The Moral, the Existential, and the Ontological
Part 10, Nothing You Say Is True
In 2023 I shared a post lamenting what I described as "sentimental nihilism." The topic of that post, and what triggered my lament, concerns the subject of this series.
As I described it, there are many ex-Christian people who continue to embrace the role and mantle of social justice "prophet." That these ex-Christians continue to embrace the Judeo-Christian ethic regarding concern for the oppressed shouldn't be a surprise. Most ex-Christians reject Christianity on very Christian grounds. That is, in fact, one of their chief complaints, how Christians are not very Christian.
Using the framework of this series, these ex-Christians continue to embrace the moral and political layer of Christianity. They don't, generally, become Nietzschean or acolytes of Ayn Rand. As I said, their rejection of Christianity tends to be very moralized and politicized. What is making these people ex-Christian isn't moral or political but their jettisoning of the ontological layer, a rejection of Christian metaphysics as being Real or True. The moral and political commitments related to social justice and creation care are retained, but dogmatic metaphysical convictions are rejected.
This, however, is an untenable situation. As I've put it, these are prophets who no longer believe in the Lord. Moral realism, the heart and soul of prophetic criticism, is incompatible with post-modernism. You can't be dogmatic about your moral convictions while at the same time being undogmatic about the ontological truth behind those convictions. Prophets are not post-modernists. You can't be a prophet and a nihilist at the same time. Simply put, if you want to speak truth to power you need to believe in truth. This isn't rocket science.
All this is why I described the moral convictions of these ex-Christian prophets as "sentimental." Since their moral convictions no longer reflect anything Real or True, given how Christian metaphysics has been deconstructed and rejected, prophetic outcry has been reduced to expressions of personal sentiment. Severed from the True, moral speech no longer traffics in obligating and universal duties but becomes an expression of your preferences. Where prophets once roared "Thus saith the Lord!" in the face of oppression and injustice, the best the ex-Christian prophet can offer is, "I'd rather you not do that."
Now, the ex-Christian prophet might respond, "This is unfair. I can justify my moral commitments without appeal to Judeo-Christian metaphysics." To which I'd respond: Show me. Show me how you can justify your very particular vision of moral realism without any appeal to ontological commitments that look suspiciously similar to the Judeo-Christian commitments (e.g., people are created in the image of God, care for the weak is an obligating duty, etc.). Of course, if you wanted to take up this challenge here it is in full:
1. Moral particularity
Why this value and not another? That is, you want to proclaim particular values--like "We must care for the weak" or "First do no harm"--over against other particular values. This work is responding to the Nietzschean criticism that the Christian ethic of love is a "slave morality" and should be replaced with a "will to power" where the strong lord over the weak. In short, there are many different values at large in the world--for example, "care for the weak" versus "lord over the weak"--and you must justify your particular values from all the available options.
2. Moral realism
Beyond the particular content of your values you need to justify why these values are universally obligating, why these values are not your personal opinion or subjective preference. In short, you need to defend the moral realism of your values, why your values are true.
3. Eschewing Ontological and Metaphysical Appeals
Next, you'll have to justify the particular content of your values (why these values and not others) and the realism of your values (why these values are obligating and true) without any appeal to metaphysics, reality, or ontology. You'll have to defend the content and realism of your values on a purely post-modern and nihilistic foundation.
4. Extrinsic to Judeo-Christianity
Finally, you'll have to do all this without trading on Judeo-Christianity metaphysics and ontology. For example, you can't justify care for the weak by claiming that people possess "innate worth and dignity." That would be smuggling into your argument the Judeo-Christian conviction that human persons were made in the image of God. If you want care for the weak to be your value you have to justify that value with reasons extrinsic to Judeo-Christianity.
I'm confident that every ex-Christian prophet would fail at this task. As I put it above, you can't be a prophet who no longer believes in the Lord. The moral layer must be connected to the ontological. Judeo-Christian metaphysics is integral to the Judeo-Christian moral vision. You can't have one without the other.
And if you think you can, well, I’ve offered my challenge. Show us. Otherwise, admit that your prophetic performance on social media is really just that, performative. Because, by your own admission, nothing you say is true.
⸻
It seems odd to chastise people who have kept the moral core of Christianity while discarding what they can no longer affirm about metaphysics. Why is that not enough? History shows us that millions who affirm the creeds live lives of cruelty, indifference, or hypocrisy. By contrast, many who reject “ontology” are nonetheless deeply faithful to the practical heart of the Gospel: defending the vulnerable, speaking truth to power, caring for creation.
You say morality without metaphysics is “sentimental,” but morality is also embodied. It is enacted in what people do, how they treat their neighbor, how they respond to suffering. That lived reality is more consequential than whether someone’s metaphysical framework passes your test.
Yes, values need grounding. But grounding does not only flow from abstract ontology—it can flow from shared human experience, empathy, historical memory, even the sheer recognition of suffering. To suggest that only Judeo-Christian metaphysics can sustain moral realism is to overlook the countless moral traditions—Confucian, Buddhist, Indigenous, Enlightenment humanist—that have produced coherent, demanding, and enduring visions of the good.
In the end, someone who lives with compassion and justice but doubts the metaphysical claims of Christianity is not a nihilist. They are not “performing.” They are living out convictions in a costly way, which is more than can be said for many who can recite “Thus saith the Lord” without lifting a finger for the oppressed.
I understand that it all gets relative when there is not truth to stand on. However, my question is... Can we not say that there is a God, Jesus being in union with God, that points the universal way of living? How much ontology does one need ? Deconstruction does not need to lead to being an atheist...at least for me, it led to rejecting the" inerrancy" that the fundamentalists taught, and being open to symbolism, allowing myself to see salvation, or the virgin birth, or the old testament in new ways...and allow for myths and stories that may lack the science we know today to teach truth.