The moral
argument for the existence of God is one of the most useful arguments. It goes
like this:
- Without God, moral absolutes can’t exist.
- Moral absolutes do exist.
Conclusion:
Therefore, God exists!
Premise #1: Without
God, moral absolutes can’t exist.
Does the rejection of God
also entail the rejection of any possible basis for objective moral truth?
Atheist and former president and CEO of the Center
for Inquiry, Ronald A. Lindsay, argues that we do not need God to be good.
However, he also understands that it is almost impossible to talk about being
good unless there already exists an objective good. What, then, can be the
basis of this objective good once God is rejected?
Can’t the objective moral
good be based upon certain facts like “pain is a bad thing…and people avoid
being in pain” or “well-being is a good thing?” Putting aside the question of
whether or not these “facts” are correct, Lindsey admits to another problem –
What is factually true doesn’t automatically mean that we ought to do something
about it. For example, the mere fact
that our neighbor is suffering doesn’t require us to do anything about it:
- The difficulty in deriving moral obligations directly from discrete facts about the world was famously noted by the eighteenth-century Scottish philosopher David Hume, who remarked that from a statement about how things are—an “is” statement—we cannot infer a moral norm about how things should be—an “ought” statement.
Lindsay concludes that we
cannot logically jump from a fact to a moral obligation: “An “is” statement and
an “ought” statement are distinct classes of statements.” Consequently, there
is no moral connection between what “is” to what “ought to be,” as there is no
moral connection between spilled milk and an obligation to clean it up.
Something – an absolute moral directive – is clearly missing from this
equation.
After surveying possible
foundations for objective moral truth, Lindsay admits:
- So secular attempts to provide an objective foundation for morality have been … well, less than successful. Does this imply we are logically required to embrace nihilism [the belief that there is no objective moral truth, but just personal inclinations]?
What then is Lindsay’s
solution for overcoming nihilism? It seems like more of the same. He claims
that “morality is neither objective nor subjective.” Well, what is it? It is
“intersubjective,” based upon another “fact” of our common human condition:
- We have vulnerabilities and needs similar to those of people who lived in ancient times and medieval times, and to those of people who live today in other parts of the world. The obligation to tell the truth will persist as long as humans need to rely on communications from each other. The obligation to assist those who are in need of food and water will persist as long as humans need hydration and nutrition to sustain themselves. The obligation not to maim someone will persist as long as humans cannot spontaneously heal wounds and regrow body parts. The obligation not to kill someone will persist as long as we lack the power of reanimation. In its essentials, the human condition has not changed much, and it is the circumstances under which we live that influence the content of our norms, not divine commands. Morality is a human institution serving human needs, and the norms of the common morality will persist as long as there are humans around.”
Admittedly, what Lindsay has
articulated represents our “norms of the common morality.” However, his
solution again wrongly assumes that
there is a moral bridge between the facts of our human condition and a moral
requirement that we take action to pursue the welfare of the human race.
Meanwhile, other atheists
have utterly abandoned the attempt to provide an objective basis for morality.
Atheist, humanist, and author of Humanist
Manifesto II, Paul Kurtz affirms that pragmatism is the “only” possible
justification for morality:
- How are these principles [of equality, freedom, etc.] to be justified? They are not derived from a divine or natural law nor do they have a special metaphysical [beyond the material world] status. They are rules offered to govern how we shall behave. They can be justified only by reference to their results. (“Understanding the Times,” 237)
While pragmatic, cost/benefit
thinking can serve to justify living morally, pragmatism can just as easily
serve evil. Serial killer, Ted Bundy, confessed to over 30 gruesome murders. He
explained his cost/benefit rationale before his execution:
- “Then I learned that all moral judgments are ‘value judgments,’ that all value judgments are subjective [it just depends on how you think about them], and that none can be proved to be either ‘right’ or ‘wrong’…I discovered that to become truly free, truly unfettered, I had to become truly uninhibited. And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these ‘others?’ Other human beings with human rights? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare that God or nature has marked some pleasures as ‘moral’ or ‘good’ and others as ‘immoral’ or ‘bad’? In any case, let me assure you, my dear young lady, that there is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me – after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.” (“Christian Research Journal,” Vol 33, No 2, 2010, 32)
Bundy’s life demonstrated
that pragmatism means different things to different people. In fact, it can be
argued that pragmatism’s cost/benefit analysis is the lens through which we can
best understand human history, not only its high points but also its low ones.
Consequently, pragmatism cannot serve as a replacement for objective moral
truths.
The
humanist Max Hocutt had aptly observed that pragmatism and its cost/benefit
analysis cannot fill the vacuum:
· “To me [the non-existence of
God] means that there is no absolute morality, that moralities are sets of
social conventions devised by humans to satisfy their needs…If there were a
morality written up in the sky somewhere but no God to enforce it, I see no
good reason why anyone should pay it any heed.” (David Noebel, Understanding the Times)
Besides, if an atheist truly
wants to live pragmatically, he will try out living as a Christian. Even
atheists admit that such a life offers many pragmatic benefits. Occasionally,
they will even confess, “I wish that I could have your faith.” However, in this
case, they claim that the truth has to take precedence over any benefits.
However, Lindsay argues that,
even if God does exist, he cannot rationally be the basis for objective moral
truth:
- …we cannot possibly rely on God to tell us what’s morally right and wrong. As Plato pointed out long ago in his dialogue Euthyphro, divine commands cannot provide a foundation for morality…Rules of conduct based on the arbitrary fiats of someone more powerful than us are not equivalent to moral norms. Moreover, it is no solution to say that God commands only what is good. This response presupposes that we can tell good from bad, right from wrong, or, in other words, that we have our own independent standards for moral goodness. But if we have such independent standards, then we don’t need God to tell us what to do. We can determine what is morally right or wrong on our own. https://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php/articles/5640
In Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates asks Euthyphro,
"Is the good loved by the gods because it is good, or is it good because
it is loved by the gods?" In the first instance, God becomes irrelevant
because the good exists apart from God. In the second instance, God’s love for
the good is arbitrary, and, therefore, it is not worthy of our moral
consideration.
Let me try to restate this: If God DISCOVERS morality, then God is less than the morality He discovers and is unnecessary; if God CREATES morality and then imposes it upon us, He is an arbitrary despot.
Let me try to restate this: If God DISCOVERS morality, then God is less than the morality He discovers and is unnecessary; if God CREATES morality and then imposes it upon us, He is an arbitrary despot.
What then is the solution? A
third option: Morality is not arbitrary or independent of God, because it finds
its origin within the Being of God. Besides, it is difficult to argue against
God as the Source of objective moral law in favor of our own moral conscience
or reason. This is because He has wired us with His own moral truths.
Therefore, our conscience and reason is a replica of His. Consequently, when we
deny God, we also deny our very nature, conscience and reason, created in His
likeness. Therefore, when we follow our God-given moral impulses, we are living
in harmony and peace with these implanted truths, a conclusion to which
Christianity’s pragmatic benefits serve as circumstantial evidence.
While many concede that
objective moral absolutes cannot exist without God, they will deny that moral
absolutes, like principles of justice, even exist. This brings us back into the
clutches of nihilism.
Premise #2: Moral
absolutes do exist.
This premise
is the battleground. How can we know that moral absolutes (moral laws) exist? We
know they exist the same way we know that other laws exist. We perceive them. However,
we perceive moral laws internally while we perceive the laws of science
externally. This means that its effects cannot be precisely measured and
calculated as can the effects of gravity. Instead, in order to prove the
existence of moral absolutes, we have to examine ourselves and human behavior.
C.S. Lewis
famously reasoned that making objective moral judgments is unavoidable:
·
Whenever
you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will
find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promises
to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining, “It’s not
fair.”
He might
claim that it is just his DNA reacting. However, according to Lewis, his
thinking and behavior betray something different:
·
If
we do not believe in decent behavior, why should we be so anxious to make
excuses for not having behaved decently? The truth is we believe in decency so
much—we feel the Rule of Law pressing on us so—that we cannot bear to face the
fact that we are breaking it, and consequently we try to shift the
responsibility. (Mere Christianity)
If the
skeptic truly didn’t believe in the objective moral truths, which he had
violated, he would simply answer, “Well, those are your values but not mine. You have no right to impose them on me.”
However, even the skeptic’s answer betrays the fact that even he believes in objective rights and wrongs. In what way? He shows no hesitation to accuse his accuser that he has “no right” to make his accusation.
However, even the skeptic’s answer betrays the fact that even he believes in objective rights and wrongs. In what way? He shows no hesitation to accuse his accuser that he has “no right” to make his accusation.
At this
point, the Darwinist might protest:
·
I
might react morally, but I know that
this reaction is not a product of some higher truth hanging out there
somewhere, but merely of the way that the forces of natural selection
biologically equipped our race. It’s no more than a knee-jerk. As a result, I
don’t see this as any proof of moral absolutes or that there’s a God who is
somehow setting the rules of the game. It’s just a matter of our wiring!
On the
contrary, it is far more than a mere knee-jerk reaction. Although the atheist
claims that there is no absolute basis for judgment, he too judges as if he
believes in absolute moral standards. Just
watch the atheist for five minutes, and you will see that he agrees that his
moral response is more than just a knee-jerk reaction. The atheist passes
judgments as quickly as the theist. When someone pushes him, he’ll want an
apology. He doesn’t say:
·
Although
I had this moral knee-jerk reaction, I can’t really hold you accountable for
pushing me, since there are no absolute moral truths, and therefore, there are no
objective rules of right and wrong which you have violated. So I have no objective
basis to judge your behavior. Therefore, I am sorry. It was just my DNA acting
up.
Instead, the atheist becomes indignant
and remains indignant long after the
knee-jerk reaction has passed, proving that he endorses the charge that he has been absolutely and objectively
wronged. It is this endorsement, and not merely a knee-jerk reaction, that
demonstrates that he too believes in an absolute moral law.
We all believe in objective moral law. While we might deny it with our
mouths, we affirm it with our behavior, which mocks our assertion that “morality
is just something we make up.”
If we deny objective moral law, then we have to admit that rape,
genocide, and torturing babies, although we might find these things
distasteful, are not objectively wrong. In fact, nothing can be objectively
wrong. It is also to admit that good and bad, just and unjust, exist only in
our own minds.
This is to condemn ourselves to a schizoid existence. While our heart
tells us that torturing babies is absolutely wrong, our minds tells us that
this belief is no more than a visceral reaction or a social creation.
Say “goodbye” to the hope of discovering a meaning
and purpose for life. In
a world that is bereft of moral absolutes, there is simply nothing to discover. In a mindless and meaningless universe, we
would have to make up our meaning, purpose, and morality and play
“make-believe” in opposition to our heart, which knows otherwise.
This was the subject of a
secular discussion group I just attended. One atheist stated:
- I don’t need a god to give me meaning. I find meaning when I see a mother with her baby and the love they share.
Perhaps he does “find
meaning,” but I also thought that there was something he failed to recognize.
Therefore, I responded:
- I think that you too acknowledge that life has a meaning apart from what we create for ourselves. You too don’t simply ascribe your compassion to meaningless bio-chemical internal reactions. Instead, just as a Christian would, you ascribe meaning to what your bio-chemically, materially induced feelings tell you. You see them pointing to something that transcends these reactions, which enlivens them with meaning.
Sadly, he ignored the
implications of my statement, claiming that I didn’t understand him.
His response is reflective of
atheists in general. They are unable to live consistently with the
materialistic implications of their beliefs that nothing has any inherent
meaning or objective moral significance. They are coerced to perceive meaning while
they deny its existence. They know
that there are objective moral laws and a higher meaning that define us, even
as they deny these truths.
Can blind naturalistic processes account for the moral law imprinted upon
our conscience? Can they account for the laws of science? No! All the laws,
whether moral or scientific, demonstrate an elegance, universality and
immutability, which point to a benign Designer.
We also observe that our internal moral law pays dividends. When we act
in concert with its demands, we are benefitted and tend to feel at peace. When
we humble ourselves to apologize, we feel relief even if the other party
refuses our apology. When we violate the moral law, we observe an inner
struggle to try to rationalize our bad behavior, even when we don’t believe
that this moral struggle is anything more than an outdated biochemical reaction.
Meanwhile, self-help groups teach their members to be grateful, but
grateful to whom? Well, just to be grateful. Just keep a journal and write down
all the things to be grateful about. Why? They recognize the presence of an
objective moral law.
They are also taught to forgive, but why? It pays psychological dividends, but is it right to forgive someone who has caused great harm? This question is not considered. Instead, in the world of “make-believe” values, we are told “just do it and stop asking questions about non-existent ultimate truth. It works, and that’s enough. Just do it!” This is schizophrenic, a separation of mind from heart.
They are also taught to forgive, but why? It pays psychological dividends, but is it right to forgive someone who has caused great harm? This question is not considered. Instead, in the world of “make-believe” values, we are told “just do it and stop asking questions about non-existent ultimate truth. It works, and that’s enough. Just do it!” This is schizophrenic, a separation of mind from heart.
Mental health professionals recognize that living in accordance with our
moral convictions is an important factor for mental health. Accordingly, Karen
Wright wrote:
· Eudemonia
refers to a state of well-being and full functioning that derives from a sense
of living in accordance with one’s deeply held values. (“Psychology Today,” May 2008, 76)
This is obvious. Even skeptics perceive this and are intent upon living
moral lives, even when they ascribe their moral programming to mindless evolution.
However, they too know that they are playing “make-believe.” They are intent to
live virtuously but doubt the objective existence of virtue. This leaves us
with the question: “Can virtuous living be sustained after it becomes crystal
clear that we don’t even believe that virtue exists apart from our own
thinking?”
Some, who realize this problem, resort to the idea that we must live
according to our nature. While there is some truth to this, our nature demands
scrutiny. Should we be “xenophobic” (fearful of strangers), selfish, vengeful, unforgiving,
or bitter merely because our nature has been “programmed” with these reactions?
Of course not! Instead, we understand that our basic reactions have to be
accepted or rejected based upon higher
criteria, our conscience.
Let me try to demonstrate this truth with a question. Why be altruistic?
For the atheist, the only possible answer is pragmatic. Altruistic behavior
works; it benefits the doer and also the recipients of altruism. It’s solely a matter
of cost/benefit analysis, but is it? Altruism is not just about positive
outcomes. It’s also about rock-solid convictions. Why? Altruism often requires
us to sacrifice for others, especially for our children, even our own lives.
Nothing pragmatic about this! Why then would we sacrifice ourselves? Because we
know that there are things more important than our own well-being – absolute moral
truths.
Even the skeptic will tell himself, “I want to live virtuously.” However,
to truly live this way requires him to relegate pragmatism to a lower position,
which he is willing to do. Why? Because he knows
that it is right to even sacrifice his life for the well-being of his
family! At his core, he therefore knows that objective moral absolutes exist
and that they trump pragmatic considerations. He knows that virtue exists even
as he verbally denies the existence of objective moral law.
Besides,
moral absolutes reflect elegance in design in the same way that the law of
gravity reflects elegance. When we wrong our wife, we feel guilty. When we
apologize, we feel relieved, knowing that we have done the right thing. When
she forgives, we feel restored, encouraged, and even that we have learned an
important lesson.
Even those
who have committed horrendous deeds recognize this elegant design. Was Bundy
tormented by his deeds? Did he eventually repent of them? We are informed that
he did. Similarly, even our legal system has a demonstrated high regard for
deathbed confessions. Why? Because our legal elites have noted a common pattern
– that we are so convinced of the truth of this moral law written on our
conscience that we experience an overwhelming need to set the record straight
as we face death. If instead we merely regarded these moral promptings as
biochemical reactions, why even bother with them when facing a more
overwhelming fate – death?
The common argument urged against
objective moral truth is the evident diversity of moral expression from culture
to culture. However,
I don’t think that this objection argues against the existence of moral
absolutes.
Let’s take
gravity as an example. We do not doubt that there is a very precise and elegant
law of gravitation that allows us to predict how it will impact an object.
However, there are many other factors that impact how gravity affects a
particular object – its mass, shape, atmospheric conditions and location
relative to other objects. For example, gravity will make certain objects rise,
like a helium balloon, and others to fall, relative to their weight in
comparison to the surrounding atmosphere. However, because of these variations,
we do not dismiss the existence of the law of gravitation. We simply acknowledge
that there are many other factors at play.
The same
pertains to objective moral laws. Culture and psychology also impact the
formation and expression of morality. However, these relative factors do not argue
against the existence of moral absolutes.
Conclusion: We acknowledge an objective moral law
in our heart and our actions, even when we do not want to. Although harder to
measure and predict, moral law is an inescapable reality, as real as gravity. While
the skeptic’s mouth might deny this reality, his heart disqualifies his mouth
and will not allow him to believe otherwise. Maybe there is a good reason to
believe what life coerces us to believe.
No comments:
Post a Comment