Objective moral values provide evidence for the existence of God. These values are not merely determined via group consensus or popular vote, but appear to be more basic and intrinsic. There seems to be a set of moral values that exist independent to our changing opinions and which are imprinted indellibly onto our souls. These point to the existence of a supernatural creator because a purely mechanistic universe cannot create values.

VIDEO & AUDIO LINKS

VIDEO PRESENTATION: OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES (Part 2)

AUDIO PODCAST: OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES (Part 2)

………………………………………………………….

TRANSCRIPT

In this episode, we are continuing to examine the moral argument for the existence of God. In the previous episode we looked at the first premise of the argument, If God doesn’t exist, objective moral values don’t exist. This is a perfectly logical premise and even atheists such as Richard Dawkins have conceded that it is true. In this episode, we will look at the remainder of the argument – the second premise and the conclusion:

PREMISE 1: If God doesn’t exist, objective moral values don’t exist.

PREMISE 2: Objective moral values DO appear to exist.

CONCLUSION: Therefore, God exists.

So let’s dive into Premise 2:

OBJECTIVE MORAL VALUES DO EXIST

Here is the great dilemma for atheists: objective moral values DO appear to exist. Many atheists admit this. In my ongoing debates and discussions with atheists I find that almost no one denies the existence of objective moral values in our world. Almost all of us hold to a strong belief in absolute moral goodness and evil.

For example, we recognise that rape, torture and child abuse are evil. They are not merely socially unacceptable because of some kind of majority vote. They aren’t wrong simply because of some kind of communal subjective moral PREFERENCE. They are inherently evil actions, in and of themselves. There is something so IMPLICITLY evil about these things that we don’t have to be told they are wrong; we simply KNOW it in the depths of our souls. We don’t have to hold a national referendum to decide whether or not rape or child abuse are acceptable. The evil nature of such actions is so intrinsically obvious that we recoil from it with understandable disgust and those who commit these kinds of indecent acts are rightly regard as sick and evil.

In the same way, we don’t need to hold a referendum to determine whether it is a good thing to love someone or to care for little babies. These are so obviously and implicitly good, in and of themselves, that they require no debate. Once again, those who err from these objective moral standards are considered to be morally sick.

C.S. Lewis, in his masterpiece, Mere Christianity, refers to the fact that mankind has an inbuilt sense of right and wrong, a sense of what is fair and decent and what is not, which he calls variously “the Law of Conscience”, “the Law of Decent Behaviour” and the “Law of Human Nature” (not inferring that it has originated from blind nature, but simply that these values are “natural” to us).[1]

Of course, some people try to argue that there is no such thing as a universal conscience or a universal code of right and wrong, because different civilisations in various ages have held to different moralities.

But this is not true. While there have been superficial differences between the moralities of different cultures at different times, these have merely been differences in the application of deeper, more foundational moral principles. For example, societies have differed as to whether a man can have one wife or five, but all societies agree that a man cannot simply take any woman he likes at any time. Underlying the superficial variances in the application of morality there lies a deeper set of values that are universal. A study of the moral teachings of all cultures and societies of the past and present reveals an overwhelming agreement of fundamental values.[2]

To illustrate this universal agreement, you only need to try to imagine a society with a totally different set of values.

 C.S. Lewis explains:

“Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to always put yourself first.”[3]

 Lewis continues:

“Although there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great—not nearly so great as most people imagine—and you can recognise the same law running through them all.”[4]

Thus, while society may, at times, shift and change its collective opinion concerning the application of some moral values, there remains a core set of values that we regard as non-negotiable absolutes. Although our post-modern society claims to espouse relativism (the belief that there are no absolutes), in practice, the vast majority of the human race hold certain core values in place as absolutes. It is absolutely good to love and care for a baby and it is absolutely evil to torture and abuse a baby. It is absolutely good to treat people with love and respect and it is absolutely evil to raper and murder.

As a society we are rightly incensed when we hear of people who break these moral codes. Our moral outrage at such an action arises not merely from its departure from an agreed-upon moral preference, but from our sense, deep within our collective conscience, that the action itself is inherently, implicitly evil.

If you are completely honest with yourself, you will almost certainly agree that objective moral values really do exist. Our strong reaction when they are broken indicates the fundamental nature of those values that runs far deeper than mere collective opinion or referendum. These values are right or wrong, not because we voted on them, but simply because they just are.

 C.S. Lewis comments:

“We are forced to believe in a real Right and Wrong. People may be sometimes mistaken about them, just as people sometimes get their sums wrong; but they are not a matter of mere taste and opinion any more than the multiplication table.”[5]

But this presents a major dilemma for atheism. Because if absolute values DO exist, and such values are only possible if God exists (as Premise 1 states), then the inescapable conclusion is that God must, therefore, exist. It is to avoid this conclusion that, very occasionally, an atheist will resolutely deny the existence of objective moral values. This is an extreme position and one which becomes increasingly bizarre if such a person is pushed to defend it.

William Lane Craig provides an example of such an extreme attitude. In his book, “On Guard”, he recounts being present at a forum on morals involving a panel of experts who made presentations and then answered questions from the audience. One of the atheistic panellists was adamant that objective moral values don’t exist. After making her case for relativism, claiming that nothing is either good or bad in an absolute sense and that everything is just a matter of personal or communal preference, she opened the discussion for questions from the audience.

 I will let Dr Craig recount what happened in his own words:

“The next man who stood up said, ‘Wait a minute. I’m rather confused. I’m a pastor and people are always coming up to me, asking if something they’ve done is wrong and if they need forgiveness. For example, isn’t it always wrong to abuse a child?’ I couldn’t believe the panellist’s response. She replied: ‘What counts as abuse differs from society to society, so we can’t really use the word abuse without tying it to a historical context.’ ‘Call it whatever you like,’ the pastor insisted, ‘but child abuse is damaging to children. Isn’t it wrong to damage children?’ And still she wouldn’t admit it! This sort of hardness of heart ultimately backfires on the moral relativist and exposes in the minds of most people the bankruptcy of such a worldview.”[6]

Dr Craig is right. The moral relativist who rejects all moral absolutes is ultimately viewed with abhorrence by the rest of us, because there is something undeniably intrinsic about certain moral values. Our deep emotional response to such values indicates that they are more than mere collective opinions or preferences.

Some moral relativists will argue that our perceived objective moral standards are simply the product of social conditioning. They claim that these moral preferences have arisen as a result of society instilling those values into our collective psyche – a form of mass indoctrination. Furthermore, they claim that the reason for society’s preference for these values is not because of any inherent good or evil, but simply because those values are convenient for the advancement of society as a whole.

According to this theory, we have come to uphold these values simply because they are convenient for our continuation as a species. For example, according to this view, moral precepts such as “don’t hit people” and “don’t lie” are ubiquitous not because they are rooted in some kind of pre-existing, transcendent, objective moral code, but simply because they have been arbitrarily instilled into us by society as a convenient means of maintaining order and optimising the quality of our lives.

To put it even more simply, this view states that our moral values are TAUGHT rather than intrinsic – arbitrarily enforced rather than stamped upon our souls.

There are three things to say in response to this.

Firstly, just because something is taught to us, doesn’t mean it is not objectively true. Intrinsic truths still need to be taught and reinforced. For instance, school children need to be taught mathematical concepts, but they are still objectively true. The statement that 2 + 2 = 4 is objectively true and the fact that it has to be taught to young children does not negate its objective truth.

Secondly, the moral instruction that takes place within society is not merely the imposition of arbitrary standards upon individuals – not some form of indoctrination – but rather, represents the REINFORCEMENT of pre-existing objective moral values that already reside within the conscience of the individual and within our collective conscience as a society. When parents teach children that it is wrong to hit someone, they are appealing to the pre-existing objective moral value that violence is wrong; that to inflict hurt upon another person is inherently wrong. Deep down everyone, even children, know this, but we need reinforcement, particularly at a young age, to train us to live in accordance with this value.

Thirdly, the strength of our emotional response to certain moral values indicates they are not mere convenient social preferences. Our abhorrence and revulsion in response to hideous acts of violence and abuse make no sense if the perpetrators are simply breaking convenient social conventions. When someone rapes a woman or abuses a child a profound sense of outrage and disgust is generated from deep within us. We know implicitly, without having to be taught, that such reprehensible acts represent the breaking of an absolute, objective moral standard. We recognise such crimes as inherently evil and the perpetrators as sick, and this is reflected in our emotional response.

 Dr Michael Ruse, a prominent philosopher, admitted the existence of objective moral values, stating, “The person who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the person who says 2+2=5.”[7] He makes a good point.

The formula, 2 + 2 = 5, is objectively wrong, and even if the whole world voted to say that they believe that 2 + 2 = 5, it would still be wrong, because objective truth is implicitly and independently true, irrespective of popular opinion. It’s true, simply because it IS.

The same is true of objective moral values. They exist independently, apart from our opinions, and they have been stamped deep into our souls in such a way that they elicit a strong emotional response when they are broken or not adhered to.

 C.S. Lewis states:

“Consequently, this Rule of Right and Wrong, or Law of Human Nature, or whatever you call it, must somehow or other be a real thing—a thing that is really there, not made up by ourselves. … It begins to look as if we shall have to admit that there is more than one kind of reality; that, in this particular case, there is something above and beyond the ordinary facts of men’s behaviour, and yet quite definitely real—a real law, which none of us made, but which we find pressing upon us.”[8]

CONCLUSION

If both of the first two premises in the moral argument are true, then it logically follows that God must exist. If objective moral values are only possible if God exists, and if objective moral values DO, in fact, exist, then the unavoidable conclusion is that God exists. In this sense, it is a water-tight logical argument. To maintain atheism, one has to disprove one of the two premises of this argument, and it seems to me (and to many philosophers) that disproving either one is not possible.

Don’t misunderstand me. The moral argument in this chapter and the scientific arguments in the preceding chapters are still a long way from revealing the Christian God of the Bible. But they do clearly point to a transcendent origin of moral values, and thus, to a supernatural Something: a moral Creator of some kind. The next step is to see if there is any evidence for that Something being the God of the Christian Bible. This Episode has made the first tentative step in that direction because the existence of absolute moral values speaks to the character of that Something.

The areas of evidence that we looked at so far in this series regarding the origin of the universe, the origin of biological life and the evidence of intelligent design within the universe provide scientific evidence for the existence of a supernatural Something. But this fourth area of evidence – the existence of objective morality – provides strong evidence for the moral goodness of that Something. Indeed, the existence of an absolute moral code within the universe implies that the Something that created the universe is actually a Someone – a personal God who is morally wholesome and perfectly good, and who insists that we live according to his standards for the good of all.

In the Episodes that now follow, we are going to move on and see if there is any additional evidence that might point us more definitively to the God of the Christian Bible.

For more information, you can check out my books which are available from my website, smartfaith.net, where you can also subscribe to my weekly blog.

………………………………………..

 FOOTNOTES: 

[1] C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”, 1952, republished 1980, William Collins, London. Kindle Edition, p.2

[2] See C.S. Lewis, “The Abolition of Man”, Oxford University Press, 1943, republished 1978.

[3] C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”, 1952, republished 1980, William Collins, London. Kindle Edition, p.2

[4] C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”, 1952, republished 1980, William Collins, London. Kindle Edition, p.6

[5] C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”, 1952, republished 1980, William Collins, London. Kindle Edition,p.2

[6] William Lane Craig, “On Guard”, David C. Cook, Colorado, 2010, p.142.

[7] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” inThe Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-9

[8] C.S. Lewis, “Mere Christianity”, 1952, republished 1980, Harper Collins, London. Kindle Edition,p.11