The Moral Argument for the Existence God
A topic of hot debate in the intellectual world is that of the existence of a superior being or force. The specific and name and nature of this being are always debated, however the secular world refuses to give the God of the Bible a fair chance in the debate. In light of observations on the matter, Angus Menuge has said that "a sure sign that the West had lost its transcendent moorings is its frenetic search for secular God-substitutes." # It is a bizarre phenomenon that people will lay aside their intellectual integrity to presuppose that God cannot be the answer, all the while spending their time and energy attacking others, for what they see, as having their own biased presuppositions.
It is important to note that Christianity stems from ultimate truth. Though some Christians come to the Faith from a biased environment, this does not necessarily negate the fact that Christian truth claims stem from an unbiased source, God’s specific and general revelation. For the certain truth claim that there is a singular omnipotent being, there are many arguments for a such as the ontological and the cosmological argument. There are various proofs deriving from design, consciousness and anthropological studies. This essay will serve to specifically look in depth at the moral argument, and show that the best explanation for morality is, not only a single superior being, but this being is the God of the Bible. In an effort to retain intellectual integrity, this essay will not build from any suppositions biased towards Christianity.
Morality
Existing in every person and every culture, lies a moral code. Some have ventured to claim these morals are simply relative, but regardless, these morals are inescapable. Though specific applications of moral principles may look different in each scenario, the concept more generally refers to good and bad human behavior.# In light of this, the very concept of moral relativity should be disregarded, because the idea of relativity does not leave room for a measurement of good versus bad, because there is no ultimate standard to which to appeal. "All human beings...believe that there are standards ‘that exist apart from us’ by which we evaluate moral feelings." # The questions that logically follow are in regards to this standard. The moral relativist, holding fast to their belief in spite of the obvious refutation stated above, could simply suggest that culture should be credited for the existence of morals, and should be the rod of which they are measured. As Russ Shafer-Landau stated, "why require moral truths to best explain our moral views, if we can cite the social, parental and psychological factors that appear to so heavily influence their content?" # Shafer-Landau basically summarizes the dependency thesis which “asserts that morality inherently depends on cultural factors and no other factors...there can be no cross cultural and objective moral truths that apply to all cultures”#
The problem with this view, is that it can so easily flow from cultural relativism to individual relativism, leaving no authority to judge one individual's morals over another. When people pit their morals against each other, each claiming that their own are right, the very foundation of their relativity is knocked out by their allusion to the fact that one is ultimately wrong while the other is ultimately right. They are simply "appealing to some kind of standard of behavior which [they] expects the other man to know about." # Tim Keller eloquently summarizes that
"Though we have been taught that all moral values are relative to individuals and cultures, we can't live like that. In actual practice we inevitably treat some principles as absolute standards by which we judge the behavior of those who don't share our values.What gives us the right to do that, if all moral beliefs are relative? Nothing gives us the right. Yet we can't stop it. People who laugh at the claim that there is a transcendent moral order do not think that racial genocide is just impractical or self-defeating, but that it is wrong. The Nazis who exterminated Jews may have claimed that they didn't feel it was immoral at all. We don't care. We don't care if they sincerely felt they were doing a service to humanity. They ought not to have done it." #
This reveals that this moral relativity is“unlivable and contradictory, and therefore false." # Building on the argued point that a moral standard does exists, the next questions that presents themselves are: Is the standard arbitrary? If not, what is the nature of the standard? Where does this standard come from? These will each be examined in turn.
Is the standard of morals arbitrary?
Shafer-Landau has tried to argue that there is no outside reality of what is good and bad, to which present day morals ban be examined against. His argument states that:
- If there is no reason to believe p, and some reason to deny p, then there is most reason to deny p.- There is no reason to believe in moral or divine facts, and some reason to deny their existence.
- Therefore there is most reason to deny the existence of divine and moral facts. #
Even though his first premise can be granted, his second premise has been proven false by the counterexamples listed above which prove that there are reasons to believe in moral facts, and therefore his argument fails.
If morality is found in the tension of good versus evil, the natures of both good and evil must be addressed before the argument can proceed. C.S. Lewis insightfully pointed out that "wickedness, when you examine it, turns out to be the pursuit of some good in the wrong way...badness is only spoiled goodness. And there must be something good first before it can be spoiled.” # For morals to be arbitrary, good and evil would have to each be given an equal weight, but it is obvious upon reflection that good can exist alone whereas bad is only a lack of goodness. Therefore, for morals to run parallel to what is good, it is impossible for them to be arbitrarily decided by "social, parental and psychological factors." # This implies that the nature of goodness necessarily is beyond the individual, and therefore also beyond a specific society or culture.
To summarize: Morals exist and are inescapable. There also exists an ultimate standard, and this standard is not arbitrary. The nature of good goes beyond how it serves the individual. It is "something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men's behavior, and yet quite definitely real - a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing on us." #
The nature of the moral standard
Is the nature of this standard that of an a force or of an actual being? I think it best to examine this in light of what I will call our consciousness; we know what is right yet sometimes we feel as if we do not do it. We clearly have choices, and there are choices made which are obviously not ultimately good. If this outside standard were simply a mindless force, we would either always do what is right, or we would not be able to reflect on the fact that what we have done is wrong.
The answer of the standard being a force proves too simple because it does not explain our conscious. If this standard must be a force or a being, and it has been argued that a force is too simple an explanation, it must logically be a being.
This being must necessarily be separate from the world as argued above, and it must also be singular. The argument against the plurality of ultimate beings states that if there is more than one, one must be better than the other. This would regress the conversation because, as we have argued above, for one to be better than the other there would have to be something outside of the two which would determine this fact.Some find the idea of the Trinity, God existing in three persons, a stumbling block because they feel it is disproved by the argument that only one ultimate being can exist. An in-depth explanation to this is outside the scope of this argument, however, suffice it to say that there is only one mind of the Trinitarian God, and out of His ultimate goodness he reveals Himself in three different forms in order to reach a people whom have gone astray.
Where does this standard for measuring morals come from?
A specific question which cannot be ignored is that in spite of how well we adhere to them, how did we come to possess these morals? One explanation, is that the standard of morals is found in the actual creator of the human beings who possess them. This section will show why this is the best answer to this question.If morality parallels what is ultimately good, then the being behind morals would also have to be ultimately good. “Objective moral values have their sources in the eternal character, nature and substance of a loving, just and self-sufficient God.” # Evidence of his goodness would be revealed through his creation, and this would then serve as a way to point back to himself through his creation. In his ultimate goodness, he would be a being of ultimate love, and would therefore give choices to his creation in regards to their behavior in light of good and bad choices that present themselves. In his ultimate goodness, he would also be forgiving, and would therefore provide some sort of system to right the wrongs of his created beings.
Here we see the whole story of ultimate reality which lies up with the good news found in the Bible. A singular, good and holy god, created a harmonious world with free will and revealed Himself to his creation. However, the created beings chose ways which opposed His ways, breaking the harmonious relationship and leaving the created beings with a singular hope in the creator to restore it, because the created had been tainted by sin. As Chesterton said, “Christian theology is the best root of energy and sound ethics.” #
Conclusion
Reflections on morality open the conversation to a discussion of the Gospel itself. Certain thoughts and questions present themselves, usually for the first time. As Keller states,
"Our culture differs from all the others that have gone before. People still have strong moral convictions, but unlike people in other times and places, they don't have any visible basis for why they find some things to be evil and other things good. It's almost like their moral intuitions are free-floating in midair - far off the ground." #
This is clearly a good starting place for arguing the existence of God, because everyone can relate over the sense of having a conscious revealing “both a transcendent goodness and our own violation of this goodness.” # Without God as an explanation, people are caught in a tension of recognizing a problem but not being able to argue for an answer to it. “He has argued himself into a corner, but from that corner he cries out for something he cannot reach, given his Godless presuppositions.” #
The few arguments that do exist against the existence of God should be challenged and debunked by using counterexamples to prove one or more of the premises as false. One of the best counterexamples is the inner turmoil Paul talks about in his letter to the Romans. Without the God of the Bible and the story of His fallen creation, there is no way to explain the tension one experiences of knowing what is right, yet finding themselves repeatedly doing what is wrong.
"I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. For I do not do the good I want to do, but the evil I do not want to do—this I keep on doing. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it. So I find this law at work: Although I want to do good, evil is right there with me. For in my inner being I delight in God’s law; but I see another law at work in me, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within me. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body that is subject to death? Thanks be to God, who delivers me through Jesus Christ our Lord!" #
The moral argument is a good place to start for the existence of God, because it is logically credible, can be easily understood by any audience, and starts from the point of tension to which people can relate. It can naturally be followed up by additional arguments which point out other logical and scientific details regarding the existence of God, and my hope is that these arguments can be appropriately grouped to build the credibility of and support each other. In addition, I hope that the point is clear that these arguments are additional ways in which He has revealed Himself because of His ultimate goodness in drawing his fallen creation back to Himself.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1) Chesterton, G.K. Orthodoxy. Lexington: Feather Trail Press, 2009.2) Groothius, Douglas. Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case For Biblical Faith. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2011.
3) Keller, Timothy. The Reason For God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism. New York: Penguin Group (USA) Inc., 2008.
4) Lewis, C.S. Mere Christianity. New York: HarperCollins, 2001.
5) Menuge, Angus. “God on the Brain.” Christian Research Journal, v33 (2004): 18-26.
6) Shafer-Landau, Russ. “Moral and Theological Realism: The Explanatory Argument.” Journal of Moral Philosophy (2007): 311-329.
