I found a response that I had made three years ago to the same-named article in Front Page magazine (https://www.frontpagemag.com/world-without-god-mark-tapson/). I felt it was worth reposting with some minor editing.
You forget one important thing. For a rational code of ethics and virtue to exist, the fundamental structure of creation must support it or it is not rational, but merely subjectivity posing in its skin. That implies consistency across all aspects of reality, since for rational deduction to reach anything as complex as a code of ethics the subsequent morality requires it or as Einstein said, God does not throw dice. You make an assumption that this complex consistency that supports rationality in all its endeavors is an accident, otherwise it had a designer/creator which you reject. There is no other option! I would argue that the fundamental a priori of all argument begins with God/not God, designer/creator vs. accident. It is an axiom of rational argument that this fundamental a priori is a matter of faith, whichever side you choose. The ONLY thing you can argue is inconsistency in the development of the resultant arguments. One cannot state the a priori is wrong, since it is a matter of faith and fundamentally not provable, especially regarding the not God premise. The God premise is provable if He chose to reveal himself in a way that is undeniable and because of that you have to logically agree it negates the not God premise. That leaves you with a conundrum. You cannot by reason or logic absolutely prove your position (not God) is right, while the “God is” person always has the hope he will be proven right by God revealing himself, which Paul in Romans chapter one argues God has done well enough that mankind is without excuse. This is supported in Psalms 14:1; 53:1 where it states, “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.”
This brings us to your argument (Mark Tapson in the Frontpage article) that “morality of altruism, the morality of self-sacrifice and self-immolation, which is the morality of Jesus Christ, is incompatible with the requirements of living life on earth successfully.” First off, let me say that I reject your definition of altruism as it is a self-serving distortion that bears little resemblance to the legitimate meaning. It actually means “a concern or regard for the needs of others, entirely without ulterior motive.” What Jesus did was in no way altruism and your lack of theological understanding and your self-serving definition has lead you down a decidedly wrong path of reasoning. Jesus absolutely had an ulterior motive for everything he did. While it is true, that the root meaning of biblical love (agape) is self-sacrifice, it is nothing like you suppose. It is the imparting of worth to the worthless, giving meaning to those who have none, all done for the purpose of redeeming the fundamental brokenness of creation brought about by the corruption of sin that broke absolutely everything, subjecting ALL of creation to futility, to meaninglessness, as death entered into its core.
You look at a broken creation and think that is what it was meant to be. Because of that, you define successful living on earth using a distorted ruler, a broken logic, which leads to nothing of lasting value or meaning. You have hitched your wagon to a dead end, to nothing going nowhere. Whether you know it not, you have fallen into the epicurean fallacy from which there is no meaning other than that of the moment, the lack of pain or the experience of pleasure, with the insecure possibility of experiencing more tomorrow, for which there is no guarantee. So now is all you have, and it can be stolen at any moment by an infinite number of events, rendering only this moment’s pleasure or lack of pain as meaningful…then its gone and you have no guarantee that you will get another.
This is a hopeless, meaningless existence. Something to be pitied, not celebrated. It is truly sad to be nothing more than a wisp of smoke, gone in a moment as if you never were. Unless…if I am correct and God is, then you are in serious trouble, as Pascal’s wager illustrates. You have gained nothing of substance and lost everything for all the rest of time and eternity. You have rejected hope, the only hope that could be because not God has none, zero, nada. It is the complete rejection of hope. You have chosen a lie that is without meaning, a deception built on a lie that has left you bereft of the purpose of being. I am sorry for you, but you have made your bed of smoke and you must lie in it or should I say, dissipate along with it.