A Sign For You Now

Aim of this step: To consider why we have morality within us as human beings.

 

Have you ever wondered where our moral compass comes from? How do humans know if something is morally right or wrong? Though we disagree on certain elements, in general there are moral standards to which society adheres to, and there are specific actions that society agrees to be categorically wrong, such as murder, torture and rape, amongst others. How have humans come to the conclusion that such actions are objectively immoral? By “objectively”, I mean that such acts are immoral in a way that goes beyond personal opinion or feelings. They are immoral whether anyone thinks they are.

 

There is an absolute moral centre in all of us which determines the difference between absolute good and absolute evil. Where does this rational thought come from? We each share a knowledge of what is right and wrong not just because we are taught or conditioned to accept these values, but because we are born with them. This of course doesn’t mean that everybody abides by the objective moral law within themselves, as we still have choice and free will.

 

I am suggesting to you that without God, it is impossible to have objective moral values. The reason for this is that in order to ground an objective moral law, you need to have a transcendent source of those values.

Dr Frank Turek provides the following exposition:

Why do intellectually honest atheists admit that without God, objective moral values cannot exist? Because it is the logical result of taking atheistic philosophy to its natural conclusion. If there's such a thing as evil, you must assume there's such a thing as good. If you assume there's such a thing as good, you assume there's such a thing as an absolute and unchanging moral law on the basis of which to differentiate between good and evil. If you assume there's such a thing as an absolute moral law, you must posit an absolute moral law giver, but that would be God – the one whom the atheist is trying to disprove. So now rewind: if there's not a moral law giver, there's no moral law. If there's no moral law, there's no good. If there's no good, there's no evil.

 

This truth is acknowledged by leading atheists, who admit that by extension of their beliefs, objective moral values cannot exist. For example, the famous nihilist philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said: "You have your way, I have my way. As for the right way, it does not exist." Richard Dawkins, a leading voice of atheism, says, "Humans have always wondered about the meaning of life...life has no higher purpose...life has no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

 

At issue are the requirements for being able to have objective moral laws. Three things are needed: (1) an absolute and unchanging authority; (2) an absolute and unchanging standard; (3) absolute truth. Atheism and naturalism admit to nothing being absolute, that everything is random, and that everything is changing. In such an environment, no one can ever be sure anything is truly and objectively right or wrong.

Without an unchanging, absolute authority that uses an unchanging, absolute standard, which is based on the right and unchanging truth, ethics simply becomes emotive and opinion. Rape doesn't become wrong, but rather the strongest statement that can be made about it is, "I don't like rape." C. S. Lewis put is simply when he said: "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." For those without God, that unchanging straight line does not exist.

However, the rub comes from the fact that every human being recognises moral absolutes. They may not practice them, but they understand and acknowledge them. There is a difference in what a culture and its people are doing and what they ought to do; a difference between something that is descriptive and that which is prescriptive. And one thing that history has shown is that humanity recognises universal right and wrong.

Where does this universal understanding of moral right and wrong come from – an understanding that transcends human opinion? Why does a small child immediately know when they've been treated unfairly or know that it is wrong to have something stolen from them? They know because there is a universal moral law that has been intrinsically woven into them by their Creator. The undeniable moral argument for the existence of God, which can be stated in the following way:

• Laws imply a Law Giver
• There is an objective Moral Law
• Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

True object moral good cannot be defined without purpose, and purpose cannot be defined without a cause. Without God – the cause of everything – all that is left is time + matter + chance. And such a combination only produces chaos; not an absolute moral framework. This is called Entropy and is a scientific law which states that the natural state of things is chaos and creates an amazing vote of confidence for creation.

​