The argument for the existence of God is immense, so I want to focus on specific points that are effective and practical in casual discussion with skeptics. I especially want to stay away from a deeply academic approach considering that it can lead to much deeper points in the argument which can frankly leave skeptics uninterested. Once again, reason and logic can fuel the defense of our faith well enough in this section of the argument. Hence, this week will concentrate on the Moral Argument.
This argument specifically focuses on the origin of morality in humanity. First, I believe it is wise to hear the opposing side before understanding how to defend against it. The view point of most skeptics is that of Moral Relativism. In this context, Moral Relativism states that morals are man made; they are created in specific contexts and only have grounding in those environment. Therefore, morals are only relative to the culture or society which creates it.
Moral Relativism seems to have fallen out of popularity in many philosophical circles, but it is still prevalent in thought even though it may not be called by this name. It seems logical to many that morals are rules, and rules are created to keep stability. Using the logic from last week, if rules are created, then there must be a creator of such. The argument starts with who the creator is. Moral Relativists believe that these rules differ from culture to culture to fit the needs and values of each environment. This seems logical in some ways. What the United States may consider less offensive sexual content on television may cost someone his or her life in Saudi Arabia. A big question now arises: who is wrong and who is right?
This brings us into the realm of absolute truth, which is also the demise of Moral Relativism. Moral Relativists will argue, possibly even subconsiously, that there is no absolute truth, only what works in that given cultural context. If the USA feels that pornography is perfectly fine for its citizens, who can dare tell Saudi Arabia that they are wrong in punishing “offenders.” This shows that morals are only relative to the culture that creates them. Hence, there is no absolute truth in morals.
What does any of this have to do with the existence of God? A defense against Moral Relativism will reveal how so. Consider all types of moral laws that we live our lives by. Are we able to waiver on some of them? Maybe we can with some such as cursing in public, the types of clothes that we wear, how to treat others that we consider friends. But notice that none of these focus on important moral issues. What about rape, murder, theft, and lying? Can we waiver on these points? For this argument, I always revert back to Nazi Germany and the extermination of the Jews. The Germans truly believed that they were doing the world a service by murdering as many “impure” beings as they could. According to the logic of Moral Relativism, would it be acceptable to excuse their actions based on that reasoning? They in fact did exactly what their culture said was good. Since there is no absolute truth, who can tell them that they did wrong? This would be a ridiculous stance. Anyone with a conscience can not accept that behavior, and everyone has a conscience.
Now all that is left is to ask what the alternative is. The truth is that there is a moral law giver. Their must be a being that has planted a conscience in the heart of every human being on earth that tells what right and wrong is. Regardless of miniscule differences in cultural beliefs, all humanity has an understanding of right and wrong. C. S. Lewis called this the Tao; Thomas Aquinas called it the Natural Law. Everyone has a sense of good and evil and knowledge of right and wrong regardless of the culture.
As for absolute truth, it is impossible not to have truth in the world. Even the statement is illogical. “There is no absolute truth.” If that is so, then that statement itself can’t be taken as truth because there is none. There must be truth or else the world would be absolute chaos in every possible way. As Fyodor Dostoevsky expressed in The Brothers Karamazov, “If there is no God, everything is permitted.” If God does not exist, there is no moral law that humanity can live one, so there is nothing keeping anyone from doing anything he or she wishes. Civil rights cannot stop any one from doing what their heart desires even if it is murder or theft. Actually, would it not be their right to do as they wish?
There is a god in this world. The Moral Argument is only one of many ways to express this truth. As I stated last week, it takes more faith to believe that there is nothing behind the intricacy of life and universe than to believe that an omnipotent creator made what we all see, experience and more. I only scratch the surface with the Moral Argument; if anyone wishes of further readings or sources, feel free to send any emails to The Zealot’s Path. I would be happy to discuss further. If this stirs your conscience, giving you a buring in your heart, do not sit back and hope that it passes. God gives us all and impulse to seek him. Set off on the search and seek the truth no matter what it may be. Maybe the Path is the place to start.
No comments:
Post a Comment