The
moral argument begins with the fact that all people recognize some moral code
(that some things are right and some things are wrong). Every time we argue over right and wrong, we
appeal to higher law that we assume everyone is aware of, holds to, and is not
free to arbitrarily change. Right and
wrong imply a higher standard or law, and law requires a lawgiver. Because the Moral Law transcends humanity,
this universal law requires a universal lawgiver. This, it is argued, is God.
As
I recall Zacharias in his book Cries of
the Heart stated, “If there is a moral law you must posit a moral law
giver. But that is who you are trying to
disprove and not prove. If there is no
moral lawgiver, there is no moral law.
If there is no moral law, there is no good. If there is no good, there is no evil.” (pg. 66-67).
Here’s one such instance of a question in one of Zacharias’ question
periods, this was posed, I believe, at the University of Nottingham (the
speaker is Zacharias):
Student:
There is too much evil in this world; therefore, there cannot be a God!
Speaker:
Would you mind if I asked you something?
You said, “God cannot exist because there is too much evil.” If there is such a thing as evil, aren’t you
assuming that there is such a thing as good?
Student:
I guess so.
Speaker:
If there is such a thing as good, you must affirm a moral law on the basis of
which to differentiate between good and evil.
In a debate between the philosopher Frederick Copleston and the athest
Bertrand Russell, Copleston said, “Mr. Russell, you do believe in good and bad,
don’t you? Russell answered, “Yes, I do.”
“How do you differentiate between good and bad?” challenged
Copleston. Russell shrugged his
shoulders and said, “On the basis of feeling-what else?” I must confess, Mr. Copleston was a kindlier
gentleman than many others. The appropriate “logical kill” for the moment would
have been “Mr. Russell, in some cultures they love their neighbors; in other
cultures, they eat them, both on the basis of feeling. Do you have any preference?”
Speaker:
So when you say there is evil, aren’t you admitting there is good? When you accept the existence of goodness,
you must affirm a moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good
and evil. But when you admit to a moral
law, you must posit a moral lawgiver.
C.S. Lewis, a former atheist, plainly says, ‘If the solar
system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of
organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of
Man was an accident too. If so, then all
our present thoughts are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the
movement of atoms. And this holds for
the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts-i.e. of materialism and
astronomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be
true? I see no reason for believing that
one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other
accidents. It’s like expecting that the
accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you
a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’[2]
[1]
Wellman, J. (2015, April 28). C.S. Lewis: Moral Arguments for the Existence of
God. Theology, Apologetics and Biblical
Studies.
[2] C.S.
Lewis (1898-1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.
The Moral Argument
for C.S. Lewis is as follows:
1.) If God does not
exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.) Objective moral
values & duties do exist.
3.) Therefore, God
exists.
Now
this is a logical reason, since 3 follows necessarily if premises 1 and 2 are
true. Premise 2 seems intuitively
obvious to most people. Mass murdering
is unequivocally, objectively wrong. Killing
innocent children, torturing animals, have dog fights…all for fun is
objectively wrong. That is it is wrong
for most of humanity, everywhere. These
morals exist worldwide as universal morals. Now if anyone denies premise 2, they don’t
need an argument, they need help.
The
evolutionary explanation strips morality from humans and reduces it to mere
descriptions of animal behavior or conduct, a simple physiochemical reaction of
the brain’s cognitive functions. Darwinist
can only explain past conduct…past behavior. It cannot inform or predict a human’s future
behavior. It only serves to reduce
morality to mere descriptions of behavior, which involve both motive and
intent. Both of these behaviors are
nonphysical elements that cannot, even in principle, evolve in a Darwinian
sense. So where do morals come from? Why do they seem to apply only to human
beings? Are they the product of chance? What world view makes sense out of morality? Why are babies born with what developmental
psychologist’s call an intrinsic compassion (one baby cry’s in the nursery, and
the others join in).
Moral
laws suggest a moral lawgiver, one who communicates through higher, moral laws.
For example, most people would not
murder someone. They deem this to be
morally wrong. He expects His
imperatives to be obeyed or certain consequences occur. Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard pointed
out that a person could not have anything on his conscience if God did not
exist. Morality is grounded in our
hunger for justice. We desire for a day
when all wrongs are made right, when innocent suffering is finally redeemed,
and when the un-caught guilty are finally punished. This also explains our own personal sense of
dread. We feel guilty because we are
guilty and most people seem to sense that we might have to answer for our own
crimes.
Robert
Wright offers no empirical evidence whatsoever for his thesis. He seems to assume that moral qualities are
in the genes because he must; his paradigm will not work otherwise.
Take
this comment as an example: “Human beings are a species splendid in their array
of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in
their constitutional ignorance of the misuse” (emphases mine).* Wright reflects
on the moral equipment randomly given to us by nature, and then bemoans our
immoral use of it with words like “tragic,” “pathetic,” and “misuse.”[1]
When
he’s asked about the origin of life I have never seen anyone who supposedly is
an expert on the subject more tongue-tied. He simply doesn’t know what to say except that
maybe life emerged on planet earth as a result of extraterrestrials, which, of
course, must mean that life did come from some sort of intelligent design. Of course he doesn’t recognize that he
actually spoke in favor of intelligent design while disparaging it.
One
notable example of this challenge to the transcendent nature of morality
mentioned in his book is what he calls the new science of evolutionary
psychology. Its adherents advance a
simple premise: The mind, just like every part of the physical body, is a
product of evolution. Everything about
human personality marital relationships, parental love, friendships, dynamics
among siblings, social climbing, even office politics can be explained by the
forces of neo-Darwinian evolution. 24
Even
the moral threads that make up the fabric of society are said to be the product
of natural selection. Morality can be reduced
to chemical relationships in the genes chosen by different evolutionary needs
in the physical environment. Love and
hate; feelings of guilt and remorse; gratitude and envy; even the virtues of
kindness, faithfulness, and self-control can all be explained mechanistically
through the cause and effect of chance genetic mutations and natural selection.
This explains the moral universals found in almost every part of the world. If these are simply chemical reactions, then taking a human life is just part of the natural, evolutionary process in the brain. How could
[1] Robert
Wright, The Moral Animal Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of
Evolutionary Psychology (New York: Pantheon Books, 1994), 23.
the
killer be held responsible? He is a
victim of his brain chemistry. Logic
tells us that, by necessity, a Creator or Moral Lawgiver was required to impart
internal, intrinsic morals and that this is where they came from and the Source
of them. Moral, values and character are
not just a bunch accidental or random chemical reactions in the brain are they?
I thought the theory held that it was
all about survival of the fittest, not making decisions not based solely on
self, but only the animal species benefiting from any given situation and even
at the expense of others?
Morality
is a very difficult problem for the evolutionary worldview. This is not to say that evolutionists are
somehow less moral than biblical creationists—or anyone else. Most evolutionists adhere to a moral code and
believe in the concept of right and wrong.
But evolutionists have no rational reason for this position. Thus, only creationists have a rational,
logical, and consistent reason for morality.[1]
The
Foundation of Morality
Even
though most people do not acknowledge it, the morality and rules that most
humans adhere to have their basis in the Bible, specifically in the literal
history of Genesis. The Bible claims to
be the revealed Word of God (2 Timothy 3:16; 2 Peter 1:21) and that the
biblical God is the ultimate authority and foundation for knowledge (Hebrews
6:13; Proverbs 1:7, 2:6; Colossians 2:3).
The Bible tells us that God is the Creator of all things and, therefore,
all things belong to Him (Genesis 1:1; Psalm 24:1). Thus, God as the Creator has the right to
define absolute standards of behavior.
Apart
from Biblical creation, morality has no justification. Christian philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen (1948–95)
states, “What does the unbeliever [person who rejects the biblical God] mean by
‘good,’ or by what standard does the unbeliever determine what counts as ‘good’
(so that ‘evil’ is accordingly defined or identified)? What are the presuppositions in terms of
which the unbeliever makes any moral judgments whatsoever?”[2] Although unbelievers may classify actions as
good or evil, they do not have an ultimate foundation for defining what is good
and evil.
In
fact, many evolutionists are quite clear that evolution does not provide a
basis for morality. William Provine,
evolutionist and biology professor at Cornell University, states in referring
to the implications of Darwinism, “No ultimate foundations for ethics exist, no
ultimate meaning in life exists, and free will is merely a human myth.” 24 Thus, if evolution is true,
then there can be no universal moral code that all people should adhere to.
And
Nobel Laureate Steven Weinberg, evolutionist and physics professor at the
University of Texas, states, “I think that part of the historical mission of
science has been to teach us that we are not the playthings of supernatural
intervention, that we can make our own way in the universe, and that we have to
find our own sense of morality.”[3] Again, if morality is determined by our own
sense, then a universal moral code that all people should follow cannot be
justified.
Why
Murder is Wrong
Murder
is an obvious example of immoral behavior.
The basis for this comes from Genesis 1:27 (written 1440 - 1400 B.C.) which states that human beings are made in
God’s image and are different from the
[1] Purdom,
G., & Lisle, J. (2009, May 13). Morality and the irrationality of an
evolutionary worldview . Retrieved from Answers in Genesis.org:
https://answersingenesis.org/morality/morality-and-the-irrationality-of-an-evolutionary-worldview/
[2] Van
Til, C. (n.d.). Why I believe in God. Philadelphia: Committee on Christian
Education. Retrieved from
https://answersingenesis.org/morality/morality-and-the-irrationality-of-an-evolutionary-worldview/
[3] Nobel
Laureate Steven Weinberg, evolutionist and physics professor at the University
of Texas
animals. Murder is condemned in Genesis 4 where God punishes the first murderer, Cain, for killing his brother Abel. God’s condemnation of murder is further established in the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20:13). Death and suffering were not part of God’s original creation as exhibited by God’s command to Adam and Eve and the animals to eat only plants (Genesis 1:29–30). God states in Genesis 1:31 that His creation was “very good.” This terminology is meaningless if it includes death and suffering.
Evolutionists
might say that standards of right and wrong can be created apart from God. However, this thinking is arbitrary and will
lead to absurd conclusions. If everyone
can create his or her own morality, then no one can judge the morality of
others. For example, Jeffrey Dahmer,
Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin chose a moral code in which murder was perfectly
acceptable.
This
might seem upsetting to us, but how could we argue that it is wrong for others
to murder if morality is determined by our “own sense” and “no ultimate
foundation for ethics” exists?
Moral
outrage simply does not make sense in an evolutionary universe. Bahnsen states, “Such indignation requires
recourse to the absolute, unchanging, and good character of God in order to
make philosophical sense.” [1]
Majority
Rule or God’s Rules?
Some
evolutionists have claimed that morality is what the majority decides it to be. This shifts an unjustified opinion from one
person to a group of people; it is arbitrary and leads to absurd conclusions. Bahnsen writes:
Perhaps
the unbeliever takes “good” to be whatever evokes public approval. However, on that basis the statement, “The
vast majority of the community heartily approved of and willingly joined in the
evil deed,” could never make sense. The
fact that a large number of people feel a certain way does not (or should not
rationally) convince anybody that this feeling (about the goodness or evil of
something) is correct.
Hitler
was able to convince a majority of his people that his actions were right, but
that does not really make them right.
Without
the biblical God and literal Genesis, right and wrong become personal
preferences such that “murder is wrong” is equivalent to “blue is my favorite
color.” Both are personal opinions and
provide no basis for arguing with someone who has a different opinion.
But
the question, logically speaking, is how the unbeliever can make sense of
taking evil seriously—not simply as something inconvenient, or unpleasant, or
contrary to his or her desires. What
philosophy of value or morality can the unbeliever offer which will render it
meaningful to condemn some atrocity as objectively evil? The moral indignation which is expressed by
unbelievers when they encounter the wicked things which transpire in this world
does not comport with theories of ethics which unbelievers espouse, theories
which prove to be arbitrary or subjective or merely utilitarian or relativistic
in character. On the unbeliever’s
worldview, there is no good reason for saying that anything is evil in nature,
but only by personal choice or feeling.[2]
Thus,
when evolutionists talk about morality as if it is a real standard, they are
being inconsistent with their own worldview.
[1] Christian
philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen (1948–95)
[2] Christian
philosopher Dr. Greg Bahnsen (1948–95)
Genesis
not only justifies the existence of the moral code, but also explains people’s
inability to fully live up to that same code. The first violation of the moral code by
humanity was Adam and Eve’s disobedience to God by eating from the Tree of Knowledge
of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:17; 3:6). The
Bible teaches that the rebellious (sinful) nature is inherited; it is passed
from parents to descendants. Thus, all
people have in their nature a tendency to sin (a tendency to rebel against God)
because they are descendants of Adam and Eve who committed the first sin
(Romans 5:12; Galatians 5:17). Adam’s
sin resulted in the curse of all things and all creation has been suffering the
effects of the curse since that time (Romans 8:22–23). Thus, a literal Genesis can account for why
people are immoral in the first place as well as the “natural evils” we see in
the world.
A
Christian worldview regarding Genesis as literal history is necessary for
understanding (1) why there is a moral code; (2) why everyone knows about it;
and (3) why no one can live up to it completely. This provides a rational, logical, and
consistent foundation for morality that has led to modern laws that prohibit
and punish immorality.
Inconsistency
in the Evolutionary Worldview
Consider
those evolutionists who are concerned about children being taught creation. The well-known atheist Richard Dawkins,
professor at Oxford University, states concerning teaching creation in schools,
“Evolution is supported by mountains of scientific evidence. These children are being deliberately and
wantonly misled (about the origins of living things).”[1]
It
is commendable that Dawkins is concerned about the welfare of children: that
they should only be taught the truth. But does such concern make sense if children
are simply the result of random evolutionary processes?
Dawkins
argues that creation should not be taught since he believes it is false. Now, this begs the question, since the truth
or falsity of creation is the issue: as biblical creationists we are convinced
that creation is true, and evolution is false.
But the truly absurd thing about such evolutionary arguments is that
they are contrary to evolution! That is,
in an evolutionary worldview why is it wrong to lie—particularly if it benefits
our survival value?
Now,
certainly in a Christian worldview it is wrong to lie, and the Christian has a
reason for this. God has indicated in
His Word that lying is contrary to His nature (Numbers 23:19) and that people
are not to engage in it (Exodus 20:16). But
apart from the Christian worldview, why should people tell the truth? For that matter, why should people do anything
at all? Words like should and ought only
make sense if there is an absolute standard given by one who has authority over
everyone.
If
human beings are merely the inevitable result of the laws of physics and
chemistry acting over time, then how can people have any genuine choice in what
they do? If the decisions people make
are simply the deterministic outworking of electrochemical reactions in a
brain—which is itself allegedly the mindless outworking of billions of random
chance copying errors in our DNA—then how would it make sense to hold people
responsible for their “decisions”?
After all, we do not attempt to punish the planet Venus for spinning backwards. And we do not get angry at baking soda for reacting with vinegar. This is just what necessarily happens in the universe given the laws of nature. So why would an evolutionist be angry at anything one human being does to another (such as creationists supposedly “lying” to children), if we are all nothing more than complex chemical
reactions? If we are simply evolved animals, why should we hold to a code of conduct in this “dog-eat-dog” world? After all, what one animal does to another is morally irrelevant.
The Evolutionary
Worldview Borrows from the Christian Worldview
When evolutionists
attempt to be moral, they are “borrowing” from the Christian worldview.
The Christian
worldview accounts not only for morality but also for why evolutionists behave
the way they do. Even those who have no
basis for morality within their own professed worldview nonetheless hold to a
moral code; this is because in their heart of hearts they really do know the
God of creation, despite their profession to the contrary. Scripture tells us that everyone knows the
biblical God, but that they suppress the truth about God (Romans 1:18–21).
Why would anyone do
this?
We have an inherited
sin nature from Adam (Romans 5:12) who rebelled against God in the Garden of
Eden. John 3:19 indicates that people
would rather remain in spiritual darkness than have their evil deeds exposed. Just as Adam tried to hide from God’s presence
(Genesis 3:8), so his descendants do the same. But the solution to sin is not suppression; it
is confession and repentance (1 John 1:9). Christ is faithful to forgive anyone who calls
on His name (Romans 10:13).
Nearly everyone
believes that people ought to behave in a certain way: that there is a moral
code. Yet, in order for morality to be
meaningful, the Bible and a literal Genesis must be true. Since God created human beings, He determines
what is right and wrong, and we are responsible to Him for our actions.
We must, therefore,
conclude that evolutionists are being inconsistent (irrational) when they talk
about right and wrong, since such concepts are meaningless within their
professed worldview. Like so many things
that we often take for granted, the existence of morality confirms that
biblical creation is true.
Rationally Resolving
the Debate
Evolutionists and
creationists have a different ultimate standard by which they evaluate and
interpret physical evidence such as stars, fossils, and DNA.
The biblical
creationist takes the Bible as the ultimate standard—an approach which the
Bible itself endorses (Proverbs 1:7; Hebrews 6:13). The evolutionist embraces a competing
philosophy instead, such as naturalism (the belief that natural causes and laws
can explain all phenomena) or empiricism (the belief that experience,
especially of the senses, is the source of all knowledge).
How then can people
rationally decide which ultimate standard is correct, since each camp
interprets all evidence in light of his or her ultimate standard?
In this article, we
have employed a “transcendental argument”—an approach that demonstrates the
truth of a foundational claim by showing the impossibility of the contrary. In effect, we show the truth of the biblical
creation worldview by showing that the alternative is self-defeating. Alternatives to biblical creation undermine
human experience and reasoning because such worldviews on their own terms
cannot account for the things we take for granted in a consistent and justified
way.
We used morality as
a particular illustration of the transcendental argument (i.e., morality only
makes sense if biblical creation is true). But we could equally well have used other
things that people take for granted such as laws of logic, uniformity, and
science, reliability of senses and memory, human dignity and freedom. Such foundational truths only make sense in a
biblical creation worldview.
Christian
philosopher and theologian Cornelius Van Til (1895–1987) argued that the God of
biblical creation is essential to rationality. He states, “I hold that belief in God is not
merely as reasonable as other belief, or even a little or infinitely more
probably true than other belief; I hold rather that unless you believe in God
you can logically believe in nothing else.”
We are not searching for whether or
not we know what is right and wrong or that we need God to tell us what is
right and wrong. There is absolutely no
reason to believe that morality would exist without God. We need to have some sort of objective
foundation.
Objective moral values DO exist and there is not
an explanation as to why it is NOT ok to rape someone. In animals, the male waits for an opportunity
and then attacks the female in what many would call a rape. Why is that not ok for humans as well? If we are (by instinct) preserving our species,
would rape not indeed make sense?
