheists reject divine authority and eternal accountability… Then Christians, as a group, should behave significantly better than atheists.
Not perfectly. Christians openly affirm that they still sin. But if they possess the only true moral grounding, the indwelling Spirit, and eternal consequences, we should expect a measurable difference. Atheists, by that logic, lack both the proper foundation and the ultimate incentive to be good. If morality requires God, atheists should be morally adrift.
But that is not what we see. At all.
On widely recognized benchmarks — crime rates, incarceration rates, violent crime, corruption, societal trust, public health, equality — atheists are not demonstrably less moral. In many cases, the least religious societies on earth rank highest in measures of societal well-being.
Sociologist Phil Zuckerman, after studying highly secular nations, concluded that high levels of atheism strongly correlate with high levels of societal health. The most secular countries tend to have lower homicide rates, lower infant mortality, longer life expectancy, higher literacy, stronger gender equality, and lower corruption. If disbelief naturally led to moral collapse, those countries should be dystopias. They aren’t. In the United States, atheists are dramatically underrepresented in prison populations relative to Christians. Again, if rejecting God unleashed unrestrained depravity, you would expect the opposite.
At this point, the argument usually shifts: “They’re borrowing moral capital from Christianity.” Notice what that move concedes -- The behavior. It acknowledges atheists are behaving morally. The debate retreats from conduct to metaphysics — from what people actually do to abstract grounding theories. Because the behavior undermines the argument. The behavior demonstrates that morality in real life isn’t primarily about philosophical foundations. It’s about empathy, cooperation, fairness, harm reduction, and social accountability. Those are human capacities. They don’t disappear when belief does.
The “atheist regimes killed millions” objection doesn’t rescue the claim either. Stalinism, Maoism, and the Khmer Rouge were totalitarian political ideologies built on centralized power, enforced conformity, and elimination of dissent. Atheism is not an economic theory, a revolutionary blueprint, or a doctrine of state control. If Stalin had believed in God, the gulags would not have vanished. The engine of those atrocities was authoritarianism, not metaphysical disbelief. If atheism inherently produced genocide, today’s most secular democracies would be the most violent. They aren’t.
Even research often cited to show religious people are more “prosocial” tends to reveal something subtler. What predicts generosity and cooperation is not supernatural belief itself, but community integration — belonging, shared norms, regular social contact. Sociologists Robert Putnam and David Campbell found that religious belonging, not belief per se, drives many of the positive effects. Psychologist Paul Bloom, after reviewing the literature, concluded there is surprisingly little evidence for a unique moral effect of specifically religious beliefs. Strip away the tribal cohesion and the moral gap disappears.
So the empirical picture is clear: Atheists are not less moral. They are not more criminal. They are not more corrupt. They are not less capable of compassion or cooperation. At minimum, the data refute the idea that belief in God makes people any more moral or ethical. At most, they suggest that morality grounded in shared human flourishing, rather than sectarian authority, can be just as stable, if not more so.
The real lesson isn’t that religion makes people good or atheism makes people bad. It’s that morality is a human project. And humans are fully capable of it. Without God.
HERE was my response on Facebook:
This is either an external OR an internal critique of Christianity. If EXTERNAL, then you need a basis to ground objective morality, and atheism is hard-pressed to provide such a basis. Indeed, it may be impossible. Atheism is perfectly consistent with selfishness, and not just "Rational Enlightened Self-Interest." Many proponents of RESI will, when push comes to shove, kill others on a raft in the middle of the ocean when supplies are low. Nor will many risk their only life to save a drowning autistic child.
If this is an INTERNAL critique, then you need to deal with the entirety of the Christian worldview, and assume all of it for the sake of argument. If one did, most of the criticisms fall short. Since:
1. The Bible teaches not all *professing* Christians are *possessing* Christians [meaning truly regenerated by the Holy Spirit]. The majority of professing Christians are probably not truly regenerate. Mere intellectual assent is not the same as genuine saving faith.
2. Christians are the especial target of the temptations of demons because the unsaved are already on their way to hell [and so they need not focus on them], and demons have incentive to tempt the (apparently) saved to keep them from arriving in heaven and because leading Christians to sin brings dishonor to the triune God in the eyes of non-Christians. So, the greater sin among Christians might be due to greater and concentrated temptations by demons. To anticipate objections, I'll disclose I'm a Calvinist and don't believe the truly regenerate can fall away permenantly. But humans and demons can't know with infallible certainty who are regenerated. Only God knows.
3. There's the doctrine of Common Grace. God gives a universal grace to both Christians and non-Christians in order to preserve society for His appointed ends. This can help explain why some non-Christians obey the *external* requirements of the Law better than some professing Christians. Though, they don't obey the *internal* requirements of the law better than the truly regenerate.
4. The Bible teaches in Rom. 2 that the work of the law has been implanted by God in all humans and that accounts for the universal *fallible* (and variant) conscience (which has been marred by The Fall and the resultant Original Sin that affects all humans). This is partly why non-Christian individuals and groups have some sense of morality that to some (greater or lesser degree) mirrors Christianity.
5. One of the most basic moral requirements is an acknowledgment of the existence of a Deity due to the God given Sensus Deitatis/Divinitatis (Rom. 1, passim), conscience, and Common Grace. Yet, atheists resist and suppress this innate knowledge and convince themselves through self-deception that God doesn't exist. As one would unconsciously and naturally suppress and resist the truth that their child is a thief [due to ego, self-love, self-righteousness]. Another moral requirement is to give due homage to the Deity. Something which atheists generally don't attempt to do. Most blatantly do the opposite. In Christianity the two greatest commandments are a) love God supremely, and b) love one's neighbors as one's self (Matt. 22:36-40). Atheism denies the first and foundational requirement. Given that this is an internal critique, then atheists fail this most basic moral requirement.
6. Many [not all] secular societies are post-Christian and still retain vestiges of the Christian morality they inherited culturally. However, as times goes on they start losing even that. See Michael Jones [known as YouTube's InspiringPhilosophy] and his debates with well known atheists on the topic of of whether Christianity is a force for good in the world. He cites many unbiased studies and statistics showing it is. LINKS AND PLAYLIST BELOW.
7. Secular societies may not inevitably necessitate totalitarianism, but they open the door to it. When there is no God above creation, there's a tendency for governments and those in power to think of themselves [in effect] as gods or god substitutes, and it's small step from that to totalitarianism. In fact, totalitarianism often opposes belief in the Christian God because Christianity undermines totalitarian power, rule and authority. Because the tyrant or oligarchy are not ultimate, but rather are answerable and accountable to the transcendent God. In Christianity rights come from God and the duty of governments is to protect those rights. When rights ultimately come from government, then the government can also take it away. Think (e.g.) of the opressive Covid restrictions.
Playlist & DEBATES
InspiringPhilosophy's Playlist: The Benefits of Christianity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BnSfn5878M&list=PL1mr9ZTZb3TVENkH6AsYgT-CYuaZRqGjl
DEBATE: Is Christianity Or Secular Humanism Best for Society? | Mike Jones Vs Dan Barker
https://www.youtube.com/live/9SIG0NMHQBg?si=WhQYMws4Y0gNeV6z
Christianity vs Humanism: Who offers a better future for our world? Mike Jones vs Stephen Law
https://youtu.be/_UOwOCGIPzQ?si=w5U87PHHm59kWeel
FIERY DEBATE Christianity OR Secular Ethics,What's Best for Society? | Lawrence Krauss VS Mike Jones
https://www.youtube.com/live/yef-BFukQWg?si=sLN7CpgFn2aUejNb
INTENSE Debate: Which is Better for Humanity? Christianity OR Secularism?
https://youtu.be/IMFH38yV1EI?si=FeNF5lPoTqqemHCJ
DEBATE: Is Christianity Dangerous? | Inspiring Philosophy Vs Holy Koolaid | Podcast
https://youtu.be/JbnuIZF7HWs?si=8fowwOg8ZSVfFVV0
InspiringPhilosophy Vs Michael Shermer | DEBATE | Is Christianity Dangerous? | Podcast
https://youtu.be/mSjZLqV_3ko?si=RaCKUX8dBnbdx23S
Is Christianity Dangerous? - BBC Debate
https://youtu.be/bQBFY1z_RvI?si=f-PN0c9InWaew_SES
Sunday, February 15, 2026
Why Doesn’t God Show Himself? Dan Paterson vs Joe Schmid
Why Doesn’t God Show Himself? Dan Paterson vs Joe Schmid hosted by John Nelson
https://youtu.be/Ed8Gb7zaLIM?si=Ze1xtxdcn0Aipfdh
Thursday, February 12, 2026
Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? Elias Ayala vs. Dan Barker
Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? Elias Ayala vs. Dan Barker
https://www.youtube.com/live/yeucoXcUE7c?si=JV_hU5vZb23MyXnQ
Monday, February 9, 2026
Friday, November 28, 2025
Michael Brown vs. Steve Gregg: THREE consecutive DEBATES on Israel
Brown: Evangelical Messianic Jewish Christian Zionist and ex-Calvinist. Leading expert on apologetics aimed at Judaism. Continuationist & Charismatic.
Gregg: Anti-Calvinist [Semi-Pelagian?] Partial Preterist Amillennialist. Continuationist & Charismatic.
I recommend watching the FIRST debate if only watching one. It's foundational. Some of the arguments and conclusions Brown make some sense to me. Though, I don't all the way with him and his position.
Debate 1 Is Israel Today the Fulfillment of Prophecy
https://youtu.be/HFFjd66EpbI
Debate 1 CONTINUED
https://youtu.be/P5aYe-qqnDY
Debate 2 Who is Israel in Romans 9-11?
https://youtu.be/1WooUVrdRB4
Debate 3 Israel and the Fulfillment of Old Testament Prophecy [with audience Q&A]
https://youtu.be/nqoZsKyukjY
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)