Who is the ultimate source of reasoning, logic and truth if there is no God? If mankind, then why does man disagree with the other? That would mean man isn’t the ultimate source. If they were, then whatever they believe as truth wouldn’t be changed. Since truth is subjective in a world without God, then man cannot be the ultimate source, as pure, actual truth is unchangeable. If there is no God, then what culture, society, etc etc is the ultimate source? And why this culture or that society? By what standard does mankind use to determine which culture or society is the ultimate standard? How do they know the standard they used is the correct one when they themselves aren’t the highest and most complete standard of moral authority?
Imagine that you have suddenly begun to exist as a mentally competent or normally intelligent human being (like Adam and Eve in Genesis). Certainly, your immediate concern would be meeting your survival needs, but as soon as there was time for reflection, would you not wonder why you were “born”, how you should behave, and what you ought to accomplish with your life?
Since absolute skepticism or agnosticism is unattainable for thinkers or truthseekers, there are only
two qualitatively different ways of answering these questions. One way is by assuming that there is no God and thus no ultimate “whyness” or purpose beyond survival and avoiding pain, so it does not ultimately matter what one believes or does, because humanity merely evolved from eternal energy/matter, into which it “devolves” at death. You may desire for some reason to survive and to save the world, but if life becomes too painful you may wish you were never born and want to destroy the world, because there is no good reason you ought to be like Messiah rather than like Mania or to be loving rather than maniacal. You may believe and act like evil exists or not, because life is a farce or a continual “King of the Hill” (KOTH) struggle against human adversaries and various other types of adversity, having no ultimate or universal moral imperative (UMI).
I call this answer cosmaterialism, because it views reality as consisting only of the material cosmos or universe and as having only four dimensions (space plus time), which are perceived by the five physical senses, implying a perpetual history of KOTH. A person who believes cosmaterialism, moral nihilism and that life’s struggles are meaningless frequently tends to seek escape even via suicide, whether by one act or by a downward spiral of self-destructive behavior. Again, until and unless this option were somehow proven beyond doubt, moralism or viewing life as meaningful seems to be the better belief.
Some cosmaterialists try to provide a rationale for morals and meaning. There seem to be three main atheist viewpoints:
1. the ground of meaning/morality is human power (humanism, cf. GN 11:4),
2. there is a natural moral law or karma in the universe (karmaism, cf. GL 6:7),
3. there is natural “meaning” with an instinct or proclivity toward morality (naturalism, cf. RM 2:14).
Humanism has three denominations including: egoism (meaning is self-dictated), elitism (“might makes right”) and popularism (“the majority rules”). These isms implicitly recognize that souls are forced by the structure of reality to choose what to believe; humans are volitional beings, paradoxically forced to make free moral decisions. However, this choice or affirmation does not necessarily mean people determine or create truth ultimately. (Is mankind the pinnacle?)
The truth of egoism is that each individual is responsible for his/her choices (but to whom; is there a Higher Authority?). The truth of elitism is that the ruling class of people has political power over those who are governed (although a superhuman Governor of the universe may exist). And the truth of popularism is that in a democracy the majority may be the governors (however, this does not mean its decisions are objective or right). In short, selfish
people may be I-dolatrous, but they cannot become God.
Karmaism, (found mainly in Hinduism/Buddhism), has a doctrine of reincarnation according to one’s karma or performance of good and evil deeds. This belief provides a rationale for universal morality (a UMI), but its fallacy may be assuming that the ground of meaning is impersonal, merely natural or even subhuman. Although there are occasional claims by someone to have memories of previous lives, if karmaism were true one might expect that everyone who was a sentient human being in the previous life would remember much of it. Thus, I find insufficient evidence for karmaism (reaping what is sown naturally).
The adherents of
naturalism posit that humans instinctively accept the validity of morality or of acting in accordance with a reciprocity principle or the “golden rule” (do unto others as you would have them do unto you, cf. MT 7:12), and they are satisfied with whatever meaning can be derived from this earthly existence. The problem with this view is that humanity has also had a proclivity toward evil throughout history, so there is no basis for saying the negative force toward others is not equally valid and for mandating a universal golden rule or moral imperative. Logically, all it can offer is a “pyrite suggestion”. Morally, it merely continues KOTH.
Pantheism or belief that nature is god and
polytheism or belief in many gods envision a vitiated or diminished divinity and thus are tantamount to atheism. Also,
deism says God created the world but does not interact with it (as though He died), which amounts to practical or functional atheism.
