We concluded last time by analyzing the popular “COEXIST” bumper sticker. According to this bumper sticker, “C” is the symbol of Islam, “O” is the symbol of the peace movement, “e” is the symbol of transgenderism, “x” is the Jewish star of David, the dot on the “I” is the witch worshiping Wiccan symbol, the “S” is the Taoist yin/ yang symbol and the “T” is the Christian Cross of Christ. One big happy family, they say. But that cannot be true because each one makes an exclusionary truth claim and claims to be the ultimate and exclusive moral truth.
Indeed, Christians hold that there is a moral law written on the hearts (in the soul) of men by the Creator as an endowment of their creation. That means that the moral law is seated in the human soul as an aspect of consciousness. Everyone recognizes it as a non-negotiable law that “just is” a part of being human. The atheist claims there are no absolute truths. That your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth because no absolute truth applies to all people. Instead, all truth is relative. The atheist says truth is only relative to the person who believes it, not everyone else. Christianity is true for some, and atheism is true for others, and that is okay as long as we respect each other because there is no absolute truth anyway, or so they say.
However, Christians hold that there is an absolute moral law and that law points to a Law Giver. We can present the classical moral argument this way: 1. Every law has a lawgiver. 2. The Moral Law is a law. 3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. Every law has a lawgiver. There is little dispute here. If we think about every law that society is required to abide by, each of those laws was drafted by some government servant, voted on by some governing body and enacted as laws for all of society to follow. So, all those laws have some level of government as the lawgiver. That is one of the reasons why governments are established. They are granted power as lawgivers for a particular society that is under their charter. Premise one is rarely disputed, so we can say, yes, every law has a lawgiver. Premise two makes the statement that there is a moral law. This premise, as one can imagine, does have opposition. We have already touched upon those who say there is no absolute truth; your truth is true for you, and my truth is true for me. Further, we said that those people have a relativist view of truth. For them, truth is relative to whatever you want it to be. But there is no such thing as a relative moral law; there is an innate moral law written on the heart of every human being.
The Enlightenment philosopher John Locke argued that humans are born with a tabula rasa (blank slate). Locke said there are no innate aspects to our nature, including our moral nature. Our moral boundaries are simply the result of experiences recorded on the mental “blank slate” we are each born with. But this cannot be true. There is an absolute sense of right and wrong that is not learned or conditioned but is inborn to every individual. The torture of a child is a violation of moral obligations among all peoples, in all places and in all times. That is because the torture of a child is a violation of an innate and universal moral law. And everyone on the planet knows this.
But I want to return to the question; how do governments govern without concrete moral law? Without a moral law, there is no way to distinguish between good and evil. With no moral law, concepts of good and evil are just opinions. Nietzsche’s master/slave morality proves that. Good is whatever I say it is for me; you say good is whatever is good for you. Nonetheless, society cannot and does not function this way. There must be an agreement on what basic morality is: murder is morally wrong or it is not? Even those who say morals are relative cannot live in a world without moral law because even the relativist cries out for equal and standard justice. Even a thief knows it is wrong to steal; watch what happens when someone steals from him; he calls the police and demands justice.
In the end, it seems to me the premises are true: every law has a lawgiver; the moral law is a law; therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver. Join us again next week as we continue to look at human morality, what it is and where it comes from. All of this and much more along our journey in search of the answer to the question: is God dead?
Gloria in excelsis Deo! — Ty B. Kerley, DMin., is an ordained minister who teaches Christian apologetics and relief preaches in Southern Oklahoma. Dr. Kerley and his wife Vicki are members of Waurika Church of Christ and live in Ardmore. You can contact him at dr.kerley@is-Goddead.com.
