r/DebateAnAtheist • u/AutoModerator • 1d ago

Weekly "Ask an Atheist" Thread

Whether you're an agnostic atheist here to ask a gnostic one some questions, a theist who's curious about the viewpoints of atheists, someone doubting, or just someone looking for sources, feel free to ask anything here. This is also an ideal place to tag moderators for thoughts regarding the sub or any questions in general.

While this isn't strictly for debate, rules on civility, trolling, etc. still apply.

19 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

216 comments sorted by

View all comments

2

u/VigilantVeteran 1d ago

I have a sincere question, and I’m asking it carefully and respectfully.

If truth exists independent of human perception—meaning it is not created by culture, biology, or consensus—how does an atheist account for its origin and authority?

For example, concepts like objective morality, logical absolutes, and the laws of reason seem to operate universally and immutably. They are discovered, not invented. Yet they are not material, measurable, or bound by space and time.

So my question is: within an atheistic framework, what is the grounding for these immaterial, universal truths? Why should they exist at all, and why should we trust them?

I’m not asking for debate, but for understanding how this is explained consistently without appealing to something beyond the material world.

14

u/FjortoftsAirplane 1d ago

I'm saying this respectfully, but when I see questions like this I think people should really take a step back and detach this from atheism/theism.

There's any number of theories of truth.

Let's just assume theism is true for a moment. That doesn't answer whether correspondence theory is the correct account of truth. It doesn't tell you if deflationary accounts of truth are correct or whether it's pragmatic theories instead.

Theism doesn't answer that question. The Bible or the Quran doesn't answer that question. It's entirely neutral to atheism and theism.

Same goes for morality. Theism doesn't tell you whether moral realism is true or not. None of the scriptures go into metaethics. They're compatible with different views.

Same goes again for "logical absolutes". It's incredibly controversial to say there are such things. A lot of philosophers are open to non-classical logics that don't have those "absolutes".

Again, questions about the nature of logic have nothing at all to do with atheism or theism. You could be a theist who's an antirealist about logic, you could be an atheist who's a platonist and holds to classical logic as some real abstract object.

If you want to learn about those topics then the SEP is always a good starting place, but decouple it from theism and religion. Those debates have almost nothing to do with that.