The following is adapted from Why I’m Still a Christian by Justin Brierly.

On December 10, 1948, the United Nations ratified the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a document globally regarded as a milestone in world affairs. Its opening paragraph affirmed that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”1 

The development of the concept of universal human rights is generally seen as one of the moral high points in the history of civilization. It is a declaration upheld by people of all faiths and none. Yet the belief that humans are created free, equal, and with inherent dignity only makes sense if there is a God. 

We all know that morality can vary a great deal between different people. You might think gambling is perfectly acceptable, whereas I may think it’s an immoral waste of money. I may think paying for my child to attend a private school is my right, whereas you might think it an unfair use of privilege and wealth. I may be a pacifist, whereas you may say there are just reasons for taking up arms. There are plenty of gray areas when it comes to our ethics, and we are free to argue the pros and cons with one another. 

For this reason, many people make the claim that morality is entirely subjective. This means that there are no universal standards of good and evil, but that individuals decide for themselves what is right or wrong, depending on their cultural circumstances and personal point of view. They say that this shows why the moral zeitgeist of society changes over time as well. There are things that most people in the West are perfectly comfortable with today that would have once been considered scandalous by the majority of society, such as sex outside marriage. And there are things that were generally acceptable in the past that we may consider scandalous today, such as women not having the right to vote. As times change, so morality changes, goes the argument. 

However, just as you and I may disagree over some moral issues, there are also some things which we probably both think are the correct way of acting, without exception. If someone falls over in the road, we should help them up and check that they’re all right. We should try to be honest, keep our word, and act fairly. Showing generosity to others is better than being selfish. The list goes on. 

There are also some things which I can almost guarantee that you and I both think are always wrong. For example, the abuse of little children. When I read horrific accounts of child abuse that crop up, it turns my stomach, not just because I am a parent myself but because I cannot fathom how anyone could show such cruelty and depravity towards an innocent person. 

These are the sorts of moral views that are relatively uncontroversial to most of us, and it is these moral beliefs that I believe we should classify as objectively true. This isn’t because we happen to agree on them—objective morality isn’t decided by a popularity poll. Rather, these moral beliefs are objectively true because, when we look inside ourselves, we know that they must always be true. 

Why? Well, anything less than an objective standard makes our moral beliefs a matter of opinion and feelings. So if a culture different from yours develops a practice which you find abhorrent, such as female genital mutilation (FGM), you may object to what they do from your cultural perspective, but if morality is subjective, then in the end that’s just the way you feel about it. What moral authority do you have to tell them they are wrong? They simply have a different opinion from you. But we both know that doesn’t make any sense. If something is really wrong, then it’s wrong for everyone. 

In the same way that one plus one equals two, these are facts about the world. The abuse of women and children is always wrong—in all times and in all places. And the only way you can tell someone they ought to do something (such as end the practice of FGM or not abuse children) is if it’s really true. Consequently, just as rational people ought to believe that one plus one equals two if they want their financial accounts to add up, so every rational person should recognize moral facts like the evil of child abuse and our duty to stop it if we see it taking place. 

So where is this leading, and why is it a problem for an atheist worldview? If there is a realm of facts about moral values and duties, then we have to ask ourselves where that realm springs from. How can it be accounted for by an atheist? The only way we can speak of things being truly right and wrong is if there is a reality about these matters which stands apart from the material world. Our moral obligations are like a set of laws which have been determined in a separate domain. But determined by what? Laws don’t exist in a vacuum. Such a transcendent realm of moral law only makes sense in the context of a transcendent moral lawgiver: God. 

Many people theorize that we have merely been duped into an illusion of objective morality. But those same people never act like that in the real world. If they are mugged in the street, swindled in the shop, or treated unfairly at work, morality suddenly starts to look objective and universally binding. When they walk out their front door, they operate by the same principles of justice, compassion, and right and wrong that we all do. 

Atheism cannot account for such a world. That’s why God is the best explanation for human value. 

1. United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights” (December 10, 1948), https://www.un.org/en/universal-declaration-human-rights.