Holman QuickSource Guide to Christian Apologetics Chapter 4: Does God Exist The Moral Argument

In chapter 4 Doug Powell looks at whether or not God exists through axiology, or the study of morality and values. He posits the question, "Are right and wrong objective realities with claims on all people at all times, or are they subjective realities only - matters of opinion?" Today we see how moral argument attempts to show that if moral values are to make any sense, they must be both universal and objective. Further, if they are objective then there must be a source that is "a transcendent, personal being for whom human actions and motives are not a matter of indifference."

Relativism

In our culture, the most popular moral view is relativism. It says that individuals and societies decide right and wrong and that right and wrong vary from person to person and from culture to culture. People create values and they are subject to change instead of being universal and objective moral truths. Relativism comes in three flavors, cultural relativism, conventionalism and ethical subjectivism.

Cultural Relativism

Cultural relativism sees different cultures that appear to have different values. Because of that, there can be no right system of morality or they would be shared by all. For example, the United States allows abortions as a legal option, China actually requires abortions under certain circumstances and Mexico has laws that prohibit abortion. Since these countries all appear to have different morals, there can be no objective reality.

Morals are viewed through observation. So, at best these observations are statements of what is factually observed.  Just because something SEEMS to be a certain way does not mean that they SHOULD be that way. Also, just because there are different answers to the same question does not meant a right answer doesn't exist. If golfers argue over the strokes one of  them took on a hole, they are either both wrong or one of them is right. They cannot both be right.

Lastly, cultural relativism refutes itself. If a cultural relativist claims he has the correct view of moral theory and other views are wrong he is not abiding by his own claims. If he claims there is no universal right view of moral theory, he cannot say that other views are incorrect. Due to that cultural relativism cannot be a proper explanation for morality.

Conventionalism

Conventionalism says morals are decided by each society. Morality is simply what is legal, which can differ from society to society. There is a right and a wrong, which makes it different from cultural relativism. In this instance, if a society said blues eyes were illegal and that those possessing blue eyes would die, there would be nothing immoral about the law. The immoral thing in that society would be those born with blue eyes.

This may sound crazy, but it is exactly what Germany did in the 30's and 40's. Jews were declared to be both subhuman and deserving of death. Since law is law, the concentration camps were not only filled with Jews but with German criminals. The crime the Germans committed was pretesting Nazi policies and laws.

Conventionalism is not about morality, but instead power. The will of the majority defines morality and forces  into submission or imprisons any who oppose. Due to this, people like Abraham Lincoln, Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. were criminals. By the sheer moral bankruptcy of conventionalism, it lacks much needed to explain morality.

Ethical Subjectivism

Ethical subjectivism says that individuals decide wrong and right for themselves, and only themselves. "What's true for you is true for you, and what 's true for me is true for me." Another common refrain is, "Who are you to judge me?" No longer does nayone have the right to say what anyone does in either right or wrong. Saving a drowning baby can no longer be praised, and drowning a baby could no longer be reviled.

This view is self-refuting. If all truth is relative, than what are we to do with this universal statement? And if ethical subjectivism is not true for everybody, than why would someone who holds that view attempt to push it onto others? Paul Copan says that claiming a statement holds true for all but you is called the "self-excepting fallacy."

"Torturing babies for fun is wrong," is a great way to expose what is wrong with ethical subjectivism. Obviously, that statement would not be correct as it is stating a universal that others may not agree with. Someone thinking torturing babies for fun is okay behavior has to have their feelings validated by an ethical subjectivist. Beckwith and Koukl state, "The quintessential relativist is a sociopath, one with no conscience."

Objective Morality

Morals are not descriptions of behavior, but instead are prescriptions for behavior. Morals aren't opinions, but instead they contain a sense of obligation and rightness to them. Moral relativism turns out to simply be sets of opinions. Morals are universal and they transcend society, time, and people. Therefore the source must be transcendent and universal. Since morals are authoritative, not telling us what we should do but what we ought to do, they musc come from an authority. This authoritative, transcendent and universal entity we call God.

We have looked at the validity of a God existing through morals, design and cosmological arguments in the past few chapters. In chapter 5 we will sort out which God exists by looking at various existing religions.

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 9: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide

Ther are many reasons that someone point of view can self-destruct. So far, you have covered two of them: Formal suicide and Practical Suicide. Today we will talk about two more self-defeating views: Sibling Rivalry and Infanticide. When someone has two objections that conflict, you have the Sibling Rivalry. If, on the other hand, someone's view is built upon a previous concept that disqualifies their view, then you have Infanticide.

In conversation sometimes, you will hear something that sounds strange. You will hear objections used by the same person that are not consistent with each other. Since they cannot both be valid, you only have to do half the work. A reasonable person will concede on at least one of their arguments, when they are pointed out to them. Sometimes they will silence both of their arguments when they are shown to be in conflict.

An example of Sibling Rivalry would be someone who looks at the world today and is angered. They read about someone who has abused children or a dictator killing innocent people and say, "A good, loving God would never let this happen." Yet when those same people hear that some will be judged by God say, "A good, loving God would never send anyone to hell." By their very arguments, if God does not act against evil, He cannot be good and loving. Yet when he does act to punish sin, his goodness and love are put into question.

Sibling Rivalry is also the issue moral relativists run into when objecting to evil. A relativist will argue that we all have our own morality. Right and wrong are the business of the individual, who are we to judge. Therefore, they cannot really define evil. Evil only means that something is wrong for them to do. If you label something as evil, that means that it is not the way it is supposed to be. Unless things are meant to be different, this is a senseless word. If the world is unjust, than there must be a higher justice.

What the moral relativist is saying is, "If God were really good and loving, He would only allow things that I like and wouldn't allow things I find displeasing." Gregory says, "The belief that objective good and evil do not exist (relativism) is i conflict (rivalry) with a rejection of God based on the existence of objective evil."
Infanticide is harder to understand. Imagine a father ending a letter with; "Son, if you didn't get this letter, please let me know, and I'll send you another. I made a copy." This is illogical because the son would have to receive the letter if he knew to ask for a copy, but if he got the letter he would not need the copy. There is a dependency here that is the very heart of Infanticide. Another example is saying "vocal chords do not exist." That statement in and of itself is not contradictory internally, but it requires vocal chords to speak the statement. So the parent concept (vocal chords) invalidates the child (claim there is no vocal chords).

The best example of Infanticide is when objectivists argue that God cannot exist because of evil. The atheist must first answer the question, "What do you mean by evil?" They will probably give examples: rape, murder, racism, child abuse. Those are good answers, but they miss the point. Where does their concept of evil come from. Before you can give examples of evil, you must know what evil is.

So, how do you know the difference between good and bad? Let's look at bowling. In bowling, good and bad can be measured by pin count. A 300 is supremely good, and rolling all gutter balls is supremely bad. Even in sports that you cannot be perfect in, such as golf, we still keep score. When we use the word evil we have a moral scoring system that we depend on. Evil means that when put on the goodness scale, we are on the low end. C.S. Lewis saw this same problem:

My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I gotten this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.

This is the problem atheists will run into. Where have they gotten their concept of good that allows them to label something as evil? How can there be a moral scoring system if morals are nothing more than a product of chance. In fact, why obey them at all if that is the case. Who is it that establishes how things are supposed to be? In the movie The Quarrel, Rabbi Hersh says:

If there's nothing in the universe that's higher than human beings, then what's morality? Well, it's a matter of opinion. I like milk; you like meat. Hitler likes to kill people; I like to save them. Who's to say which is better? Do you begin to see the horror of this? If there's no master of the universe, then who's to say that Hitler did anything wrong? If there is no God, then the people that murdered your wife and children did nothing wrong.

So why do we need a God? What purpose does God serve in the argument about morals and morality? A morally perfect God is the only plausible standard for a moral scoring system that contains at the bottom end evil. If God's existence makes evil intelligible, then evil cannot be evidence against God. In fact, it is great evidence for God. So morals actually prove that God exists!

When it comes to morals, sometimes people think that atheists can't be moral. That is very untrue. They can be very moral, but they generally canot make sense of morality without God. Just because you can't explain gravity does not mean it does not work. The question for them is what grounds morality? Atheism creates a physicalist universe and morality is a nonphysical thing.

I would get into scientism as he does and how it commits suicide now, but that will take an entire blog. Look for a blog entitled Scientism Self-Destructs coming in the next week or so. See you next time when we look at Chapter 10!

Tactics by Gregory Koukl Chapter 8: Practical Suicide.

Last chapter you learned that some people's objections you do not have to defend. Instead, you show that their point commits suicide, meaning all you have to do is ask questions about the point that is being made and it will fail. Some views can also be self-defeating, just in a different way. One of those ways is practical suicide.

In this type of suicidal view, "you can hold the view, but you can't promote it." I used to say that I could not stand prejudiced people. In saying that about a certain type of people, I was showing myself to be prejudiced. So although I may dislike prejudice, saying that I do not like prejudiced people made me a prejudiced person.

Others say that apologetics is not adequate, because it uses reason to discover truth. "In fact, I will give you three good reasons why you can't use logic to find truth." Another view that commits practical suicide is  "condemning condemnation." This is where you state your belief that someone is wrong for doing something. In turn, someone tells you that you are wrong for condemning people like you just did. All you have to do now is ask them why they are condemning you.

When you share with others about Christ, you are following the command that Christ gave us with the Great Commission. You may have others of a different faith tell you that it is wrong to try and change their religious views. In saying this, they are telling you to change your religious views. They want you to abandon your views of evangelism and instead adopt their views.

A moral relativist will push their morals on you, whilst telling you that it is wrong to push your morality on them. Greg Koukl says: The only consistent response for a relativist is, "Pushing morality is wrong for me, but that's just my personal opinion and has nothing to do with you. Please ignore me."

Hopefully through these examples you can see exactly what a practical suicide view is. It is another view point that will self-destruct. It will not self-destruct due to internal contradiction. Instead, it is a view that one can believe, but they cannot promote it or act on it because they will violate their own convictions, for example, "It is wrong to say people are wrong."

See you next time when we introduce a couple more self-destructing points of view.