Let’s admit that no matter what one’s political, religious,
or philosophical bent, we all talk in oughts.
In this political season, politicians everywhere are claiming the moral
high ground for their positions. Donald
Trump and Hillary Clinton both speak about things the United States ought to
do. Partisans from all walks of
political, religious, and philosophical life make demands as if their demands
are self-evident.
In my last post, I suggested objective morals simply cannot
exist in an evolutionary framework. That
should leave us wondering, why then do so many people seem to think they’re,
well, right about so many moral
issues?
If morals have any objective basis, they can’t depend on
perception or taste. The sun exists –
it’s an objective fact because it doesn’t depend on my perception. If I can’t see, the sun is still there. Sometimes the sun is hidden by clouds. For many hours every day, the earth turns
away from the sun and I don’t see it. If
I live underground my entire life, never coming above ground to see the sun,
that doesn’t negate its existence. None
of these experiences mean the sun doesn’t exist. My perception doesn’t alter the reality.
I like vanilla ice cream.
Really. Just plain vanilla ice
cream in a bowl – no fruit, no fudge, no nuts, no toppings of any kind. This is simply a matter of taste. No one can reasonably argue that my desire to
eat vanilla ice cream is somehow morally inferior to their desire to eat jamoca
almond fudge because this is just a matter of taste. That said, whether one prefers vanilla or
jamoca almond fudge, taste does not negate the reality that either type of ice
cream in fact exists. Taste doesn’t
alter the reality.
Likewise, morals have to come from some other source than
our perceptions and tastes. Our
perceptions are often incorrect and our tastes are not prescriptive. From where, then, do morals arise?
Before answering, think about the following: no one likes it when someone cuts in front of them in line at the
grocery store (or wherever they might be in line). We don’t care for it when others lie to
us. If morals simply arise because of a
“crocodiles eat and wildebeest bleat” kind of power over others to decide our
morals then why does it seem that no one
likes it when someone lies to them or cheats them or steals from them or even
does something as simple as cut in line?
These moral “feelings” have to arise from somewhere, but their near
universality indicates they’re not simply a matter of perception or taste. These “feelings” live within our very souls.
All Ford automobiles have distinctive
qualities that make them Fords – if nothing else, the word Ford appears on
them. How do we distinguish Fords from
Chevrolets, from Chryslers, from Toyotas, from Hondas? At bare minimum, the words on the cars, but
more than that, each line of cars has distinctive features that people
recognize as belonging to that brand.
These cars are created – they are designed and built to exacting
specifications. As a result we are able
to recognize them as distinct.
Morals are a mark of our creator God. That’s one of the distinctive marks of human
beings. We can (even if we don’t always
do it) exercise restraint and remain in our place in line despite the
temptation to cut. We can tell the truth
even when a lie seems more palatable. We
don’t need to cheat on the test or on our taxes and more often than not, even
when we know the odds favor cheating without getting caught, we nonetheless
don’t. Why? Evolution?
Are you kidding? There are, of
course, those who will try to make the rather weak-kneed argument that somehow,
at some time long ago, under some circumstances of which we really aren’t fully
aware, these traits helped perpetuate the species and thus made sense. But if these traits helped perpetuate the
species way back then, why wouldn’t they still work to do so now?
The reality is that a creator God gave us an
amazingly complex set of instructions known as genetic code which tells the
material parts of us (the chemical and physical components) how to
organize. This code includes a moral
component that contains things like empathy, sympathy, and honesty. While, as a Christian, I believe this moral
component was corrupted by the fall of humanity due to original sin,
nonetheless significant vestiges remain.
Thus, even atheists get aggravated by lying, stealing, and cheating and,
yes, even cutting in line.
Given that atheists, humanists, and “free”
thinkers all claim some sort of monopoly on rationality and logic (at least as
opposed to Christians), then the simple question boils down to this: if you
think you can be moral, but morals are simply defined by those in power, would
you still get mad if someone lied to you, cheated you, or cut in front of you
in line even though those in power had declared all these actions morally
acceptable? Wouldn’t rationality and
logic indicate that if those in power said so, then it would be reasonable and
sensible to just accept it? Yet, my
guess is even atheists, humanists, and “free” thinkers would all argue against
this.
The only
meaningful answer to why this is true is because an intelligence lies behind
our existence and put things into place in a meaningful and sensible way that helps
us navigate through the stormy seas of life on this tiny blue planet. That intelligence is the creator God of the
universe. He put his stamp on his
creation, particularly human beings (we Christians refer to this as the imago dei).
He made us to be like him, although we are not exact
duplicates. Thus, we understand the
concept of morals when no other creature on this planet does.
More importantly,
as the creator, God gets to determine what is and is not moral, even when we
think we know better. Since we are less
than the creator, this puts us in a position to accept that morals are an
objective reality. I suppose one could
argue God simply has more power than anyone else, so my view is no different
than the evolutionary view. Almost true
except for one unbelievably important reason: God instituted morals for our good and for our benefit. Evolution never
lifted a finger to help me or anyone else on this planet. God also provided a means to satisfy the
requirements of his moral code even when we have broken it in the worst
possible ways. Rather than punish us as
we deserve for transgressing the moral code, God provided a uniquely perfect
substitute to stand in our place: Jesus, the God-man, the king of the
universe. He lived a perfect life, was
tortured on a Roman cross as punishment for the moral failures of all humanity,
died for those sins, but was raised to life on the third day to provide us with
hope. All we must do is repent of our
sins and believe that this is true.
God provides
objective moral standards – the only reason so many reject those standards is
because they cannot and will not live up to them on their own. Jesus is the only possible way to solve that
dilemma. The wildebeest need no longer bleat.
No comments:
Post a Comment