GOD IS PHILOSOPHICALLY NECESSARY

I tried to argue that God is necessary in order to have objective moral values as opposed to moral-relativism, the predominant Western belief that morals are relative to our culture, upbringing, traditions, and feelings and therefore, they are always evolving along with the culture. This means that if incest is wrong today, it might be totally acceptable tomorrow.

The group leader retorted:

·       I am an atheist, but I too believe that morals can be objective and don’t need to base my moral absolutes on a mythical God for which there is no evidence.

I responded that I am glad that he does believe in moral absolutes, but that, as an atheist, he has no foundation for these beliefs. I tried to illustrate this problem. I pointed out that he too believes in the equality of all humans. However, without a firm basis, this belief cannot be sustained. This is because, without God, there is no reason to believe that we are all equal. Some are males, others females; some are healthy, some are not; some are kind, others are abusers. No equality!

The atheist reaffirmed his belief that he didn’t require God to believe in objective moral absolutes. He explained that the facts of science and nature provided an adequate basis for moral absolutes. His reasoning goes like this:

1.    Facts produce morality.

2.    The fact that water is necessary for human survival means that water is good. (Anything on which human survival depends is good.)

3.    Human survival is an adequate foundation for an objective moral system.

However, there are many problems with this formulation, for instance:

1.    The concept of the “good” has no independent existence in a godless world. Instead, billions of people have to create it, each contending for their own version of the “good.” Therefore, the atheist first has to prove that human existence is good. However, some people believe that there are too many people, and that we are destroying the environment. Therefore, some need to be eliminated. Then there is abortion. What makes it wrong? We kill animals. Why not humans? Others claim that the “good” requires suffering and even death. In conclusion, the atheist can offer no objective standard for morality. In contrast, only God can provide a sound foundation for the goodness of human survival.

2.    Facts do not produce values. Instead, they serve values. Only once we have a sound basis for the sanctity of human life can we call upon the facts of science to help us better serve humanity. Since human life is sacred (morality), science (facts) has a responsibility to find remedies for human suffering.

3.    What makes us more valuable than a cow or a mosquito? And valuable to whom? One cow is more valuable to another than is a human. Science cannot answer these questions of value/worth. Instead, it is the Bible that informs us of human sanctity and God’s surpassing love for humanity.

The atheist responded that the fact of our intelligence makes us more valuable than the cow or mosquito. We can formulate our values, but they can’t. However, this opens the door to other philosophical problems:

1.    Do we really know that cows do not have moral and values. It seems that many animals have been programmed to act in moral ways and to even experience grief.

2.    What scientific fact would base our value on our intelligence? Instead, this conclusion requires a prior value judgment. Again, it seems that facts and values (morals) are two different things, and this prevents us from deriving values from facts.

3.    If intelligence is the basis for human value, then this would make some humans more valuable than others. Goodbye to our belief in human equality and unalienable human rights!

To illustrate the problem of basing human worth upon intelligence (or upon the amount of any other quality), we would have no answer to give to the idealist Hitler who had been trying to construct the master race by eliminating inferior humans. What fact of science could we offer in defense of humanity? None!

Two common objections are raised against what I have written:

“The existence of God must first be proved!” For now, it is enough to simply demonstrate the necessity of God in order to have a coherent objective moral system.

“Theists disagree about the nature of both God and morality. Therefore, God cannot serve as the basis for an objective system of morality.” While this is a reasonable objection, it is a secondary to the question at hand – Is the concept of God necessary for an objective morality? To put it another way, the mere presence of disagreement doesn’t invalidate the concept itself. Scientists disagree about many things. However, their disagreement doesn’t mean that there isn’t a correct answer among them.

The reality of God is not only necessary for objective moral absolutes, He is also necessary for a material world – its fine-tuning, elegant, immutable, and universal laws of science, life, the cell, DNA, freewill, and consciousness. Physicist, philosopher, and professor, Paul Davies, concluded that chance events could not account for what he had been observing:

·       “Scientists are slowly waking up to an inconvenient truth – the universe looks suspiciously like a fix. The issue concerns the very laws of nature themselves. For 40 years, physicists and cosmologists have been quietly collecting examples of all too convenient “coincidences” and special features in the underlying laws of the universe that seem to be necessary in order for life, and hence conscious beings, to exist. Change any one of them and the consequences would be lethal. The crucial point is that some of those metaphorical knobs (of which there are 40) must be tuned very precisely, or the universe would be sterile. Example: neutrons are just a tad heavier than protons. If it were the other way around, atoms couldn’t exist, because all the protons in the universe would have decayed into neutrons shortly after the big bang. No protons, then no atomic nucleus and no atoms. No atoms, no chemistry, no life.”

He is also the One who gives our lives meaning. In short, everything depends upon Him, even our ability to formulate arguments to reject and denigrate Him.