When atheists (materialists) object to the theistic view of morality, saying that they can behave morally without needing a “god” or a “holy book” to tell them so, they miss the entire point of the debate. The question isn’t whether people can or do behave in moral ways (at least in terms of our collective idea of basic morality), but what is the justification for doing so? I can give a starving person a piece of bread and some water and be “moral” without believing in God, but what’s that to me? Why should I, a bag of molecules, give my aid to another bag of molecules that has no particular usefulness or relationship to me?

No explanation of the why behind morality has been given within a materialist framework that is satisfying. Oh, loads of people have tried, and usually it involves some kind of mumbo jumbo about game theory and selfish genes. The problem is that none of these quirky theories actually mirror the way people really behave and the reasons they themselves come up with for doing moral acts.

Most people do things they believe are right because they are the right things to do (in their minds). Right and wrong are abstract concepts that are completely divorced from the chemical composition of our brains, the organization of our genes, electrical impulses, who our parents are, matter, energy, or anything else. Right and wrong are ideas, and ideas aren’t material — which is why many materialists have become spiritualists (usually theists) after years of wrangling with these fundamental questions. You just can’t squeeze morality out of matter, no matter how hard you try.