Must morality be rooted in the Bible, or more generally, in a worldview of faith, or does morality depend on “common sense”, as is the claim of “Humanist associations” and atheists belonging to different schools of thought? It boils down to the conflict between the spiritual worldview and the ideology of materialistic physicalism, embraced by the atheists. A scientific worldview cannot take into account moral, spiritual, and psychological factors, as reality is portrayed without relation to the human soul. It implies that the scientific paradigm is not quite adequate as a worldview on its own. For instance, medieval paintings have a value perspective in which important persons look larger than others. This is a moral perspective that is equally relevant as the optical perspective, and it is not a sign that medieval man was ignorant. Science and faith ought to be viewed as parallel worldviews that aren’t quite self-sustaining, in themselves, and therefore must be brought to completion by their counterpart.
The medieval painter wasn’t realistic in the optical sense, but neither are today’s scientistic materialists realistic in the moral sense. That’s why there is today no morality of the heart. People instead follow ideological tenets which they have programmed into their heads. This gives rise to an awkward and hypocritical ethics which is neither rooted in the heart nor in the instincts. The consequences are very destructive. For instance, empathy is today viewed as the function by which you donate money to the poor people of the world, to subsidize the growth of vegetative and meaningless human life. This is a robotic definition of empathy. In truth, empathy is the feeling you have for creatures in your vicinity, including your cat and your pot plants.
The distribution of material resources to people who don’t deserve it is by the atheists viewed as the epitome of goodness, which shows that physicalism and atheism cannot function as a groundwork of morality. The moral perspective becomes skewed, perverted, and robotic. The materialistic form of goodness has in the end evil consequences, because it is not founded in the heart, nor in our natural instincts. It is merely a product of the intellect. The foremost example is Marxism, which was created during an epoch in the 19th century when suffering due to poverty and inhumane working conditions was immense. The appalling situation was documented by Friedrich Engels and Charles Dickens.
But Marxist goodness was merely a product of the intellect. The ideal of goodness was “from each according to his ability, to each according to his needs”. Atheists, Socialists and Communists programmed this tenet into their heads, aiming to do good, but the result was the opposite. It gave rise to the greatest evil and suffering in world history. Many people still believe in this tenet in some form. According to the American Declaration of Freedom, every person should have equal opportunities to build a good life of their own, but they do not have the right to have all their needs satisfied, which is a Marxist doctrine. As soon as we program ideological tenets into our heads, and stop listening to our heart, we draw the wrong conclusions. Suddenly we start thinking that millions of Third World people have the right to immigrate to our country, and with time take over our country, causing the demise of our civilization. But if we listen to our heart, we realize that it’s not right to give away our country and undermine the civilization that we have inherited from our ancestors. The conclusion is that atheistic morals don’t work, because it is based on mere materialistic premises, just as Marxism.