A more sophisticated version is the idea that the existence of a god is the only explanation for objective morals and values. Thus atheists, even if they do not realize it, by denying a god also deny objective morality. Hastings Rashdall writes:
- On a non-theistic view of the Universe...the moral law cannot well be thought of as having any actual existence. The objective validity of the moral law can indeed be and no doubt is asserted, believed in and acted upon without reference to any theological creed; but it cannot be defended or fully justified without the presupposition of Theism.
Even some influential atheists like J. L. Mackie have agreed that if moral laws or ethical properties were objective facts then this would be a puzzling occurrence which would require a supernatural explanation. This version of the Moral Argument can be rejected on a number of points.
First, it has not been shown that ethical statements can only be objective if you presume theism. There have been a number of efforts to create naturalistic theories of ethics which in no way rely upon gods. Second, it has not been shown that moral laws or ethical properties are absolute and objective. Maybe they are, but this cannot simply be assumed without argument. Third, what if morals aren’t absolute and objective? This would not automatically mean we will or should descend into moral anarchy as a result. Once again, we have what is at best a practical reason to believe in a god regardless of the actual truth value of theism.
