Pop Quiz!
True or False: It’s okay to torture babies for fun!
Of course the answer is false! Nobody needs to Google the answer to that question! Why? Because it is what we would call a moral fact, something that we all intuitively know to be true, regardless of who we are, where we live, or when we lived. We all know it is wrong to torture babies for fun. It is part of the moral argument for the existence of God, which says that if there is even just one thing morally wrong “out there,” like torturing babies for fun or murdering 6 million Jews in a Holocaust, then there must be a God.
If you were alive on September 11, 2001, you can almost certainly remember where you were and what you were doing that day, when 19 terrorists hijacked four planes and flew them into the two towers of the World Trade Center, one into the Pentagon, and one into a field in Pennsylvania. I know exactly where I was. I was eating breakfast in my university cafeteria before, ironically, heading to my World Religions class. I remember looking up at the television and thinking, “What movie are they playing?” Of course, it didn’t take long for me to realize this was no movie. This was real life. This was really happening.
They canceled classes that day and we all headed back to the dorms, where we huddled around TVs for hours, as we watched one tower fall, and then the other tower fall. We couldn’t believe our eyes, as 2,977 people were killed that day. Over 3,000 children lost a parent. Every single one of us knew that this was morally wrong, and as I mentioned, if there is just one thing morally wrong out there, then there must be a God.
Now, many people might argue, “How can this be evidence for God? This was done in the name of a God! How can there be a God if evil like this exists in the world?” Well, it’s quite simple actually. You see, if there is no God, then what happened that day was not really wrong. It is just a matter of personal opinion. It’s just your opinion against Osama bin Laden’s opinion. It’s no different than your opinion about ice cream. You like chocolate, I like vanilla. You like to hijack planes and kill innocent people, I don’t, but you do you, right? Of course not!
Framing the Moral Argument
The Moral Argument can also be framed like this:
- If there is no objective morality, there is no God.
- But there is objective morality.
- Therefore, there is a God.
Note that we’re making two claims here:
- Morality is objective, not subjective.
- The objective standard must be based in the unchanging moral nature of a theistic God.
Is Morality Subjective?
Let’s begin by examining the first claim. What does it mean for morality to objective versus subjective. “Objective” means that the standard is based in the object “out there,” which does not change and is beyond the self, beyond humanity. The word “subjective” means that the standard is based in the subject, the self or individual, which changes because everyone is different, their own “self.”
So what would it mean if morality were subjective? It would mean that each person (subject) would have their own personal standard of morality. This is also known as moral relativism. In essence, nobody could say that anyone else was wrong. That’s what our culture wants today, isn’t it? We don’t want anyone to tell us what we can and cannot do. That’s why we have slogans like “You do you.” “Follow your heart.” “Live your truth!” That’s why everyone loves to invoke the words of Jesus – whether they believe in him as God, or not! They love to take his words out of context and say, “Do not judge!” Judging has become the ultimate sin in our culture. The irony here is that if there is no objective standard of right and wrong, there would be nothing by which we could call judging wrong. All we would be saying when we say it’s wrong for you to judge, is that it’s wrong for you to judge – it might be perfectly fine for me because I’m my own subject, with my own standard of morality.
If there is no objective standard, then the whole idea of tolerance is out the window. Nobody would be obligated to tolerate anyone! Tolerance would be no better than intolerance. Love would be no better than hate. In fact, love would be no better than rape. Our culture says, “Live your truth.” But they might as well say, “Live a lie,” which sadly, is what many people in our culture are actually doing these days. Truth would be no better than lies.
There would be no such thing as human rights. As the Declaration of Independence says, these rights are endowed by our Creator. Not only would there be no right to same-sex marriage, but there would be no right to natural marriage. Not only would there be no right to abortion, but there would be no right to life! So things like murder, rape, slavery, racism, would be no problem.
Now, some might object that those things hurt people. “You do you, as long as you don’t hurt someone else!” But what’s the difference? You might value things like peace, love, kindness, justice, and freedom, but what if someone else comes along (another subject) who holds the opposite values? Well, that would be their own subjective morality, so who are you to say it’s wrong? So when they act on those values – murder, rape, abuse, genocide – it would be perfectly fine, as long as it lines up with their own personal standard of morality! That’s the definition of subjective morality!
So if there is no objective standard, then what the Nazis did and what the 9/11 terrorists did would not be wrong. In fact, if there is no objective standard, then the entire problem of evil just disappears. Why? Because you can’t know what evil is unless you know what is good, and you can’t know what is good unless there is an unchanging standard outside of yourself. As C.S. Lewis said,
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?”
C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity
Written on Our Hearts
We all intuitively know the moral law exists, that there is an objective standard, a “straight line” so to speak. How do we know this? Because, like Paul says in Romans 2:15, the law is written on our hearts. If it weren’t, we would make excuses for violating it. We don’t make excuses for our good behavior; we only make excuses for our bad behavior. “I’m sorry I yelled at you and pushed you. I was just tired, or frustrated, or “hangry.”
We know the moral law exists not by our actions, but by our reactions. Everybody wants to be relativistic, but nobody wants anyone else to be relativistic towards them. Again, it’s as C.S. Lewis states:
“Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining ‘It’s not fair’ before you can say Jack Robinson.”
C.S. Lewis – Mere Christianity
What Is the Best Explanation?
What is the best explanation? If we reason from effect back to a cause, then if there is a Moral Law, there must be a Moral Law Giver. If there is an obligation, there must be someone to whom we are obliged. Why someone? Because obligations are not between things, they are between persons. So who, then, has the authority to set the rules over everyone? The best explanation is a theistic God who created everything and is over everything and everyone.
Atheists will come up with all sorts of explanations. They will try to pin objective morality on things like evolution, or society, or human flourishing, but these things are all subjective. Why? Because an objective standard must be unchanging. Otherwise, you would not be able to measure by it. It would be a moving target. But evolution is all about change – evolved individuals. Society changes all the time! And human flourishing? Whose idea of flourishing are we talking about? Hitler’s or Mother Teresa’s? And why is “flourishing” automatically considered good? It’s like using the term in the definition! So their explanations fall short.
Where does that leave us? Well, if you look at the world, you can see that something is wrong. Things are not the way they were intended or should be. Even Steven Tyler and Aerosmith recognize this when they sing “There’s something wrong with the world today. I don’t know what it is.” He says we don’t know what it is, but we do know what it is. In fact the Christian worldview explains it perfectly.
Penalty and Payment
There is a Moral Law, prescribed by a Moral Law Giver. But mankind – you and I – we’ve broken that law. We still break it, all the time! Yes, all sorts of evil has been done in the name of God, and religion, and even Christianity. But that doesn’t disprove God because if God didn’t exist, there would be nothing by which we could call it evil. But it is, and we all know it.
We’ve broken the Law, and there is a price to be paid for breaking the law. In this case, God is both the judge and the offended party. He is in the unique position to both set the penalty and to absolve us of our guilt in a just and fair way. Well, the penalty has been set, and that is death. But fortunately for us, there is something else that Darwinism can’t explain. You see, evolution is all about survival, but when you’re talking about morals, survival is not the most noble – sacrifice is. That’s why John 15:13 says, “Greater love has no one than this, than to lay down one’s life for his friends.” And thank God! That is exactly what Jesus did for us to pay our penalty.
encounteringtruth.org 