Blog

There is a common claim that the God of the Old Testament, even in the New Testament, seems very harsh, brutal, and even evil.

A look at the Old Testament and we see slavery, killing of the Canaanites, and harsh penalties, e.g., to put to death adulterers, blasphemers, and children who did not obey and respect their parents and people who work on the Sabbath.

Richard Dawkins, atheist. “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal. – see my blog on ‘Is God a Megalomanic”

But by what standard do the atheist judge the Christian God? Just the atheist’s subjective opinion? By his own morals, by what is embedded in his DNA perhaps, or his society, or culture, all fleeting and changing over time, against the God of the universe? If God does not exist, there is no one to judge. If He does exist, the atheist is trying to judge the God of the universe. We don’t even know the essence of what we are: what is consciousness, what is life, are we just brain or brain & mind, and free will? Where does the information, the language written in our DNA, come from? We are but a speck on a speck on a speck in the universe and dare to judge the essence of the Creator of the universe, judge who and what He is.

How can the atheist or non-Christian say God is harsh, brutal, and evil when they deny the Bible, the very book that defines harsh, brutal, and evil? Even further, in atheistic, materialistic, and evolutionary worldviews, such things are neither right nor wrong because there is no God in their view to establish what is right or wrong. The same people who profess to believe in a naturalistic view where animals rape, murder, and eat their own kind are those who attack the loving God of the Bible and try to call Him evil (Isaiah 5:20). But a closer look at such claims against the God of the Bible shows that these claims have no merit. The intent of many of those who make such claims is to make a good God look evil in order to justify their rejection of Him, of His Word, or even His existence.

I will address slavery in the Old Testament, the killing of the Canaanites, and the harsh punishments in the Old Testament, as examples to prove the contrary to the atheists’ accusations.

One cannot read the Bible without knowing the context and without studying and digging into the difficult issues, same as doing science, or mathematics. Same Author!

Slavery in the Old Testament

Modern slavery, today’s idea of slavery, is abuse, forced labor, and ‘human trafficking’ of African Americans.

In the Old Testament God instituted slavery with the Hebrew word used is ‘ebed’, and literally means slave or servant, related to work, and is used interchangeably. This word does not have the same negative connotation of today’s impression. The Hebrew word ‘ebed’ for slave is really too strong of a word. A slave has no rights. A slave is considered property. In true slavery, you can do whatever you want to a slave without consequence. They are treated as less than human.

Compare what the term ‘slave’ meant in the Old Testament, in the Roman era, and in the more recent history.

The Hebrew word ‘ebed’ is best understood as a contractual servant. An ‘ebed’ has rights and benefits from the arrangement. It was a servanthood, a system in which a destitute person could voluntarily work to pay off his debt. They would be given food, shelter, and legal rights and after 7 years they were released of their debt and given generous gifts of flocks, wine, and grain.

Sometimes Israelites kept slaves from surrounding Nations following wars, but they were commanded to treat them humanely and protect them from mistreatment. Human trafficking was punishable by death.

In the New Testament times of the Roman Empire, it was different. Nowhere in the New Testament does the Bible condone slavery.

85 to 90% of the Roman population were slaves and encouraging slaves to rebel against the authorities, was punishable by death. Paul taught that slaves were equal to free persons in the eyes of God. This inspired Christians towards freeing slaves. John Wesley and William Wilberforce fought against new world slavery and led to the abolition of slavery.

Jesus did not speak out against slavery. It would have changed the course and purpose of His life. The Romans and society would have strongly opposed Him. His main purpose was not to be a good moral teacher but to be the Savior. Yet He taught love and that all men were equal. Out of His teaching, Christians were the reason for the abolition of slavery.

The Conquest and Ethical Question of War – the Killing of the Canaanites

God did not act arbitrarily against the Canaanites but gave reasons for judging them and other nations as well as the nation of Israel themselves in the Old Testament. In particular, God warned the Canaanites for 400 years.

The Canaanites were far from innocent! God was patient with them as they continued in their sin. Among the Canaanite tribes when Joshua invaded were the Amorites whose sin was prophesied to Abraham. Abraham received the prophecy that the sin of the Amorites had not reached its full measure (Genesis 15:16). Had they listened, they probably wouldn’t have been in that situation.

When Joshua entered the land of Canaan, the Amorites’ sin (Canaanites) had reached its full measure and it was time for judgment. Leviticus 18:2–30 points out the horrendous crimes that were going on in the land of Canaan. They were having sex with their mothers, sisters, and so on. Men were having sex with other men. They were giving their children to be sacrificed to Molech (vs. 21). They were having sex with animals (vs. 23). So, it is impossible to make the claim that those tribes were innocent and undeserving of punishment.

God stopped the evil and atrocities of the Canaanites and still people ask why does God not stop evil in the world and, when He does, they judge Him!

‘Wipeout every man, woman and child’ is typical hyperbolic speech of the Bible. In the very next verse, God commanded the Israelites not to intermarry with the Canaanites, implicating the hyperbolic speech that we see throughout the Bible. Similar to say in a sports game the one team annihilated the other team.

It must also be remembered that in the book of Joshua it does not address itself to the abstract ethical question of war as a means for gaining human ends. It can only be understood in the context of the history of redemption unfolding in the Bible, with its interplay of divine grace and judgment.

It is rather the story of how God, to whom the whole world belongs, at one stage in the history of redemption reconquered a portion of the earth from the powers of this world that had claimed it for themselves, defending their claims by force of arms and reliance on their false gods. It tells how God commissioned His people to serve as His army under the leadership of His servant Joshua, to take Canaan in His name out of the hands of the idolatrous and dissolute Canaanites whose measure of sin was now full.

Joshua is the story of the kingdom of God breaking into the world of nations at a time when national and political entities were viewed as the creation of the gods and living proofs of their power. Thus, the Lord’s triumph over the Canaanites testified to the world that the God of Israel is the one true and living God, whose claim on the world is absolute. It was also a warning to the nations that the irresistible advance of the Kingdom of God would ultimately disinherit all those who opposed it, giving peace in the earth only to those who acknowledge and serve the Lord. At once an act of redemption and judgment, it gave notice of the outcome of history and anticipated the final destiny of humankind and the Creation.

God gave His people under Joshua no commission or license to conquer the world with the sword but a particular, limited mission So the land had to be cleansed of all remnants of paganism. Its people and their wealth were not for Israel to seize as the booty of war from which to enrich themselves. On that land, Israel was to establish a commonwealth faithful to the righteous rule of God and thus be a witness (and a blessing) to the nations. If Israel became unfaithful and conformed to Canaanite culture and practice, it would, in turn, lose its place in the Lord’s land—as Israel almost did in the days of the judges, and as it eventually did in the exile.

War is a terrible curse that the human race brings on itself as it; seeks to possess the earth by its own righteous ways. But it pales before the “curse that awaits all those who do not heed God’s testimony to Himself or His warnings—those who oppose the rule of God and reject His offer of grace. The God of the second Joshua (Jesus) is the God of the first Joshua also. Although now for a time He reaches out to the whole world with the Gospel (and commissions His people urgently to carry His offer of peace to all nations), the sword of His judgment waits in the wings—and His second Joshua will wield it (Rev 19:11-16)

Harsh punishments in the Old Testament.

Why are there such harsh punishments, like stoning to death, for many of the trespasses in the Old Testament? It would almost seem to be out of proportion to the wrong being done. At least 28 sins that called for the death penalty.

If you do not believe in the Judeo-Christian God of the Bible, you will not understand the reason, see the logic, the coherence, the righteousness and purpose of the punishment and why it was so harsh, and why it is not applicable anymore since the time of Jesus Christ. God is infinitely holy, and sin is infinitely offensive to Him. This is the story of God and man: ‘Your eyes are too holy to look at evil, and you cannot stand the sight of people doing wrong’ Habakkuk 1:13 and ‘How can I give you up, Israel? How can I abandon you? Could I ever destroy you? My heart will not let me do it. My love for you is too strong.’ Hosea11:8

Yet how do we understand death by stoning for sins like working on the Sabbath -Exodus 31:15, sorcery -Leviticus 20:27, rebellious children -Deuteronomy 21:18-21, kidnapping -Exodus 21:16, homosexuality -Leviticus 20:13, blaspheming God -Leviticus 24:16, bestiality -Exodus 22:19, idolatry -Leviticus 22:20, adultery -Leviticus 20:10, rape -Deuteronomy 24:17-22:25, murder -Exodus 21:12, and more.

In the Old Testament we learn that God made the world perfect, people sinned, and then God gave commands to Israel to show them how they ought to live. God gave commands because people were not acting the way he had originally made them to act. He gave them commands to show them how to act towards a holy God (Leviticus 20:26, 1 Peter 1:16). But He also gave them commands to show them their sin: ‘In fact, it was the law that showed me my sin’ Romans 7:7. ‘For no one can ever be made right with God by doing what the law commands. The law simply shows us how sinful we are’ Romans 3:20.

‘Be holy, because I, the LORD your God, am holy’ Leviticus 19:2. ‘But now you must be holy in everything you do, just as God who chose you is holy. For the Scriptures say, “You must be holy because I am holy.’ 1 Peter 1:15-16. God demonstrated His holiness in the Old Testament and His absolute hate for sin in raising a holy people from where the Messiah would be born so that people would also understand the magnitude of Christ’s sacrifice for our sin. Sin from which we can only be freed through the death and the blood of Christ. Through Abraham God revealed Himself to a specific people group, the Israelites, and instructed many laws, 613 laws, to make this people group holy, to make them understand what holiness is, and thereby understand God’s holiness, who He is. They were as a nation to be separated from God, to live a pure life in a covenant with God. From this people group, the Messiah would come with the new covenant once the Israelites and the world would understand who and what God is and how horrible sin is in His sight and in addition how great Christ’s sacrifice was and necessary to cancel the horribleness of our sin.

The harsher the penalty, the more it points to God’s infinite holiness, His absolute incompatibility with sin, and the greatness of Christ who took it all unto Himself and freed us from these penalties if we would accept His sacrifice. If not, we are still under the law and will be judged accordingly and righteously. The more God’s presence manifests, the harsher the penalty for sin becomes . . .. The harsh laws in the Old Testament seem at odds with the love of God expressed in the New Testament. But with a closer look, we can see that the New Testament does not hide the fact that when the manifest presence of Jesus Christ returns through His second coming, the chance to receive God’s grace will vanish. Unless we have repented of our sin and accepted Christ’s sacrifice, we will still be under the wrath of God, under even harsher penalties.

Exodus to Deuteronomy, the 613 laws, does not apply to the Christian of today, even the Ten Commandments. If a law is not repeated in the New Testament under the new covenant, it is not applicable for example keeping the sabbath because Christ came and fulfilled the law. God gave all those laws so His people could get an idea of His absolute holiness. Nine of the 10 Commandments are repeated in the New Testament and still hold for our lives.

The more holy God is, the more sin would be an abomination to Him. He is infinitely holy as the greatest conceivable Being – God. He was making it clear to Israel how serious these sins were and did not want these harsh punishments to be executed as He is a God of love yet was making a very serious and strong point. And preparing the way for Christ.

We are all sinners already under the death penalty (Romans 3:23). But again, God has provided a means of salvation in Christ. It would be nice if people realized that they should hate sin (Romans 12:9) and love God (Deuteronomy 6:5) who acts justly against sin (2 Thessalonians 1:5–10). Yet He offers abundant mercy to those who love Him (Exodus 20:6; Deuteronomy 7:9; Ephesians 2:4)

From Genesis to Revelation the theme is God is love. (1 John 4:8 ), the narrative of God,  slow to anger, abounding in love, and forgiving sin and rebellion. (Numbers 14:18) and see the wrath of God in the light of His holiness, love, and care to reach out to humanity, to you and me.

“Aslan is a lion- the Lion, the great Lion.” “Ooh” said Susan. “I’d thought he was a man. Is he-quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion”…”Safe?” said Mr Beaver …”Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.”‍ The Chronicles of Narnia. C.S. Lewis.

What the Bible says about Subjugation of Women – in short  (follow the links for  more comprehensive  insight.)

‘Eve’s curse, Genesis 3:16-17, has resulted in the virtual subjugation of women ever since. Until the Enlightenment in the 18th century, women had few rights, if any. Fathers sold their daughters into slavery or wed them to the highest bidder. Wives existed to give the husband pleasure and sons and to keep the house. Many societies insisted that women be veiled in public, and some considered it a criminal act for a woman to walk out of her house without a chaperone. In short, a woman was chattel.

Not every society was this strict. Because of God’s law, Israel was one of the most enlightened in this area. Israelite women had certain rights of inheritance, and they could even own land and run businesses (Proverbs 31:16, 24), situations unheard of in other nations. Deborah judged Israel and gave her people forty years of peace (Judges 4:4; 5:31). An Israelite woman’s life has frequently been better than her Gentile counterpart’s because of Israel’s acquaintance with the Bible.’ Link

The Making of Biblical Womanhood: How the Subjugation of Women Became Gospel Truth.  Beth Allison Barr

‘Evidence shows me how Christian patriarchy was built, stone by stone, throughout the centuries. Evidence shows me how, century after century, arguments for women’s subordination reflect historical circumstances more than the face of God. Evidence shows me that just because complementarianism uses biblical texts doesn’t mean it reflects biblical truth. Evidence shows me the trail of sin and destruction left in the wake of teachings that place women under the power of men’

Should we want God to exist? And explaining evil in pragmatic belief.

We will consider three related questions with emphasis on the third question pertaining to the existence of evil and suffering:

1. The ontological question – does God exist? (ontology =nature of being)
2. The epistemological question – is it rational to believe in God? (epistemology = theory of knowledge)
3. Should we want God to exist? In a certain sense a pragmatic question. Could it be rational to want that God exists especially regarding evil?

Evil exists and very few would deny it. It is recognized by atheists, agnostics, and theists because it is real. Though many atheists might deny the existence of evil but cannot deny the existence of suffering.

All around and within us, there is much evil and the suffering that results from evil. Humans suffer, animals suffer, nature suffers. (See Time to Think. 4. The Problem of Evil.)

Why does evil exist? One can view this question from a theist or from an atheist/materialist perspective. The existence of evil and suffering is a very strong argument against the existence of God and is often being brought into discussions as a counterargument for the existence of God. But who can explain evil and suffering better, the theist or the atheist? Can there be meaning and purpose,  and reasons, for the existence of evil and suffering?

We will argue that the atheist offers a more desirable explanation. But not that it is necessarily true, even if more desirable. Yet which explanation, the theist or atheist explanation, do we want to be true as it would also have implications for believing in the existence of God?

Let us consider the two explanations.

The atheist explanation for suffering (evil):

1. The world is a harsh place with a lot of pointless ‘evil’ and suffering.
2. It is a brute fact, and we just have to accept it and live with ‘how the dice falls’
3. There is no powerful loving creator and evil and suffering are not surprising.

Richard Dawkins, British evolutionary biologist, well-known atheist, and author ‘The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.’ ‘In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.’  Bertrand Russell, atheist philosopher, ‘If there is no God, there is no universal right and wrong’ implying no evil

The theist explanation of evil and suffering:

God is all good, all-loving, and has reasons for the pain and suffering

1. Free will. Alvin Plantinga, Christian philosopher: free will is necessary in order to make moral decisions, good or bad.
2. Soul making i.e., the role of suffering in spiritual growth.
3. Incarnation and atonement by Christ – if there is no evil/sin the Christ would not have been necessary. Through the existence of sin and evil, Christ is made ‘necessary’ or desirable. The revelation of who God is, the goodness of Christ, and God incarnate through His atoning death brings us into a personal relationship with Him and is so great that it outweighs the evil in the world. Christ entered our pain and suffering and became one with our pain and suffering allowing a better understanding of Him, ourselves, and the world we live in.

Skeptical theism argues that we do not always understand the reason for evil and suffering. We as humans do not know the essence of what we are: what is consciousness, what is life, are we just brain or brain & mind, and free will, does it exist? We are but a speck on a speck on a speck in the universe and it would be arrogant and preposterous to judge the essence of the Creator of the universe and that we can even remotely hope to know all the possible reasons He might have.

So, which is more likely, and which is more desirable? That there is no God and there are no reasons for evil and suffering, just a sad, bad, brute fact. But is it reasonable to prefer the theistic explanation? And can it be true?

Let us consider the implication of each view

If the atheist explanation is true:

1. Most evil and suffering have no purpose or reason.
2. Most evil is gratuitous (pointless).
3. Many injustices will never be rectified.

This is a very pessimistic picture.

 If theism is true, it would imply

1. There are good reasons for evil and suffering e.g., the existence of free.
2. There is less, probably, no gratuitous evil.
3. There is ultimate justice – people will ultimately be held accountable for the all pain and suffering they caused. For their evil deeds.

Therefore, it would seem that the theistic explanation is more desirable. But is it true? Or just wishful thinking?

Does the evidence balance out between the two possibilities? What arguments and evidence are stronger? That God exists or that He does not exist?

Let us consider the rationality of pragmatic belief – or practical belief, i.e., a belief aimed at the good, because we want it to be true e.g., believing in free will or you will be depressed if it is true that free will is just an illusion (Sam Harris). A belief without good, conclusive, evidence.

Consider the pragmatic belief that there is no God because I do not want God to be true but lack enough evidence to know that He does not exist, or vice versa.

Is pragmatic belief always irrational? Most of the time, but one can also have a pragmatic belief in God because you want it to be true but also have some good evidence and arguments, and testimony of friends’ changed lives, that support your pragmatic belief.

Consider two jurors in court with the same evidence but it is not a clear case, really complex. One juror sees the person as guilty. The other sees him as not guilty. Two different conclusions on the same evidence in a difficult case, with the evidence inconclusive.

When the evidence does not tell us what to believe, pragmatic reasons can break the tie and influence us to decide what to believe.

Two possibilities: 1. I want God to be true and the evidence is good enough for me and pursuing this route or 2. I do not want God to be true and the evidence is not good enough for me for His existence.

That is when both have the same but inconclusive evidence. Under these circumstances, it is particularly important to seek unbiased evidence and pursue the truth in all sincerity.

We have to seek the truth, find credible and coherent arguments to come to a meaningful conclusion even if the theistic view is optimistic and the atheist view of pain and suffering is pessimistic.

It is not what we want to be true but what is true. The two scenarios described could lead to either, 1. If you believe God exists, even as your decision is swung by your pragmatic belief, God will reveal Himself to you as you believe He exists or 2. If your pragmatic belief contributes to your decision not to believe in the existence of God,  you will drift further away from God denying His existence and seek more evidence/arguments that He does not exist to support what you actually want to be true.

To find God is a life-changing delight and makes so much more sense of life itself. See To Know and to Love God

It would be more desirable if evil and suffering have a good reason but is only when theism is true, that the Judeo-Christian God exists.

The atheistic viewpoint is bleak and pessimistic.

Therefore, have good reasons why you believe God exists or why you believe He does not exist.

Recognition for most of these thoughts to Dr Liz Jackson, assistant professor in philosophy, the Ryerson University.

Should We Want God to Exist? Dr. Liz Jackson // CCv1 Session 2.

https://youtu.be/sukh4FeGaEo

To Know and Love God

‘To know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ.’ (not to know about Him but to know Him personally) ‘You need to be born again, this is the way to have eternal life’ (a radical life-changing experience, for some in an instant for some slower over time). ‘Now this is eternal life: that they know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.’

You will seek Me and find Me when you seek Me with all your heart (a sincere longing to find the Truth)

‘You said, “Seek My face in prayer, require My presence as your greatest need,” My heart said to You, “Your face, O Lord, I will seek”’ (a deep hunger in my spirit from Him for more and more of Him)

‘“I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, But now my eye sees You’ (a life-changing encounter)

‘“I have seen God face to face…” I take joy in doing Your will, my God, for Your instructions are written on my heart.”’ (a deep desire to please the heart of my Father God whom I love so much, never to disappoint Him but to please Him)

‘We love because He first loved us.'(I love You so deeply, yet You first love me)

‘If anyone would come after Me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow Me.’ ‘In this world you will have trouble’ (Your love far exceeds any hardships in this life)

‘Your unfailing love is better than life itself’ ‘You satisfy me more than the richest feast’ ‘I sing for joy in the shadow of your wings’ (You are the joy of my heart)

‘If Your presence is not going with me, do not let me move a step from this place.’ (I have no desire to be without You, ever)

‘My heart has heard You say, “Come and talk with Me.” And my heart responds, “Lord, I am coming.” I long for You, O God. I thirst for God, the living God. I will go to God, my joy and my delight. You will find delight in the Almighty and will lift up your face to God.’ (my greatest delight in this life is to spend personal time with Him– not in church or in worship or any  church activity but in quietness with Him alone) ‘Your statutes are my delight; they are my counselors. I was filled with delight day after day, rejoicing always in His presence’ (my greatest delight and joy; Your presence and to please You, the One I love so much)

‘Let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds, not giving up meeting together’  (and share our love for God)

Jesus Christ, ‘When everything is ready, I will come and get you, so that you will always be with Me where I am.’ (to be with Him, the lover of my soul. I do not care what heaven would be like as long as I’ll be with Him)

‘I’m torn between two desires: I long to go and be with Christ, which would be far better for me.’

‘”I am your shield, I am your very great reward.”’ (no greater reward than God’s presence in my heart and life. Enjoining Him now, and forever)

Is that Who He is for you, a delight, a joy? The reality of a relationship with the living God that you love to spend time with? Or are you hanging onto  Christianity just as another religion of do’s and don’t’s and should and shouldn’ts?  ^‘Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name and in Your name drive out demons and in Your name perform many miracles?’  Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you.’

From: Genesis 15:1 John 3:3 John 17:3 Psalm 27:8 Job 42:5 Genesis 32:30 John 17:3 Psalm 27:8 John 17:3 Jeremiah 29:13 Psalm 40:7-9 Psalm 42 1 Proverbs 8:30 Exodus 33:15 Genesis 32:30 John 17:3   1 John 4:19 Hebrews 10:24-25 Psalm 27:8 John 14:2-3 Philippians 1:23 Psalm 42 Job 22:26 Psalm 43:4 Psalm 119:24 Matthew 7:22-23 Romans 5:5 Matthew 16:24 John 16:33

What is morality? Where does it come from? How do we know what is right and wrong, and do we know the difference in what we have to do, and what we ought to do? Is there a standard outside of us to guide us, or does each individual, each culture, each society, decide on what is right and what is wrong? How does an amoral universe through non-moral processes end up with a moral framework? A serious question to the materialist.

The word morality comes from the Latin word, moralitas, literally meaning manner, character, or proper behavior. It is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper (right) and those that are improper (wrong).¹

Everyone, including materialists, atheists, everyone, appeal to a moral standard. But is this moral standard objective, in other words, transcended, outside of our material brain, or is it subjective, that is, a product of an evolutionary progress within us, within our brains? What are the implications if it is not objective but subjective and no objective moral standard outside of the human brain exists? Would the moral arguments then be about preferences that are relative to multiple factors? Does objective morality make more sense than moral subjectivism and moral relativism? What are the implications if moral values are subjective and depend on personal, cultural, and/or societal opinion?

Atheist and founder of The Skeptics Society Michael Schirmer explains objective moral values; ‘Just ask the question to the person, the victim, involved. Do you want pain? Do you want to be a slave? Do you want to be sexually abused?  Do you want to be lied to? ‘No’ – that is what is morally right. Do you want to be saved when drowning? ‘Yes’ – that is what is morally right.’ However, it still depends on an individual’s opinion, still subjective and not universally right or wrong. On the question ‘Do you want pain?’, different answers might be possible ‘Will it make me a better person?’ ‘Will I have a better understanding of the world?’ ‘Will it benefit others more than me?’ ‘Yes’, might depend on the possible meaning or purpose of the pain’. If it is untrue in one area of moral questions, then it is not universally true and cannot be objective but still subjective to an opinion.   

It is important to bear in mind that the moral argument pertains to the ultimate source of objective moral values and duties (moral ontology; ontology the study of “being,” i.e., what it means for something to “be” or “exist.”) and not how we know what is moral or immoral (moral epistemology) and not ‘what we mean’ by good/bad or right/wrong (moral semantics). The theistic ethicist maintains that moral values are grounded in the character and nature of God. In other words that objective morality exists in God’s existence – moral ontology.

Objective morality implicates a moral standard outside of us and that implicates a transcendent lawgiver.   One can be good, moral, without believing in God, but not without God. How come? If there is no God, there is no basis for objective good or bad, right or wrong, it is just an opinion. Atheists can be moral but cannot justify their morality as there is no standard to measure right and wrong for the atheist. Right and wrong are subjective being determined by individual feelings and opinions. Even cultural and societal opinion is reduced to human opinion. But then whose opinion; Mother Theresa’s of Hitler’s opinion? If one would argue that a culture or society determines its own moral values consider a religious movement that believes and accepts that female circumcision is justifiable and the proper thing to do in their society, does that make it right? We all have a sense of right and wrong and a person does not have to believe in God to be a good person. This is more of an objection of epistemology, or how we know something. The atheist can know morality, it is written on all hearts, or in our genes if you will, but the atheist cannot justify or provide logical grounds for it.

C.S. Lewis ‘A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.’ We need a straight line, an objective reference point. God’s nature provides that objective reference point for moral values, the standard against which all actions and decisions are measured. It is not what God says is good that makes something good or because of what He wills, but because He is good. Good is what conforms to His nature, to His character, to who and what He is. And if the atheist would claim that God is not good, immoral, for, for example, demanding the ‘genocide of the Canaanites’ I would refer to Five questions every Christian should be able to answer | @Alisa Childers – question 2, at 2:18 – 3:30

Philosopher William Lane Craig puts it this way: “Duty arises in response to an imperative from a competent authority. For example, if some random persons were to tell me to pull my car over, I would have absolutely no legal obligation to do so. But if a policeman were to issue such a command, I’d have a legal obligation to obey. The difference in the two cases lies in the persons who issued the commands: one is qualified to do so, while the other is not.” In other words, God’s standard versus human opinion.

With no God, there is no reference point of perfection, and we are left with one person’s viewpoint against another, that ‘random person who tried to pull me over’, which is no more valid than anyone else’s viewpoint, a morality that is subjective, and not objective. William Lane Craig puts it this way: It’s like a preference for strawberry ice cream, the preferences in the subject, not the object. So, it doesn’t apply to other people. In the same way, subjective morality applies only to the subject, it’s not valid or binding for anyone else and there can be no evil and no good – it is just an opinion. But if there is something like an absolute ‘right’ we could reasonably expect that there should be an absolute wrong. So, for right and wrong to exist there must be something ‘right’, something perfectly right, that we can use as a standard to measure right and wrong against.  God has expressed His moral nature to us as commands, the basis for moral duties. Something is not good just because God ‘wills’ it, or God ‘wills’ something because it is good. God ‘wills’ something because He is good. Moral action conforms to God’s nature and the more it conforms to His nature, the better it is. If atheism is true, there is no ultimate standard and there can be no moral obligations or duties. According to atheism humans are just accidents of nature, highly evolved animals but animals have no moral obligations to one another. When a cat kills a mouse, it hasn’t done anything morally wrong. If God doesn’t exist, we should view human behavior in the same way. No action should be considered morally right or wrong.

This is a major difference between man and animal. An animal cannot think about his thoughts, cannot be introspective. And if a being cannot think about its thoughts, it cannot be held responsible for moral or immoral thoughts and actions. Animals cannot be moral or immoral. Humans have thoughts and can think, ponder, these thoughts and experience guilt and other moral feelings whilst thinking about the thoughts or actions. And therefore, can be held morally responsible. But to what standard? And the question, ‘what is it that is good and what is it that is wrong’ if only relative to opinion? Is it real?

The problem is that good and bad, right and wrong do exist. Just as our sense experiences convince us that the physical world is objectively real, our immoral experiences convince us that moral values are objectively real. Each one of us makes moral judgments and decisions every day, ranging from opening the door for someone to helping someone who just got in a car wreck. Every time you say ‘hey that’s not fair, that’s wrong, that’s an injustice’ you affirm you believe in the existence of objective morals and call upon these standards. We know child abuse, racial discrimination, and terrorism are wrong for everybody, always. Is this just a personal preference, just an opinion? No, a man who says it is morally acceptable to rape little children is just as mistaken as the man who says 2 + 2 = 5. Moral intuition naturally rises to the surface when allowed to, when subjective feelings are overridden by emotions.

Objective morality means that moral statements like “murder is bad” are independent of the person saying it. Objective morality means that there is a standard of morality that transcends human opinions and judgments.  Like mathematics. What your opinion is on 4+6=10 is irrelevant to the fact; it is also irrelevant of human thoughts about it is. It exists outside of the human brain. It would still be true even if there were no humans. Morals are not invented, they are discovered. Like mathematics.

What this all amounts to then, is a moral argument for the existence of God. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist, but objective moral values and duties do exist, therefore God exists. Atheism fails to provide the foundation for the moral reality every one of us experiences every day.

Humans, being shaped in the image of God, have an intuitive sense of right and wrong. It is not at all clear how the atheist, except at the expense of moral realism, can maintain an objective standard of ethics without such a being as God as his ontological foundation.

Recognition to Willian Lane Graig for many of the ideas expressed in this video.

My next discussion will be on subjective morality, relativism, and the implication of such a view.

1. Long, A. A.; Sedley, D. N. (1987). The Hellenistic Philosophers: Translations of the Principal Sources with Philosophical Commentary. 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. pp. 366–67. ISBN 978-0521275569.