Destroying Secular Materialism (in 3 Minutes or Less)
Taking on cornball metaphysical arguments from randoms
Recently when scouring social media (great decision, I know), I read some random bloviator responding to an article about whether or not something is a sin:
“No, because sins don’t exist. Sin is not an ethical category. When you base your actions on Middle Eastern religious texts from thousands of years ago, you’re going to experience a lot of errors.”
Yeah… no. Here’s why this cornball, secular materialist1 response doesn’t work.
You’re stating—objectively—that objective violations of moral responsibility to other persons (i.e. “sin,” the other persons being human, divine, or otherwise) do not exist. Yet, you believe “errors” exist. Weird. Contradictions aside, how do you know this? Tell us what led you to that conclusion.
The typical chronological snobbery2 of 19th century Enlightenment-era thinkers doesn’t do anything here except offer empty negation. Why couldn’t ancient cultures have access to transcendent truth? What makes Middle Eastern people less worthy of respect as sources of ethical understanding than others? State your case.
Bad arguments like this are typical in atheist and naturalist worldviews. Wait, so there are objective ethical realities? Where did those come from?3 Natural processes? Give me a break. Naturalists can’t even account for consciousness without appealing to panpsychism or something that borrows from a theistic framework to account for nonphysical entities (Thanks, William Lane Craig).4
Thing is, sin does exist, regardless of your “categories.” And we all know it, or at least, live like it. Honestly, your neighbors and classmates and co-workers generally live with the moral impetus that certain activities are just totally off limits.5 To pull from William Lane Craig again:
“The point is that if there is no God, then objective right and wrong do not exist. As Dostoyevsky said, ‘All things are permitted.’ ”6
At bottom, natural materialist worldviews must admit morality as an emergent quality—something that’s come as a subjective, evolutionary byproduct of our history. Thankfully, we have a perfectly reasonable Source of Reality as the sufficient explanation for all we see, can’t see and can’t understand, including our intrinsic sense of objective moral duty. Coolest part: that explanation is a Person with a Name, the highest Name of all. Jesus.
And so, to the dude who thought he was getting a W by dunking on ignorant Christians online, I give this advice:
When you base your actions on dead 19th century German thinkers and xenophobic postmodern exceptionalism, you’re going to experience a lot of errors.
For a helpful starting point on these terms from a Biblical worldview, see Ministries, L. (2026, June 16). What are atheism and secularism? Ligonier Ministries. https://learn.ligonier.org/articles/field-guide-on-false-teaching-atheism-secularism
Famously coined by Lewis. See Lewis, C. S. (1966). Surprised by joy: The Shape of My Early Life. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. pp. 207-208.
Koukl, G. (n.d.). Naturalism: Bumping into Reality. Stand to Reason. Retrieved July 19, 2026, from https://www.str.org/w/naturalism-bumping-into-reality#_ednref1
Lane Craig, W. (n.d.). Does God Exist? Reasonable Faith. Retrieved July 19, 2026, from https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writings/popular-writings/existence-nature-of-god/does-god-exist1
For example, you (and your rude neighbor who lives across the street) would both agree that some aimless yahoo named Bart breaking into your car and joyriding it off to Haynesville, Louisiana to start a new life would be objectively wicked and messed up. Especially if it was filled with homemade salted caramels. The nerve, Bart.
Craig, W. L. (2015). On guard for students: A Thinker’s Guide to the Christian Faith. David C Cook. p. 24.