It’s time to introduce a brand new series on the argument of morality for God. This series is going to take a hard look at the argument and its objections. In Pt.1, we need to set the ground.
The argument of morality is one that has been a hot topic for many. The question is, if an objective moral law exists, where does that law come from? The theistic answer is this:
1) If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values do exist.
3) Therefore God exists.
This is a subject I’ve been studying for quite some time now, examining the explanations of all sides. During the length of the series, I’m going to avoid the theistic answer and place it as my last resort. But before we can examine arguments, we need to set the stage.
Do objective morals exist?
Already this is a controversial question. When I’d asked atheists their views on the argument, every single one responded with a no. Richard Dawkins, for example, once said,
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.“
With this in mind, any morality we may hold is purely subjective and is based on man’s overall collective agreement. The arguments of moral subjectivity and moral relativity will be addressed in detail in the following entries, but this answer already raises some questions. When the atheist says morality is purely subjective, does that mean it’s all based on mere opinion and feeling (if that is to be the case, there is no right and wrong), or is the answer more closely related to the subjective application of objective moral truths.
To give an example, lying by itself is objectively held as wrong, however, when certain circumstances and events come into play, lying can be seen as the right thing to do. Take the story of Rahab in the Bible for instance. Rahab was protecting Israeli spies from being found and murdered. In the Bible, she lied in order to protect the spies whom she was harbouring in her home. She wasn’t wrong in doing this, in fact, God saw it as an act of loyalty.
So does the atheist’s answer confuse subjective morality with a subjective application? Let’s go back to the act of lying, isolated from any circumstances or events. If I wanted to lie simply for the fun of it, is that seen as objectively wrong? Yes. What if we take it a step further and look at the act of murder. While I myself am against murder as an act of self-defense, it’s held by the majority that in an act of self-defense one can take action, and if need to, lethal action. But if I wanted to murder for the fun of it, could that be seen as ok? Absolutely not. If I took any questionable action and added the phrase “For the fun of it,” to the end, there is no question to my actions. They are plain wrong, and no culture disagrees with this. So it’s reasonable to conclude objective moral truths exist. The question is, where do they come from?
Do objective moral truths come from the Bible?
If you ever come across a youtube channel called The Atheist Voice, the video that first comes up on their homepage is titled,”15 Things Christians Should Never Say to Atheists.” What is the first thing a Christian shouldn’t say? “Where do you get your morality from?” The atheist in the video, Hemant Mehta, answers it this way: “Don’t assume that because we’re atheists, we don’t have morals. We all have morals, we all have ethics, ours don’t derive from a holy book, and I hope your Bible isn’t the only reason you’re not out there killing everybody in sight.”
I found this to be a strange answer as it avoids the question altogether and pounces instead on a false theological concept, that is, we get our morality solely from the Bible. The first thing I’d point Mr. Mehta to would be Abraham’s words in Genesis 18:25, when he first learned of God’s intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah. “Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly?” Abraham never had the Bible, nor the OT, so how did Abraham know what was right and wrong? How did he know justice required that God would not treat the wicked and righteous alike? The answer is found in Romans 2: 14-15, “For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the mean while accusing or else excusing one another.” God created in us a moral compass that points us to what is right and wrong (this will be examined further in Euthyphro’s Dilemma).
Because of this, atheists can be and are very moral people. Belief in God or direction from the Bible does not come into play as He’s inscribed His law in everyone. The Bible simply confirms it. The question asked in the video (where does that compass come from?) was avoided entirely.
This is the theistic argument of morality, but is it right? Is it the only way to answer this trying question? We’ll examine one of the major arguments against the theistic answer in Pt. 2. The nihilistic argument.