George Pell on Morality without God
Pell argued that while atheists can behave morally, objective morality itself cannot be grounded without God.
George Pell consistently maintained that while individual atheists can and do act morally, the secular worldview cannot provide an adequate foundation for objective moral values. Without a transcendent source of moral authority, he argued, morality reduces to social convention, evolutionary instinct, or personal preference — none of which can bear the weight of genuine moral obligation.
Pell pointed to the history of the twentieth century as evidence for his claim. He argued that the great atheistic regimes — Soviet communism, Maoist China — demonstrated what happens when societies deliberately sever their connection to transcendent moral authority. While acknowledging that religious societies have also committed atrocities, he contended that these were betrayals of religious teaching, whereas secular atrocities were logical extensions of a worldview that places no constraints above human will.
In debates, Pell often pressed the point that atheists who affirm human rights and human dignity are, whether they know it or not, drawing on a moral inheritance shaped by centuries of Christian theology. The concept of the inviolable dignity of every human person, he argued, is a specifically Christian contribution to civilisation — one that cannot survive indefinitely once its theological roots are severed.
“Atheists can be good people. But they are living off the moral capital of a civilisation shaped by Christianity. The question is how long that capital will last.”