Does God Exist? Part 5: How Morality Points to the Existence of God

“Morality, Therefore, God.” That is a short but memorable title for an article written by Sarah Geis for the Christian Research Journal, which sums up the reason for God on the basis of the existence of objective moral values. In other words, the objective moral values are best explained by the existence of a transcendent moral law giver. If objective morals exist, then there is a basis for belief in God. If objective morals do not exist, then there is no basis for belief in God. Let me explain.

What are objective moral values? “Objective” refers to something that truly exists regardless of whether someone believes it. “Morals” concerns the recognition of certain actions, ideas, and principles as either right or wrong, permitted or prohibited, commanded or condemned, just or unjust, good or evil. Objective moral values are ultimately true across the board, they transcend cultural norms, and they remain true whether they are observed or acknowledged. Objective moral values can even be called moral absolutes. They are “absolute” in the sense of being universally applicable, binding to everyone everywhere.

People all over the world in every epoch of time can recognize an inner voice or conscious telling them something is either right or wrong. For example, I always took it for granted that right and wrong exist. My conscious prohibits vices such as murdering innocents, stealing another’s property and deceiving maliciously. My conscious, likewise, encourages virtues such as procreating life, respecting another’s property, or speaking truth in love. I never questioned the sensibility of my conscious on these matters. A functioning conscious is the norm for all humanity, and while there are some exceptions to the general rule,¹ our conscious is generally reliable. This never means we are correct about right and wrong 100% of the time. Neither does this mean we never need to be corrected or reminded about what is right and wrong. However, people in general have a conscious a guide and their conscious is dependable more times than not.

Paul Copan, Christian theologian and philosopher, offers the following helpful analogy between the general reliability of physical senses and moral senses:

Just as we generally trust our sense perceptions as reliable (unless there is good reason to doubt them), we should treat general moral intuitions (aversion to torturing babies for fun, rape, murder) as innocent until proven guilty. Why do we trust our five senses? Most of us find they are regularly reliable. Even if we misperceive things once in a will, we are wise to pay attention to our senses rather than consistently doubt them. Similarly, we have basis moral instincts — for example, a revulsion at taking innocent human life or of raping (the “Yuck factor”), or an inward affirmation regarding self-sacrifice for the well-being of our children (the “Yes factor”). The burden of proof falls on those denying or questioning basic moral principles. We are wise to pay attention to these basic moral instincts — even if these intuitions need occasional fine-tuning.²

I find there is good evidence to show moral absolutes do exist. For example, people all over the world for eons have voiced, contemplated, and attempted to abide by the Golden Rule — “Treat others the way you want to be treated.” All modern forms of jurisprudence grapple with meaning and application of the retributive justice imbued within the ancient lex talionis — “Eye for eye, tooth for tooth.” Jesus Christ said the Golden Rule summed up the Law and the Prophets (Matt. 7:12; cf. Luke 6:31). He even expanded upon the lex talionis, urging His disciples to graciously go the extra mile (Matt. 5:38-41). Multitudes of people both inside and outside the Judeo-Christian community accept the Golden Rule and lex talionis!

Another example of a moral absolute is the prohibition against raping children and adults. Sexual violation is wrong across the board. If a person, family, community, or nation decided that rape was something ethically neutral (neither right nor wrong) and permissible in certain situations (morally relative), we are wise to never conclude rape morphs from right to wrong based upon the circumstances. Instead, it must be maintained that rape is always wrong, and those that decided otherwise are ethically deficient. Their moral muscles have atrophied.

Neither have I ever come across any person or group of people that celebrates and values cowardice as a virtue. Although it might be a way of surviving a crisis, people groups worldwide generally frown upon any display of cowardice.

The reality of objective moral values infers the existence of God. We can even go a step further in asserting the existence of God provides the rational basis for the existence of objective moral values and without God any rational basis for objective moral values vanishes. Moreover, without God it becomes impossible to explain why we have a conscious as a guide. Sarah Geiss explains,

Objective morality consists of both principles and duties. We can easily articulate moral principles such as killing the innocent for pleasure is harmful to society. But we cannot as easily account for why we should follow those principles. Why should we care about society or about human well-being? Even if the nontheist is correct that objective moral facts exist without God, our sense of obligation must be explained. Those impersonal, immaterial moral facts, whatever they would be, could not compel us to follow them. Furthermore, we cannot attribute these duties to survival instincts, because duties often go directly against those instincts. The unguided process of natural selection is an inadequate explanation, so there must be a better one. The commands of an omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevolent God perfectly account for our sense of moral obligation.³

The best explanation for objective moral values and even our innate capacity to intuitively recognize them is a divine moral law giver.

Do we really need God to learn how to know and do good? Atheists may be able to discern good and evil and they may even be able to act in ways that are genuinely good as opposed to evil. However, they are really without any rational or philosophical basis to explain why people in general have a moral sense that allows them to discern good and evil or offer a reason why moral absolutes exist in the first place. As mentioned, if atheism is true (i.e. correspondent to reality), then the rational basis for objective moral values vanishes.

Atheists do propose ethical theories on how people can be good without God or acceptance of the divine command theory. One example is utilitarianism. Utilitarian ethics sets out to seek good for others and count them as equals. The utilitarian way of doing this is to maximize good and minimize evil. For them, good is understood as pleasure whereas evil is understood as pain. The rightness of an act is to bring about a consequence which maximizes pleasure and minimizes pain equally among as many people as possible. The utilitarian goal is happiness either in quantity or quality.

The flaw of ethical utilitarianism is conspicuous. Evaluating actions based upon the consequence of greater pleasure over pain can be used to sanction unspeakable actions. A utilitarian can argue that the pain of medical experimentation upon a hundred young children to find cures for incurable diseases is minimal compared to the maximum pleasure of potential thousands being made well. He can also argue that the pain of exterminating people who never committed crimes but bear all the psychological, sociological, and genetic markers that make them most likely subjects to become mass murderers is minimal in comparison to the maximum pleasure of having multitudes living in a safer world. He can even reason the pain of civil authorities using extortion and torture to gain information about criminal activities is minimal in comparison to the maximum pleasure with thwarting activities that would harm the general public and save countless lives. But moral senses still send up “red flags” at the very thought of sanctioning the hurting of children, murdering innocents, and using extortion, and torture upon others. For further reading on utilitarian ethics see “Leaving Omelas: The Failure of Utilitarian Hedonism” by C. Wayne Mayhall from the Christian Research Journal, volume 32, number 5 (2009). Also check out “Using NBC’s The Good Place in Conversational Apologetics” by Melissa Cain Travis.

Neither can Darwinian Evolution’s unguided processes and survival of the fittest truly account for objective moral values. One can propose a “selfish gene” that ensures survival by promoting altruistic behavior, but does this account for what is truly good and evil? Here is the “catch-22:” evolutionary biologists can just as well postulate how various species survived through using deception, betrayal and murder, and these were passed on to us genetically via common descent; however, who really wants to consider these vices to be virtues? These are evolutionary explanations for why people do what they do, but that is a far cry from explaining why people should to do this as opposed to that. The issue is not explaining the way things are; rather, it is explaining the way things ought to be. For further reading on Darwinian ethical theories, check out and “Can Morality Be Based in Our ‘Selfish’ Evolutionary Past?” by Henry W. Middleton from the Christian Research Journal, volume 32, number 5 (2009).

One can even go a step further in asserting that if atheism is true, then we are left without any reason to believe objective moral values exist. Some atheists will even admit this fact. For example, Alex Rosenburg, an atheist philosopher, writes, “Is there a God? No,” “What is the difference between right and wrong, good and bad? There is no moral difference between them,” and “Why should I be moral? Because it makes you feel better than being immoral.”⁴ Rosenburg really “bites the bullet” in proposing that without God we are left without any rational basis for the existence of moral absolutes, and the real reason to be a moral person is simply just makes one feel better. This is the moral nihilism part and parcel to atheism. Philosopher Mitch Stokes puts it this way: “If naturalism [i.e. atheism] is true, there’s no morality apart from what humans value, want, or prefer. Morality is purely a matter of taste. In short, naturalism implies moral nihilism, the view that there are no human-independent moral rules.”⁵

Are certain actions good because the gods command them or do the gods command certain actions because they are good? This is a question posed in Plato’s dialogue Euthyphro. However, there is a devilishness to this conundrum. If we choose option A (actions are good because the gods command them), then virtues and vices become arbitrary. The gods can command rape, extortion, and assassinations but that never turns those vices into virtues; rather, it makes the gods capricious and their ethics relative. If we choose option B (the gods command actions because they are good), then the gods are subject to morals, which infers there is something greater than the gods and the gods are never really the most supreme beings in the universe. Does the Euthyphro dilemma upturn the moral argument for God’s existence?

No. The Euthyphro dilemma fails to account for a third alternative. We can choose option C — “What God wills reflects and is consistent with his own eternal nature, which is immutably and necessarily good,” and “The Good is defined not merely by God’s will but also by God’s eternal and unchanging nature.”⁶ Christian theologians often speak to the simplicity of God (simplicitas Dei). This means “God is…absolutely free of any and all composition, not merely physical, but also rational or logical composition. Thus God is not the sum of the divine attributes…the attributes are understood to be identical with and inseparable from the essential Dei [essence of God].”⁷ Hank Hanegraaff puts it this way: “God (not gods) will what He wills because He is good, and what He wills is right because it is reflective of and consistent with His nature.”⁸ The command of God is never arbitrary; rather, consistent with His good nature. So, Christians sing, “You’re a good, good Father, it’s who you are…” For further reading on the Euthyphro dilemma, check out “The Euthyphro Dilemma” by Matthew Flannagan from the Christian Research Journal volume 36, number 1 (2013) and “The God of Abraham, Isaac, and Anselm: In Defense of Greatest Being Theology” by Tom Morris and David Baggett from the Christian Research Journal volume 39, number 1 (2016).

Moral absolutes exist and a divine moral lawgiver is the best explanation for their existence. This idea is in concert with what the Apostle Paul had in mind in stating, “When Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts” (Rom. 2:14-15, ESV). Just as I can believe there are moral absolutes, I can believe in a Moral Lawgiver. God and moral absolutes go hand-in-hand. If God exists, then objective moral values exist. If God does not exist, then objective moral values do not exist.

— WGN

 

***Addendum 9/21/2019***

I came across a coupe of comments on feral children — rare instances of persons raised apart from human contact from very young ages. When they are discovered, they are described as having very little language skills, and almost animal-like behavior. Some cases are legendary whereas others have been documented. Their assimilation back into the mainstream of society is a challenge. The assertion is that incidents of feral children demonstrate morals are learned behavior, which presumably dismisses the proposition that our moral sense and existence of objective moral values infer a divine moral law giver.

This objection based upon the example of feral children commits a is/ought fallacy. The issue is never about “what is,” or why people do what they do; rather, the it is about “what ought to be,” or why people ought to do this as opposed to that. (This is explained in the initial post.)

One can go a step further to point out the feral child objection confounds the ontology of morals (how we know morals exist or the reality of morals) with epistemology of morals (How we come to know about morals or the discovery of morals). Epistemologically we can say humans are social creatures and humans pass on moral virtues and vices to their kin. It is most unfortunate when one finds a misbehaving adult whose been taught how to misbehave as a child or lack any good example to show a better way. As the saying goes, “bad company corrupts good morals.”

Morals still transcend even the social structures that instruct us how to behave as we grow from children to adults (e.g. parents, schools, community leaders, etc.). We can even judge whether or not the way we were taught to behave is truly virtuous. For example, many children were part of Hitler Youth groups during the apex of the Third Reich regime — National Socialist Germany. There were still those who opposed the Nazi Party ideology, particularly the mistreatment of Jewish people. They lived in a culture — National Socialist German culture to be exact — they were taught a certain way doing right and wrong, but they evaluated the culture from which they were raised, and found it to be found wanting. There are then moral principles that transcend culture, which can be used in evaluating the ways of culture, and whether behaviors taught by the culture are virtues or vices. This points strongly to moral absolutes and a conscious as a guide.

— WGN

 

---

Notes:

1. For example, people designated “sociopaths” have a weaken conscious whereas those designated “psychopaths” lack a conscious (cf. Joseph Goldberg, “Sociopath vs. Psychopath: What’s the Difference?” https://www.webmd.com/mental-health/features/sociopath-psychopath-difference#1)
2. Paul Copan, “The Moral Argument for God’s Existence,” Evidence for God: 50 Arguments for Eaith from the Bible, History, Philosophy, and Science, ed. William A. Dembski and Michael R. Licona (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 2010), 21
3. Sarah C. Geils, “Morality, Therefore God: An Evangelistic Strategy,” https://www.equip.org/article/morality-therefore-god-evangelistic-strategy/
4. Alex Rosenburg, The Atheist Guide to Reality: Enjoying Life Without Illusions (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 2011), 2-3.
5. Mitch Stokes, How to be An Atheist: Why Many Skeptics Aren’t Skeptical Enough (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2016),
6. Ronald H. Nash, Life’s Ultimate Questions: An Introduction to Philosophy (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1999), 87
7. Richard A. Muller, Dictionary of Latin and Greek Theological Terms: Drawn from Protestant Scholastic Theology (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Book House, 1985), 283.
8. Hank Hanegraaff, The Complete Bible Answer Book: Collector’s Edition Revised and Updated (Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson, 2008, 2016), 87.