HOW MORALITY PROVES THE EXISTENCE OF GOD
In the section of this site devoted to the "Argument for Christianity", I provide a detailed logical argument for the existence of God that uses the natural sciences as its starting point. This article, though, takes a different approach. Here I demonstrate, from a philosophical perspective, how the existence of morality also demonstrates the existence of God. A lot of the material in this article appears elsewhere on this site, but it is combined here into one cohesive article so that you can see the full implications of the "tidbits" that appear in other articles.
My basic premise is that it is impossible for morality to exist without God. Let me explain this in a bit more detail. For starters, we need to answer the question, "Is morality relative or universal?" Put another way are moral rules subjective or objective? Are there moral laws that apply universally to everyone or does each person determine his or her own morality?
Most atheistic thinkers claim that morality is relative. After al, if there is an absolute moral law, there must be an absolute moral law-giver. In other words, that law must reside somewhere. This moral law cannot just exist in some mysterious realm "out there." You can probably see where this is leading already, and why this prospect is troublesome for atheists. We'll explore it in more detail shortly, but for starters let's explore whether morality can be relative.
There are three problems with moral relativism: (1) It is unlivable, (2) It is contrary to the evidence, and (3) It is a hypocritical position when the "chips are down."
For the first, and most obvious problem with moral relativism, consider this problem: If morality is relative, this means that man is the measure of morality. But that begs the question, "Which man?" For as many men as there are, there will be that many different opinions.
Take the example of the hedonist. A hedonist is someone who determines what is morally right by self-gratification. If it makes them feel good, it is right. So if a hedonist derives pleasure from brutally killing people, and if all morality is relative, how can you say they are wrong? If all morality is relative, your personal moral code is no more right than the hedonist's. There is no objective moral standard to measure your two codes against, so no one can ever come out on top. This means it would be impossible to morally condemn even the most hideous of actions, including those of Hitler, Stalin or Charles Manson. Any moral belief sincerely held would be a legitimate moral belief. So relativism is unlivable because it would render it impossible to ever make a moral judgment. No matter how atrocious someone's behavior, you could never tell him he was wrong.
The second problem with moral relativism is that it is contrary to the evidence. There are certain moral rules that are universally held by all cultures worldwide. If all morality was relative, and simply dependent upon our culture, then we should expect to see differing moral codes popping up all over the place. However, if we were to examine various cultures around the globe, we would see some amazing similarities. For example, every culture has prohibitions against murder and lying and in favor of caring for its young. Of course, every culture also has exceptions to these rules, and different cultures may define the exceptions differently, but the general rules remain the same.
If morality is purely relative, why the universal similarities?
One atheistic response is "natural selection." The basic premise is that if a society does not have certain moral rules, then it will not survive. In other words, these rules exist because a society could not survive without them. If murder were not prohibited, for example, people would not associate with one another for fear of being harmed. So any collective activities would fall by the wayside. Everyone would only look out for him or herself. Without cooperation, society could not survive. Similarly, if we did not ban lying then we could never effectively communicate with one another (because we would never know if we were hearing the truth). Without effective communication, complex society also could not exist. Therefore, natural selection weeds out societies that do not have those moral rules.
The problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes human beings will care about the survival of their culture. When we see that a culture has survived, we can conclude that it holds these values because it could not have survived without them. This is looking back in hindsight. However, this does nothing to help us determine why the society held these values in the first place; i.e., looking forward from the start of the society into the future.
Why should these people care whether their culture survives several generations from now when they won't be alive to see it? They have no necessary interest in the "greater good". Their primary interest is only going to be in themselves. Rules against murder and lying may make sense on a large scale, but let's face reality; it may very often be in an individual's best interests to lie or to kill. In order to use survival as the basis to explain morality, you have to show how moral behavior would benefit survival on an individual basis. After all, absent morality there is no reason to conclude that any one person should care about anyone other than himself.
So in the end we are left with the same problem. Every culture shares some of the same moral laws. When we see that these cultures have survived over time, we can conclude that they must have these laws because they are necessary for the survival of a culture. However, that does not bring us any closer to determining why they adopted these laws to begin with. So at best natural selection explains which moral laws will survive, but it cannot explain how these moral laws would have come into existence in the first place. Even if we assume that they would have been preserved once they were created, what was the incentive for them to be created initially?
I would also offer a third problem with moral relativism. Specifically, it is inconsistent with how we live our lives. Anyone who professes moral relativism will inevitably end up a hypocrite at some point in his or her life. We can all say, in the abstract, that morality is relative, but when we feel that we have personally been wronged, we are only all too willing to demand "justice", whether in the form of demanding an apology or looking to the court system for redress. The moment you utter the phrase "That's not fair" you are not living as a moral relativist.
So if morality cannot be relative, the only alternative is that there must be an objective law that applies equally to everyone. As I said above, if there is an absolute moral law, there must be an absolute moral law-giver. In other words, that law must reside somewhere. This moral law cannot just exist in some mysterious realm "out there."
So once we conclude that morality is objective, we have to ask where that moral law resides. The Christian replies that it resides in God's character. Let me explain how this works using the moral trait of "goodness" as an example.
Goodness is a part of God's character. He has a character just like you have a character. Just like you are who you are, God is who He is. People may describe you as "trustworthy", "honest" or "polite". These are all aspects of your character. When we learn moral laws about what is good and bad, we are really learning a little bit about God. When God lays down moral rules, all He is doing is telling us about the nature of His character. That character is internal to God. He is basically saying, "Hey guys, this is what I am like, I made you, so I want you to live like me." It is no different than when you learn a little bit about another person by looking at something they created. Take this article, for example. By reading it you can learn a few things about me. For example, you know that (1) I'm a Christian; (2) I tend to try to argue my points based upon logic; and (3) I've done a bit of reading on moral philosophy. If you look at someone's activities, you can probably draw some conclusions about their moral character as well. Of course, this isn't perfect (people who otherwise seem to be behaving in a morally upright manner do sometimes surprise us and engage in morally repugnant behavior), but as a general rule it holds true.
Similarly, the rules God has laid down reflect the nature of His character. So the moral rules that we all live by are defined by God's immutable (i.e., unchangeable) character. Some people have tried to attack this position (see the article on the Euthyphro dilemma), but it continues to hold up. It is a consistent and logically adequate explanation for the source of morality.
So the question remains, is it possible to come up with a source for objective morality without God? Every attempt to come up with an alternative source for objective morality has failed. In fact, most atheistic scholars today concede that atheism mandates relative morality.
Ironically, natural selection is also the leading candidate for a non-theistic explanation for objective morality. In other words, some people acknowledge that morality must be objective, but claim that natural selection is the source for that morality. Again, the basic premise is that natural selection will weed out moral rules that do not favor the survival of the society. Unlike the moral relativist, though, the moral objectivist claims that this explains all morality, not just the rules that all societies have in common. The differences between societies would be explained by the unique needs of different cultures. A rule that works for one culture may not work for another and vice versa.
However, if all morality is determined by which moral rules promote the survival of a society, how do you explain the existence of moral rules that are 180 degrees opposed to that goal? Why don't we have a rule permitting the execution of all invalids, or people with IQs so low that they can never function above a childhood level? After all, these people are not promoting the survival of the society as a whole, so morality should permit us to dispose of them. Yet we don't. Why don't we?
The Christian can answer this question. To the Christian, the answer is that God's character teaches us to have respect for all human life. All mankind is created in God's image, and is therefore worthy of respect, regardless of whether they are "contributing to the survival of society." Natural selection, however, cannot explain this phenomenon.
So what are we left with? Morality cannot be relative. But if it is objective, you have to answer the question of where that moral law resides. The Christian has an answer for that question. The atheist does not. The only source we can come up with for that objective morality is God. Therefore, because morality exists, we can also know that God exists.
|