A few weeks ago, we
looked at the Teleological Argument (TA) for the existence of God. As we saw
there, purpose points to a Creator. Nature has goals and shows order, which
only make sense if there was an intelligence to cause them. Once we have that
established, it allows us to go a little deeper and consider the Moral Argument
(MA) for the existence of God.
Morality as Purpose
The MA follows on the TA by focusing on a particular way of
looking at purpose. If something is fulfilling its purpose, it is said to be
“good,” and if it is not, then it is “bad.” Of course, morality fully
understood is a uniquely human thing. However, even animals and inanimate
objects can be viewed as good or bad depending on their health or function. For
example, a kitchen pot with a hole in the bottom could be called bad because it
does not fulfill the purpose of holding water. It is not at fault for that, but
it does fall short of its ideal. It is imperfect.
So another way of saying all of this is that everything
pursues its own perfection. The closer it gets, the better it is. Anything that
misses the mark loses value. And hopefully that makes the link between
teleology and morality clearer. When we do what we are supposed to do, we are
good. Doing the opposite is evil.
Relativism and
Morality
Some people argue that these concepts are merely culturally
determined. They refuse to see purpose in the universe because it would require
a Creator, and therefore they must also deny the concept of a transcendent
moral law. They say that our concepts of good and evil are merely a human
invention. There is no absolute moral good that comes from outside society.
Instead, each society builds its conventions up to the point that they become
unquestionable. However, those rules do not apply to people from other
societies.
There is a partial truth in that. We drive on the right
side of the road here, while in many other countries, they drive on the left.
That is a mere social convention. Driving on the left here would be bad, while
doing it in the UK is correct. But the problem is how superficial that is. No
one thinks it is wrong for countries to have different ways of controlling
their traffic. What everyone can agree on, however, is that it is wrong to
drive into oncoming traffic no matter where you are.
Which helps to illustrate the problem with those theories
which challenge the concept of the moral law. Relativism depends upon
individual illustrations to show shallow differences between cultures, and
ignores the deeper truths all cultures share. No matter where you go, groups of
people everywhere have a conception of right and wrong. The forms they
recognize can vary, but the principles underlying them do not. All societies
have laws, based one way or another on helping people live at peace, and with
means to punish those who selfishly break it. Good and evil are inescapable.
They are, in fact, inherent to relativism. The relativist
worldview says that there is no whole truth to know, no absolute conception of
right and wrong. As a result, we should not try to force our culturally-derived
systems onto others. The contradiction should be obvious. Their claim that
there is no absolute truth, is viewed as an absolute truth. And their vision of
tolerance, which says we should not impose our idea of the good on others, is
an imposition of their idea of good on those with whom they disagree. They do
exactly what they demand others stop. In so doing, they show that we all think
in terms of right and wrong. They are inherent to human nature. And since that
is one truth we can know for certain, it stands to reason there might be
others. We have a responsibility to investigate them, not to merely pretend
that the differences do not matter. And after all, they only seem not to matter
so long as they do not affect us. Once someone does wrong to us, relativism
tends to go out the window.
The point in all of this is that we can see that good and
evil are more than man-made illusions. Nothing that is inherent can be a
construct. And, like all other purposes, they had to have come from somewhere.
The moral law demands a Moral Lawgiver. If the difference between right and
wrong has been determined by the will of the one who made the universe and
everything in it, then it makes the most sense to pursue that will.
Disagreements over what the Lawgiver wants do not change the fact that there
must be one. Our ability to tell if something is as it should be leaves no
other rational alternative. If you claim to know anything, or to think of one
thing as preferable to another, you are implicitly acknowledging it.
Before moving on, allow me to offer a word on tolerance.
Relativists define tolerance as leaving room for all the world’s various
truths, since we cannot know or claim to know what is right for all people at
all times. As we have seen, however, that is in and of itself a claim to
absolute truth. Relativism’s version of tolerance is therefore patronizing. It
is claiming to know better than everyone else, and to merely permit them to
continue in their delusions. That is not tolerance. It is arrogance. True
tolerance is the willingness to admit that humans are individuals with free
will, and that they must be allowed to make up their own minds. It does not
mean we should give up every effort to know and argue for the truth.
God and Evil
Part of the MA, then, is in showing that morality is a fact
of the universe, and one which must come from outside of the material of the
universe. It is, in that sense, teleological. But another aspect of it is
attempting to explain why there is evil at all. Why is there pain, suffering,
and death? This question is assumed to
have three answers. Either there is no God, life is meaningless, and good and
evil do not exist; or, there is a God, but He is not good; or, God is good, but
He is powerless to stop evil.
No God
We have already dealt with the first possibility. A Moral
Lawgiver must exist. If He did not, there would be no way to judge anything as
good or bad at all. Our ability to have experiences of pleasure and pain, and
to recognize the former as preferable to the latter, cannot come from a blind,
chaotic universe. It would have no way to produce or maintain those categories. The ability
to argue for any type of truth depends on supernatural intelligence creating
truth in the first place.
Cruel God
The second possibility recognizes this, at least
implicitly, but tries to say that evil is present because the Creator is cruel.
This is really the most current and influential form of modern atheism, which I
prefer to call antitheism. These people say they do not think God exists, but
are often quick to point out the things they think He has done wrong. The
problem is, what is their point of reference? If there is no God, then He
cannot be guilty of the crimes of which they accuse them. If He does exist,
they cannot be crimes. Remember, for something to be evil, it must break the
purpose for which it was made. God is the one who establishes that purpose. He
is the source of the highest standard. In fact, He Himself is the standard. A
thing can only be evil to the extent it is different from what He intended.
Otherwise, we could not recognize it as such. When things go wrong, it cannot
be God’s fault. If not for Him, we could not tell they were wrong in the first
place.
Weak God
The final possibility is the most difficult one, though it
is not commonly held. It is difficult to believe in a powerless God. On its
face, it seems like a ridiculous concept. It does seem to offer a solution,
however. Evil exists, and only the existence of God can explain it. Also, God
must be good, or evil would not be known as evil. However, an all-powerful and
good God would not allow evil to exist. Therefore, God must not be powerful
enough to stop evil. He wants things to be right, but He cannot make them be
that way. He is limited.
There are a few problems with this view as well, however.
First, it assumes far too much. Yes, evil exists, and yes, God has not
eliminated it. Yet. To claim that He cannot is to claim to know that He never
will. It is an implicit assertion of omniscience. The truth is that none of us
knows with absolute certainty what the future holds. We can assume a great deal
about it. We can also believe things on faith. However, to go beyond that, as
this position does, is to claim an aspect of divinity. Those who hold it act as
if they know the entirety of the future, doing so on no resources other than
their own.
The second problem is one shared by all the others. In
every case, the focus is on God. He isn’t there, or He isn’t good, or He isn’t
powerful. Evil is somehow or another His fault. What they fail to consider is
that evil may have another source. Remember what evil is: it is what happens
when something fails to conform to its purpose. This is what makes morality so
uniquely human. We have free will. Unlike everything else, we have the power to
refuse to conform to our purpose. We are able to refuse to obey God’s will and
do what is right.
The Source of Evil
This is, we are, the source of evil in the universe. God
could have created us as mere puppets. Instead, He made us in His image. He
gave us the ability to decide whether we would love Him or not. That, after
all, is precisely what love requires. If it is not freely given, then it does
not exist. Instead, it is obligation and control. But if there is a choice to
love, then its opposite is also available.
Unfortunately, that is the route humanity has chosen. Each
of us, in innumerable individual ways, chooses to act selfishly and to rebel
against what God has established. Because God is good, and because He is
powerful, that rebellion comes with negative consequences. That is not His
fault. It is ours.
The Solution of Good
That is also how God could leave us. But because He loves
us in spite of our unloving hearts, He did not abandon us to our own devices.
He has made a way for us to approach Him, to freely declare our love and be
freed from the burden of the evil we have made. Jesus Christ, by being
sacrificed for us, has given us the opportunity to discover what is truly good.
And His promise is that one day, He will fully establish it, restoring all
goodness and eliminating every stain of evil forever. Those who trust in Him
will share in that glorious future. Nothing wrong will remain any longer.
Morality is unavoidable. We are all born understanding the
concept of right and wrong, at least for ourselves if we admit nothing else.
And we all knowingly choose wrong over right, not every time, but often enough.
We should stop trying to excuse ourselves from it. Instead, we should admit it,
and turn to the only One who can make it right. The MA helps us put the blame
where it really belongs. Only when we see our need can we find the cure.
Thanks for checking out the Quest Forums
blog! If you enjoyed this post, please consider following me here, on Twitter
(@Quest_Forums), or on Facebook (“Quest Forums”). Links are in the sidebar. I
am always looking for new questions and comments, so submit yours on any of
these sites or by emailing questforums.ask@gmail.com.
And please, spread the word! The share buttons below are
a great way to do that. I want to connect with as many people as possible, so
if you know anyone with questions about the Bible, send them my way.
No comments:
Post a Comment