Moral values could just exist as brute facts, with no need for God

A serious position

This is one of the strongest atheist responses to the moral argument. It accepts what the theist says about morality, that it's objective and binding, but denies that God is needed. Moral truths are just part of the furniture of reality, necessary and basic. Every explanation has to end somewhere; why not here?

Brute facts with no mind behind them

The theist's first response is that this is possible but strange. Moral facts are not like rocks or electrons. They make claims on us. They say we ought to do some things. But who or what is doing the obliging? An obligation without anyone to be obligated to is puzzling. J.L. Mackie, an atheist, argued that objective values would be "queer" entities, unlike anything else in a naturalistic world, and that is why he rejected them. In a sense, the theist agrees with Mackie: objective moral values would be odd without God.

Why did we evolve to know them?

There's also a fit problem. If moral facts are abstract and causally inert, and our moral beliefs were shaped by evolution for survival, it would be a remarkable coincidence if our beliefs lined up with the moral truths (see Evolution explains our moral sense). On theism, there's no coincidence: the same God who grounds morality made us able to perceive it.

Morality and persons

Our moral experience is deeply personal. We feel guilt, as if we've wronged someone. We feel accountable. That fits better with a moral law grounded in a personal being than in impersonal abstract facts. C.S. Lewis argued in Mere Christianity that the moral law points to a mind behind the universe, more like a person than like a fact.

Comparing explanations

Both views stop somewhere. The question is which stopping point explains more. Theism explains why moral facts exist, why they bind us, why they're about persons and why we can know them. Brute-fact realism takes all of that as given. Simpler isn't always better if it leaves more unexplained.

A fair concession

Wielenberg and others offer careful, sophisticated defences. This isn't a debate with an easy winner, and it's fair to say the moral argument is suggestive rather than conclusive.

How to explain this to a friend

When a friend says morality could just be there, it's fair to agree that this is a serious option. Then ask what it would mean for a moral fact to bind us. Who are we obligated to? Why does guilt feel like having wronged someone rather than having broken an abstract law? These questions help show why many people find a personal source of morality more natural than impersonal facts floating free.

The bottom line

Moral facts could be brute features of reality, but it would be strange: obligations with no one behind them, and a lucky match between our evolved beliefs and moral truth. A good God makes better sense of both. Explore more on The moral argument for God.