The Hubris to Judge: Moral Relativism and Secularism

 

The more Western culture rejects its Christian roots, the more we will hear disparaging remarks like:

·       The Bible is no basis for morality. Just look at the treatment of gays, women, and the Canaanites. The Bible should not be taken seriously by anyone!

In effect, they are saying:

·       The Bible does not agree with our modern norms and values. Therefore, it is wrong and must be rejected.

Instead of the Bible, the current norms have become the new authority and every other religion or value system must be measured against these current norms. If they fall short, then they must be rejected.

This “tyranny of modernity” is no less dogmatic than the values that they seek to replace and, in many cases, it is more intolerant. Just look at a recent Federal decision to criminalize schools that forbid a boy, if he deems himself “transgendered,” to enter a girl’s bathroom. The entire school is made to conform to the whims of one child. Reasonable? Not in the slightest!

This cultural/moral relativism is unreasonable in many ways. For one thing, this philosophy is a denial of any higher, absolute values. Instead, relativists claim that morality is just something that we create. And yet, they will defend their decisions by invoking an appeal to innate human rights – that Transgenders have an innate human right to choose any bathroom that feels right to them.

Well, what gives them this human right if there is no higher objective law to which we must adhere? If instead morality is subjective – just something that we create – how then is it possible to appeal to the higher principle of an intrinsic human right when, according to their own assessment, none actually exist.

If there is no God to confer human rights, based upon His overriding concern for humanity, then “human rights” is just an idea that we create, and if we create it, we can just as easily retract it. Consequently, “human rights” are just a useful and temporary tool to argue for our own set of non-existent rights.

In fact, such human rights advocates acknowledge that the values of society are evolving. Therefore, this made-up concept of “human rights” is also evolving. But if it is evolving and based on nothing more than societies passing whims, then on the basis of what can the relativists claim that the morality of the Bible is wrong? All they can coherently say is that the Bible violates their own created standards.

It is like grading a math exam and failing certain students despite the absence of and  correct answers. As the teacher needs correct answers in order to fairly and objectively grade an exam, the relativist also needs objectively correct moral laws to judge the Bible. However, they admit that they lack such a thing. Instead, they admit that they judge by a relative and subjective standard of their own liking.

It’s equivalent to the teacher saying, “I don’t have any correct answers, but I will fail you anyway!” This is the predicament of the relativist. He wants to judge, but with only his own arbitrary and subjective answers, he knows that he cannot judge.

It would be one thing to say, “I don’t like the morality of the Bible.” Logically, at least, that statement is acceptable. However, when the relativist charges that the morality of the Bible is wrong because it doesn’t conform to his subjective, relativistic, and evolving standards, he is acting illogically. If his moral standards are merely something that he created, he has no right to insist that others conform to them!

If fact, if  morality is just something that is humanly created, then they cannot coherently criticize anyone, not even Hitler, Stalin, and Pol Pot.

Of course, the moral relativist will not admit that his subjectivism has placed him outside of the realm of responsible moral discussion. Therefore, the Christian should remind him:

·       You cannot make objective critiques of the Bible’ standards once you have rejected objective moral law and are left with only your own created standards.

Naturalistic Evolution and its Impact on Morality

What is the necessary impact of naturalistic evolution on morality? Evolutionist George Simpson affirmed:

·       Man is the result of a purposeless and natural process that did not have him in mind.  He was not planned.  He is a state of matter, a form of life, a sort of animal…

Here are some moral implications to such a worldview:

1. If we are animals, then there is no reason to not treat us as animals. We cage animals and use them for experimentation. Why not also humans?

2. If we are just “a state of matter,” this deprives us of any dignity as humans. As such, we are just sophisticated wet machines. What happens when a machine no longer has a socially recognized use? It is thrown onto a junk heap.

3. If we are just the “result of a purposeless and natural process,” there is no intrinsic meaning or value to our lives. We therefore, do not have unalienable rights based upon the fact that we are created in the image of God. And without these rights, we have no intrinsic protections, but what society might temporarily grant.

4. If we have evolved, then some are more evolved than others. This has and will inevitably give rise to racism and its ill-effects.

Without God, there is absolutely no basis for objective moral law. Consequently:

1. We no longer can make any substantive moral judgments on anything, since we cannot say that there is any moral truth that judges rape, genocide, kidnapping… We cannot even say that ISIS’ conduct is wrong!

2. Psychologically, we condemn ourselves to a schizoid existence. In our heart, we know that rape is wrong, but in our mind, we believe that morality is just something that is made up.

3. We have deprived ourselves of our common moral language. There is no adequate way to determine who or what is right. We cannot blame our husband for beating us up, since, for him, the assault felt right. This will alienate people and undermine society.

4. Without objective morals, there can be no objective purpose to life. Therefore, purpose and meaning is something that is just subjective and will change as our feelings change. Our lives therefore are without stability and definition. Life then is reduced to the sensuous and the immediate where virtue can have little role to play.

5. We no longer have an adequate rationale to stand against our anti-social impulses. Why resist selfishness and why deprive ourselves if selfishness is just an idea we made up? Why resist hate and revenge if we think we can get away with it?

The Proof of God from Evil

Does the presence of evil discount the existence of a good and omnipotent God? No! Actually, the presence of evil proves the existence of God! Here’s how the argument goes (I thank W.L. Craig for this):

1.     Evil Exist

2.     Evil (and objective moral truths/laws) cannot exist without an objective basis for evil – God!

3.     God must exist!

The fact that evil exist is self-evident. However, premise #2 requires a little explanation. Without an immutable, universal, all-wise, and good God, objective evil cannot exist. If there is nothing greater than the human being, then there is nothing greater than their millions of differing moral opinion, and there is nothing to make my opinion any more correct than yours. Consequently, there is no objective standard by which we can say genocide and sex slavery is wrong.

Also, if morality doesn’t have an immutable source, then it changes and cannot be taken seriously. If you tell me that rape is wrong, I can simply respond, “Maybe not next year!”

If the source is not universal, then we encounter other absurdities. If murder is wrong here but not in Hawaii, I can go to Hawaii if I want to murder. In any event, a moral law that is not universal is laughable.

Also, if the moral law is not given by a good and all-wise God, then there is little reason to follow it apart from rewards and punishments – something that can only breed cynicism. Consequently, God must exist if evil and objective moral law exist.