Atheist Ethics are Enfeebled; Atheist Morality is Inferior

Many Christians, especially conservative Christians, are convinced that their morality is superior to anything else in the world — especially anything that atheists might have to offer. Actually supporting such a position is a lot harder than merely asserting it, though, so how well do Christians manage to defend their contention that they alone have the high ground when it comes to morality?

Dmitry Chernikov, a graduate student in philosophy at Kent State University, writes:

My claim here is that Christian virtues are superior to atheist virtues.

In proof, consider a moral virtue, for example, the virtue of piety which is a species of justice. It has four levels. First, there is natural piety or reverence one pays to his parents or, generally, honor or dulia given to a mentor or teacher or anyone higher in status than the person himself. Then there is piety to God, but in different ways. Thus, second, we have piety to God as Creator. Third, piety to God as Master. Fourth, piety to God as Father. Atheists stop at level 1. Theists in general go up to level 2. Jews are at level 3. Christians are at level 4.

Although this isn't quite as bad as arguing "the Bible says it's true, therefore it is true," it does come very close. In effect, Dmitry Chernikov is arguing that atheist ethics are worse than Christian ethics on the basis of a "virtue" defined in a manner that assumes the truth of Christianity. This is nothing more or less than a circular argument because it attempts to prove that atheism is worse by assuming that atheism is false.

Remember, Dmitry Chernikov is a graduate student in philosophy, yet he is committing what can only be regarded as one of the most basic logical fallacies in existence. Even people without any training in philosophy and who are completely unfamiliar with logical fallacies can recognize a circular argument and understand why it doesn't work. Is this perhaps just a fluke on Chernikov's part? Unfortunately, no — he offers three arguments in total and each mirrors the other: he defines some virtue in ways that assume the truth of Christianity and falsehood of atheism in order to "prove" that atheism is ethically inferior.

I also doubt that it's a coincidence or mistake that Dmitry Chernikov manages to get in numerous digs at atheists in the process. Atheist love is inferior because atheists only love "family members, if that," whereas Christian love is universal. Atheist science is inferior because it is only limited to natural causes whereas Christians are able to see the "big picture" and God's hand in everything. At the end it seems clear that Dmitry Chernikov started out with the bigoted conclusion that atheists are inferior and proceeded to develop whatever arguments appeared to support what he wanted to "prove."