The moral argument is likely to be one of the most persuasive ‘proofs’ we can use to demonstrate the existence of a good, loving God. Essentially, this argument seeks to show that if there are morals and laws in the world then there must be a Moral Law Giver. Of all the arguments we can rally on to help demonstrate the existence of God, this one is perhaps the most emotionally compelling and persuasive.
People do have an internal compass of moral sensibility. Whether they admit it or not, people do believe certain things are objectively wrong. As Tim Keller writes in The Reason for God:
“All human beings have moral feelings. Moral obligation is the belief that some things ought not to be done regardless of how a person feels about them within herself, regardless of what the rest of her community and culture says, and regardless of whether it is in her self-interest or not…Though we have been taught that all moral values are relative to individuals and cultures, we can’t live like that. In actual practise, we inevitably treat some principles as absolute standards by which we judge the behaviour of those who don’t share our values. What gives us the right to do that if all moral beliefs are relative? Nothing gives us the right. Yet we can’t stop it...We do not only have moral feelings, but we have an ineradicable belief that moral standards exist, outside of us, by which our internal moral feelings are evaluated. Why?”
Keller goes on to answer the question by pointing out that we are convinced that every human being possesses inviolable dignity. But how can we be sure? If all morals are simply the products of whatever culture we happen to be part of, who is to say one culture’s morality is better than another’s?
Generally, theorists who are trying to establish a foundation for morality have discounted the existence of God as a basis for human dignity. However, it is still believed that every human being has inherent dignity and must be treated as such. Having discounted the existence of God as the basis for human moralty, two major alternatives remain:
1. Natural Law: In the place of God, an analysis of human nature and the natural world yields binding rules of moral behaviour. When all is said and done, this is very problematic. Nature simply does not provide us with a satisfying ground for morality; it thrives on violence and on the survival of the fittest. Similarly, the human species, though sometimes noble and good, can also be shockingly cruel, greedy and amoral. The concept of the dignity of the human individual simply cannot be based on the way things work in nature.
2. We Create Moral Laws: Again, problems very quickly arise when we take this approach. If we create moral laws then who decides how they ought to be written? What if the most powerful body of people writes laws to satisfy themselves at the expense of a minority group? Ultimately, without God, moral law is based on human whimsy. And this is not a satisfying alternative. As Keller writes:
“If there is no God, then there is no way to say one action is ‘moral’ and another ‘immoral’ but only ‘I like this’. If that is the case, who gets the right to put their subjective, arbitrary moral feelings into law? You may say ‘the majority has the right to make the law’, but do you mean that then the majority has the right to vote to exterminate a minority? If you say, ‘No, that is wrong,’ then you are back to square one…Why should your moral convictions be obligatory for those in opposition? Why should your view prevail over the will of the majority? The fact is…if there is no God, then all moral statements are arbitrary, all moral values are subjective and internal, and there can be no external moral standard by which a persons feelings and values are judged.“
Despite their lack of belief in God, people will continue to insist that objective moral beliefs exist. However, ultimately, if there is no God, there is no fixed foundation for moral laws. We only know things are wrong in relation to an absolute standard above ourselves. If we do not have something by which to measure morality, it is really not worth anything. It is something we conjure up. Therefore, as Keller concludes:
“If a premise (‘There is no God’) leads to a conclusion you know isn’t true (‘Nepalming babies is culturally relative’) then why not change the premise?”
In other words, if you insist that there are moral absolutes, why not embrace the only truth that will permit the true foundation and authority of such absolutes – the existence of the God who created them in the first place? As William Lane Craig remarks in his book Reasonable Faith, “Unless we are nihilists, we have to recognise some ultimate standard of value, and God is the least arbitrary stopping point.”
No comments:
Post a Comment