|
In the first article we looked at
the Argument from Causality and concluded
that “that only an eternal, personal God could have
brought the universe into being.” Then we looked at the
Argument from Design and Purpose
(Teleology) and concluded that “our universe
and our world show such evidence of wonderful and
intricate design that they must have been designed by
the eternal, personal God indicated by the previous
argument from causality.” Now we look at the Argument
from Morality.
Does God Exist? Part 3:
The Argument from Morality
The universality of moral obligation
All human beings have a definite sense of right and
wrong, even if they disagree over whether some
particular actions are right or wrong.
So it is a fact of life that human beings have a clear
awareness of moral obligation. Actions such as murder,
theft and rape are regarded as wrong. If there is a
minority who feel no guilt about murder, theft or rape,
then these people will have a sense of justice and right
and wrong with respect to how they themselves are
treated. Selfish though this is, it is another evidence
of the universality of a sense of moral obligation, as
is the fact that the rest of humanity will disapprove of
this minority.
There is a “givenness” about moral obligation. It is
such a dominant fact of human experience that to deny it
defies credibility. Some people have denied that there
is an objective world out there, putting it all down to
subjective impressions. But no-one is likely to act on
that theory in practice! Similarly, some philosophers
say that morality is subjective but they live their
lives as if it were objective.
Even those who deny there are objective (universally
binding) moral principles, still believe they must
follow their own conscience and that it is wrong
deliberately and knowingly to go against it. This itself
is a moral absolute – a universally binding moral
principle! We feel bound to do certain things and to
avoid doing others.
The cause of universal moral obligation
There seem to be four main suggested causes for this
remarkable universal moral obligation:
1.
It simply emerged through natural
selection
But how can such an exalted reality as human moral
obligation emerge simply from material creation? As
someone put it: “How could the primordial slime pools
gurgle up the Sermon on the Mount?” Morality exists only
on the level of human personality, not on the level of
the inorganic or non-human.
Some have claimed that it has developed from the drive
to self preservation which is inherent to natural
selection. Michael Ruse, an agnostic philosopher of
science, writes: “The position of the modern
evolutionist is that . . . morality is a biological
adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth.
Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims
about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I
appreciate that when somebody says 'Love thy neighbour
as thyself,' they think they are referring above and
beyond themselves. Nevertheless, such reference is truly
without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival
and reproduction . . . and any deeper meaning is
illusory. (“Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,”
in “The Darwinian Paradigm,” London, Routledge, 1989,
pp. 262-269).
But such a deterministic, materialistic view is very
difficult to relate to the heights of human morality
(such as the Sermon on the Mount) and to the widespread
experience of human compassion and altruism.
Richard Dawkins recognises the result of such genetic
view of morality when he writes: “My own feeling
is that a human society based simply on the gene’s law
of universal ruthless selfishness would be a very nasty
society in which to live. But unfortunately, however
much we may deplore something, it does not stop it being
true... Be warned that if you wish, as I do, to build a
society in which individuals cooperate generously and
unselfishly towards a common good, you can expect little
help from biological nature. Let us try to teach
generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish.”
(“The
Selfish Gene,” Oxford University Press
(1989), p3).
Those who deny that there is an objective, universal
moral obligation because, they say, morality emerged
from material creation, should remember that the mind
developed in the same way. If we trust the rationality
of the human mind as universally and objectively valid,
why should we not trust the equally strong, universal
sense of right and wrong in the same way?
2.
It simply emerged from human
aspirations
Some claim that morality emerged merely from human
desires, for example a desire to develop one’s nature.
But this raises important issues:
a.
How can the observed universal moral obligation emerge
merely from individual human desires?
b.
How can I obligate myself in such an absolute way when
it is simply based on my desires, and I could decide to
change those desires?
c.
What if I don’t want to develop my nature?
d.
What if I deem it my nature to dominate others or even
to be violent?
e.
What if I wish to fulfil desires to murder, rape and
steal?
f.
If I love only in order to satisfy my desire to love and
to be loved, is not such selfishness morally repugnant?
3.
It simply emerged from the needs of
human society
Some claim that morality emerged merely from the needs
of society to preserve its own welfare. But this too
raises important issues:
a.
How can society create a universal, binding moral
obligation, because if it encourages me to do what I
know is wrong I feel obliged to disobey? (In other
words, morality is higher than following the crowd).
b.
What right does society have to impose morality on me?
It may be argued that this is essential to the welfare
of society. But, on the basis of an evolutionary
survival of the fittest, why should I not simply do my
own thing, rather than being protective towards a
vulnerable society? Professor R. Z. Friedman, a
philosopher of the University of Toronto said: "Without
religion the coherence of an ethic of compassion cannot
be established. The principle of respect for persons and
the principle of the survival of the fittest are
mutually exclusive."
c.
How can society create a universal morality when
different societies have different moralities, e.g. Nazi
Germany or the Hindu practice of burning widows alive?
d.
If morality is simply a set of cultural rules then how
can society say that the person who flouts those rules
is morally wrong as opposed to simply being
counter-culture?
e.
Is it not the case, then, that to say morality simple
emerged from the needs of human society makes morality
relative, i.e. dependant on the different needs and
outlooks of different societies?
f.
If morality is regarded as subjective (rather than as a
universal, binding obligation) because it emerged from
human development and society, why should reason and
scientific method, which developed in the same way, not
be regarded as subjective too?
4.
It was given by God
The universal and very dominant sense of right and wrong
really cannot be explained merely from natural
selection, human aspirations and the needs of human
society. It requires a greater, more objective cause.
Logically, this cause cannot be impersonal or amoral,
and, as we have seen, it cannot be merely the human
individual or society. This brings us inevitably to a
supernatural cause, in fact to a personal, moral God.
And since the highest human moral quality is selfless
love, God must be selflessly loving.
It is not enough to say that morality is based on God’s
commands, as this could seem arbitrary. Morality is
based on God’s character. Christians believe God is love
and this is the basis for morality – loving God and
loving your neighbour.
The late Professor J.L. Mackie of Oxford University, an
atheist, admitted: "If … there … are objective values,
they make the existence of a god more probable than it
would have been without them. Thus, we have … a
defensible argument from morality to the existence of a
god.” But in order to avoid God's existence, Mackie
therefore denied that objective moral values exist.
Richard Taylor, a non-Christian philosopher, writes:
“The idea of political or legal obligation is clear
enough . . . . Similarly, the idea of an obligation
higher than this, and referred to as moral
obligation, is clear enough, provided reference to some
lawmaker higher . . . than those of the state is
understood. In other words, our moral obligations can .
. . be understood as those that are imposed by God. This
does give a clear sense to the claim that our moral
obligations are more binding upon us than our political
obligations . . . . But what if this higher-than-human
lawgiver is no longer taken into account? Does the
concept of a moral obligation . . . still make sense? .
. . the concept of moral obligation [is] unintelligible
apart from the idea of God. The words remain but their
meaning is gone.. . . The modern age, more or less
repudiating the idea of a divine lawgiver, has
nevertheless tried to retain the ideas of moral right
and wrong, not noticing that, in casting God aside, they
have also abolished the conditions of meaningfulness for
moral right and wrong as well (“Ethics, Faith and
Reason”, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice Hall, 1985,
pp. 83-84, 2- 3).
One problem of the atheist position is that it logically
undermines the accepted value of human beings. If there
is no God, in whose image humanity is created, and who
upholds human dignity, why should human suffering still
be evil? Animals are killed for food etc., and this is
not a moral issue. If human beings are merely developed
animals, why should killing them be a moral issue? As
Dostoyevsky said: “If God does not exist, everything is
permissible.”
I conclude that the strong, universal sense of morality
in human beings is clearly objective and is inadequately
explained by natural selection, human aspirations and
the needs of human society. The only adequate
explanation of this moral order, which is necessary to
human welfare, is that it is of divine origin, i.e. that
there is a personal, moral, loving God, to whom we are
ultimately accountable. Part of this human moral
awareness is the challenge to live in a truly moral way.
There is even a concept of perfection. However, it is
also clear that human beings are failing. Hence
awareness of the challenge to live in a truly moral way,
even to reach perfection, suggests there is perfect God
behind the moral order. |
Do
We Believe in 3 Gods?
