THE MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF GOD

The moral argument for the existence of God is one of the most useful arguments. It goes like this:

1. Without God, moral absolutes can’t exist.
2. 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, had 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 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.

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.

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.

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, “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.

What then are these higher criteria? Are they just pragmatically derived or do we also judge our biochemical reactions, or do we also measure them against our foundational values? Both!

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, even our own lives. Nothing pragmatic about this!

Even the skeptic will tell himself, “I want to live altruistically.” However, to truly live altruistically 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.

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 waged 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 factors at play.

The same pertains to objective moral laws. Culture and psychology also impact the formation and expression of morality. However, these factors should not be allowed to 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.