Knowing God: 5 - The Moral Argument

The Moral Argument

Through God's General Revelation (creation) we have seen that God must exist. But this author contends people already know this... Honest scientific inquiry strongly suggests that a Creator is necessary to explain reality -- but atheist scientists deny the evidence before them… Why do they deny what they know to be true?  

"Every man's conscience is a thousand swords" 

~ William Shakespeare, Richard III Act V Scene 2

God tells us why

Psalm 14:1; 53:1 Fools say in their hearts, There is no God. They are corrupt and do evil things; not one of them does anything good.  HCSB

Without God, Who Decides?

A guilty conscience leads people of all vocations to rationalize their behaviors by "changing" their beliefs to avoid cognitive dissonance.  This is merely a form of suppression of the truth that lies within every person's heart.  Even the most rabid atheist cannot deny there is an overriding sense of "right and wrong" in many of life's situations.  This "moral necessity" cries out for an explanation from the materialists.

• Without God…. What is right and wrong? And who decides?
• In a materialist world, right and wrong is decided by the Golden Rule: "He who has the gold makes the rules." 

In this excellent video series entitled "True U - Does God Exist?: Building a Scientific Case" the need for a moral code and the failures of modern "relativistic morality" are examined in some depth.

Dr. Stephen Meyer, "True U - Does God Exist?:  Building the Scientific Case"  © Ligonier Ministries  Tyndale House Publishers, ISBN  9781589973398  Used by permission of Ligonier Ministries. All rights reserved. 

Moral Necessity - Introduction

Moral Necessity - Appealing to a Standard

Moral Necessity - Defining a Moral Code

Moral Necessity - The Relativistic Argument

Moral Necessity - Relativistic Morality Fails

Moral Necessity - Darwinian Morality

Moral Relativism is Self Defeating

“Right” and “Wrong” don’t make sense without a Law Giver who established the boundaries and sets the standards.  If God is “dead” all things are permissible.  People who claim God is unnecessary to establish a firm moral code have to borrow from religious philosophies.  Materialism cannot provide any moral guidance.  

Pantheism has no answers

• Since there are no dualisms, ultimately all things “are one” and distinctions are illusory
• Since we are all just part of one big "god", we are all the same and differences such as "good" and "evil" are just an illusion in your mind (oh wait, you don't have a mind, we all share one mind). 

 Materialism has no answers

• It is argued that we are not “free moral agents” 
• Therefore, without free will ,“Ought” is meaningless because no one can freely “choose” to do good or evil.
• How then, can anyone complain of good or evil, fair or unfair? 
• How can anyone judge anything you do since you are simply a product of nature and society?
• In fact, there is nothing you can do that would not be considered "normal".

 Deism has no answers 

• No absolute standards exist, and there would be no reason to follow them anyway. 
• Rules are derived from “reason”, which is often flawed.

 What would an objective moral code look like?  It would have:

• A transcendent standard
• The freedom to choose right or wrong
• The intrinsic value of human beings.

The Axiological (Moral) Argument

There is an objective moral code, and this can be deduced logically. Here is the syllogism:

1 - If God does not exist, then no objective moral values or duties exist 

 

2 - Objective moral values and duties do exist

   

3 - God must exist

Given the conclusion God must exist, there is a superintending moral code reflected by the nature of a transcendent God.  This makes the moral code objective and not situational.  How does this work?

1 - If God does not exist, then no objective moral values or duties exist 

Atheistic approaches to morals are arbitrary and based on preference or “the Golden Rule”

2 - Objective moral values and duties do exist

Everybody acts "as if" there are moral values and that these values are absolute. All people agree that "whatever harms or offends me is evil". What people do not agree upon, is how to apply this rule universally between different individuals who, having the same belief, cannot apply it the same way. 

No person can practically live in any form of society without some agreed upon moral code of behavior. Everyone demands moral absolutes when it comes to them personally.  And, everyone wants to be judged by their intentions, not their actions!  "I want credit for the thought or the effort despite the fact that I hurt you...."  

So in reality moral relativism is bankrupt - it's practitioners want to enjoy the benefits without paying the real world costs.  They argue they should be able to do whatever they want but anyone else "doing what they want" that offends, hurts, restricts, compels the moral relativist is suddenly assaulted with absolutes:  "You can't do that to me!".   Moral relativism only works in thought experiments in people's imaginations.

The Necessity of a Moral Lawgiver

Could you ever trust a morally relativistic person?  Would they keep their promises?  Would they always tell the truth?  Would they always be honest in their business dealings?  Would they ever risk their reputations, finances or physical safety to do the "right" thing?   How could anyone ever really "depend" on someone that truly lives according to a relativistic (situational and always changing) moral code?  There are examples in history of people who lived morally relativistic lives and their biographies are pathetic.

As much as moral relativists may posture that this philosophy is viable, it is easy to experimentally test their worldview.  Steal their car or their wallet, or punch them in the nose and you will begin to hear a number of compelling "absolutist" arguments why what you just did is "wrong"!  Everyone knows from their inner mind they are accountable to a real, permanent, unchanging, fair set of rules, and we reflexively appeal to this set of rules when we perceive we are being treated "unjustly".

The Bible teaches that man is flawed; it acknowledges man has free will, and therefore will make bad decisions at times.  There must be both a Law Giver and absolute standards or no person will have the incentive to obey what they perceive as an arbitrary or unreasonable moral code.  Man instinctively knows there must be justice for evil and cruelty - even the most despicable person seeks to justify their actions against a higher universal standard.

There is an Objective, Universal Moral Standard and it is Perfect and Unchanging

Psalm 119:89 Forever, O LORD, Your Word is settled in heaven.  HCSB

Psalm 119:105-106 Your Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.  I have sworn and I will confirm it, that I will keep Your righteous ordinances  HCSB

Leviticus 26:3-4 If you walk in My statutes and keep My commandments so as to carry them out, then I shall give you rains in their season, so that the land will yield its produce and the trees of the field will bear their fruit.  HCSB

<<   Knowing God: 4 - The Teleological Argument

>>   Knowing God: 6 - God is Eternal and Self-Existent

For more articles related to Christian Apologetics, see:

Why Engage in Apologetics?

Is Something Right Because It's Legal?

Faith or Materialism: Which is More Rational?

The Contingency Argument for the Existence of God

The Design Argument for the Existence of God

The Kalam Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God

The Failure of the Materialist Worldview

_____________________

DVD excerpts from purchased DVD,  TrueU: Does God Exist? by Dr. Stephen Meyer. © Ligonier Ministries  Tyndale House Publishers, ISBN  9781589973398  Used by permission of Ligonier Ministries. All rights reserved.

Scripture citations are from:  Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) © 2009 Holman Bible Publishers, Nashville TN or New King James Version®. (NKJV) Copyright © 1982 by Thomas Nelson