How Atheists Can Act Morally

In light of recent events, this piece reflects
on the logical inconsistencies of a worldview
that omits God yet makes absolute claims

The ‘Moral Atheist’
Why Absolute Claims to a Moral Life Requires God’s Existence

by Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds

It is an increasingly common claim that one can be an atheist and still be moral. In fact, there are many (legitimate) claims that some who do not profess faith do live more ‘morally’ consistent lives than those who profess Christianity. How is this possible? This is the subject of today’s article.

From the evolutionary worldview, the claim that we can be ‘good’ without God is often explained by apparent ‘survival advantages’ of moral living in communal spaces. Moral behavior acts for mutual fitness. For example, a recently published paper presented this idea.

An LLMbased Agent Simulation Approach to Study Moral Evolution (Ziheng et al., Proceedings of the 64th Annual Meeting of the Association for Computational Linguistics, July 2026). This team simulated ‘moral evolution’ through twenty simulations in four settings aimed “to discover emergent cognitive mechanisms from agent interactions”. In their simulations, they concluded that “universal and reciprocal morality” showed “the most stable outcomes across conditions while selfishness is strongly disfavoured.”

This paper is timely given recent news. With many arguments of moral relativity and situational ethics emerging from recent headline cases, such as Lindsey Clancy’s trial on circumstances surrounding the murder of her three children, a frank discussion of the origins and existence of an absolute moral standard is relevant.

Also in the headlines, the subject of moral choices became an issue of global concern. Jamaican students benefited from philosophical conversations between September 20-26, when Prolife Global came to Jamaica on a school tour and spoke to the philosophical basis of preserving life. Emphasizing the basis for morality, a member of the Prolife Global team also did an apologetics talk representing Ratio Christi, with emphasis on basis for the existence of God and Jesus’ resurrection.

A dialogue on the basis of morality continues. This article reflects on three key questions arising from the notion of morality that continue to challenge evolutionary and atheistic worldviews.

Challenge One:
Moral Absolutes and the Question, “Who Says So?”

While many may take the claim at face value that some atheists may behave more ‘morally’ than even those who profess religious affiliations, the deeper question behind this claim is the standard for measuring what is ‘moral’ versus what is not. This claim of the ‘moral atheist’ is often accompanied by critiques of decisions made by God in the Bible. God’s allowance of suffering in the world is a perennial conundrum. But the reaction of atheists raises the important question: is morality merely a useful human invention, or does it reflect an objective reality that transcends human opinion?

An atheist’s elevation of his or her ‘morality’, including the critique of God’s morality, presents an unavoidable dilemma. It implicitly either elevates the atheist’s own subjective view of morality to judge everyone, or implies that there is some absolute standard that should be applied to everyone. Instead of this argument being an affront to God, the necessary appeal to an absolute standard for measuring morality perhaps constitutes among the greatest challenges facing a naturalistic view of morality.

In attempting to escape the need to appeal to God, atheists often propose one of four standards as sources for morality: the individual, government(s)/laws, cultural norms, or one’s feelings.

Each of these claims, however, fall short under scrutiny. For instance:

• If our moral code is based solely on personal opinion, on what basis do we condemn rapists, murderers, or burglars?
• If our moral code is based on governments or laws, are we assuming all laws are good? This would require having to accept multiple standards of morality.
• If cultural norms or beliefs of ‘societal benefit’ suffices, then we would have to accept events such as the Holocaust were moral, since Germany as a society accepted these acts as beneficial to their society.
• Finally, if morality’s standard comes from whatever ‘feels good,’ then this would allow for torture and rape to be considered moral, as long as they fulfill the perpetrator’s desires.

From an atheistic evolutionary standpoint, one would ultimately have to appeal to humans or groups of humans as the standard, or hold a belief of no absolute moral code, but merely chemically deterministic decisions. If the universe is ultimately the product of unguided natural processes, no moral code should be objectively binding. Yet most people do not actually live as though morality is merely subjective.

Ziheng et al (2026) and other researchers who attempt to define morality as ‘evolved’, recognize that when we condemn genocide, child abuse, slavery, torture, or racism, we do not usually mean, “I personally dislike these practices.” Rather, we mean that such actions are objectively wrong, regardless of who commits them or how many people approve of them. However, while they attempt to explain the origins of these via evolutionary means, if morality is merely the result of evolutionary pressures or social consensus, then there is no ultimate basis for declaring one moral viewpoint superior to another. A society that promotes human rights would simply possess different preferences from a society that oppresses its citizens once it benefits the fittest of the species.

Such evolution-based criteria would render our society unlivable. Our moral intuitions consistently move beyond personal preference, as we instinctively believe that some things are genuinely right, and others are genuinely wrong. It is the Christian worldview provides a foundation for such moral absolutes, as morality is viewed as an expression of God’s unchanging nature. Objective moral obligations make sense because they originate from an objective moral Lawgiver. Without such a foundation, moral statements risk becoming subjective opinions disguised as universal truths.

Challenge Two:
Why Do Humans Across the Globe Recognize Morality?

A second challenge concerns the remarkable universality of moral awareness. Although cultures differ significantly in customs, traditions, and laws, there are striking moral similarities across civilizations separated by geography, language, and history. Nearly every society condemns unjustified murder within its community. Virtually every culture values honesty to some degree. Sacrificial love, courage, fairness, and loyalty are celebrated across diverse populations.

Evolutionary explanations often argue that these common values emerged because cooperative behaviours enhanced survival. Groups that practised mutual aid may have been more successful than groups dominated by purely selfish individuals. Ziheng et al’s recent LLM-based moral evolution study reflects this line of thinking as the simulations suggested that cooperative behaviour contributed to survival and stability. However, such models do not explain why humans experience morality as an obligation. As an example, there is a profound difference between saying, “Cooperation helps a species survive,” and saying, “You ought to do what is right even when it disadvantages you.”

While evolutionists appeal to natural selection to explain what is advantageous, it cannot explain sacrificial decisions based on an innate knowledge of ’right’ and ’wrong.’ Yet history is filled with examples of people who sacrificed their own welfare, freedom, or lives because they believed something was morally right, embracing suffering rather than compromising their convictions. From a purely survival-based framework, such actions can appear irrational.

The Christian worldview offers a different explanation, as it teaches that humans are made in the image of God. As image-bearers, we possess an innate moral awareness that reflects the Creator’s nature. While human conscience is imperfect and affected by sin, it nevertheless points toward a transcendent moral reality. The widespread recognition of moral truths across humanity is therefore not surprising as it reflects a common Creator whose moral law is written upon the human heart.

Challenge Three:
How Did the Moral Law Arise?

A third challenge concerns the origin of moral law itself. Even if evolutionary mechanisms could explain why certain behaviours became widespread if perceived as an advantage, they cannot explain how moral obligations emerge from purely physical processes.

The universality of the recognition of morality implies the existence of a moral law. Logically, a moral law requires a Law Giver. Evolution can only describe theories as to how ‘advantageous’ a gesture can be; but researchers still hinge upon intrinsic recognition of some acts perceived as intrinsically ‘moral.’ These assumptions must rest on something other than evolution, as evolutionary mechanisms cannot establish objective truth. For instance, even if it made logical sense that altruism could be beneficial in some circumstances for survival, this still cannot and does not prove that altruism is morally ‘good’ – without appealing to an intrinsic understanding of an essence of what ‘goodness’ is.

While evolution lacks a mechanism for this intrinsic recognition, Christianity argues that moral law was established by a Moral Lawgiver that is beyond humanity: A Personal Creator. Humans, being created in His Image, possess an intrinsic recognition that morality exists, because of an immaterial conscience that (once not seared), generally reflects an internal knowledge of right and wrong. The existence of objective moral duties is therefore more consistent with a universe created by an intelligent and moral God than with a universe that emerged through unguided processes alone.

Why One All-Knowing, All-Loving God Matters

Some may respond that morality could come from many gods rather than one God. Yet a pluralistic system creates additional difficulties. If multiple gods possess competing values and priorities, disagreements among them would undermine the concept of an absolute moral standard.

The Christian doctrine of one sovereign God avoids this problem. Christianity defines the origin of morality as being an all-knowing God possesses perfect understanding of justice, goodness, and truth, who seeks the flourishing of His creation. Because God is morally perfect, His character provides a stable and universal foundation for morality.

Furthermore, Christianity provides something that many secular moral systems struggle to offer ultimate justice. Human history is filled with situations where evil appears to triumph and wrongdoing goes unpunished. Victims often suffer while perpetrators escape from earthly consequences. If, as evolution proposes, death marks the end of existence, then ultimate justice may never be achieved.

The Christian worldview, however, teaches that God will ultimately judge all people with perfect righteousness. Evil will not persist forever. Wrongdoing will be addressed, and justice will ultimately prevail. This belief gives moral actions enduring significance beyond temporary social usefulness.

An Absolute Standard

Our society today yearns more than ever for searching for justice. Secularists have even often hijacked the narrative and placed themselves as the forerunners of ‘justice’ and ‘rights’. However, as even exemplified from evolutionary simulations, materialistic explanations fall short.

Unfortunately, not only does an evolutionary worldview fall short in explaining the origins of morality, but history has repeatedly shown that being consistent within an atheistic framework, can lead to actions that most in our modern world would recognize as deeply atrocious actions, such as even the Holocaust, publicized in 1930-1940’s Germany as advancing natural selection.

As the dialogue continues (including in an upcoming Logos Research Associates livestream on October 14, 2026, 9pm ET exploring ‘From Darwin to Hitler’), it is of utmost importance for persons to recognize that moral living in an atheistic framework can only arise if the person borrows from a monotheistic worldview.

Each of us have been endowed by God with a conscience. As the Scripture says:

“Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. So, they show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts either accusing or defending them” (Romans 2:14-15).

Let us use this conscience to bring ourselves closer to understanding the Source of morality, who paid the price to save all of us from our sins that have separated every single one of us from enjoying the perfect world that God intended for us to enjoy. When we accept Jesus’ gift through faith (Mark 16:15-16; Acts 2:38), God promises to welcome us to a world where righteousness reigns forever.

Dr. Sarah Buckland-Reynolds is a Christian, Jamaican, Environmental Science researcher, and journal associate editor. She holds the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography from the University of the West Indies (UWI), Mona with high commendation, and a postgraduate specialization in Geomatics at the Universidad del Valle, Cali, Colombia. The quality of her research activity in Environmental Science has been recognized by various awards including the 2024 Editor’s Award from the American Meteorological Society for her reviewing service in the Weather, Climate and Society Journal, the 2023 L’Oreal/UNESCO Women in Science Caribbean Award, the 2023 ICETEX International Experts Exchange Award for study in Colombia. and with her PhD research in drought management also being shortlisted in the top 10 globally for the 2023 Allianz Climate Risk Award by Munich Re Insurance, Germany. Motivated by her faith in God and zeal to positively influence society, Dr. Buckland-Reynolds is also the founder and Principal Director of Chosen to G.L.O.W. Ministries, a Jamaican charitable organization which seeks to amplify the Christian voice in the public sphere and equip more youths to know how to defend their faith.