It is said that “the moral law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard by which we expect others to treat us.”
Human rights are not grounded in opinion; they are grounded in a common higher authority. That is how organizations like Amnesty International or the International Justice Mission function; they rely upon a common good that is grounded in a Higher Authority, whether they realize it or admit it. This is closely related to the argument from evil, where the atheist claims that the existence of evil in the world proves that there is no God. However, evil in the world does not disprove God, but it confirms that men instinctively know what evil is because they also know what good is. If man knows what good and evil are, then it is the moral law written on his conscience that has told him so. There is no other source. Remember, an atom is neither good nor evil.
If no moral law exists as the absolute standard for moral behavior, then there is no moral difference between Mother Teresa and Adolf Hitler; it is just your opinion. But, most of us, anyway, are appalled by what Hitler stood for, yet we praise Teresa for what she stood for. Only because there is a moral law seated in the consciousness and written on the human heart can we make that distinction. It is only because there is a moral law that things repulse us.
For multiple reasons, Darwinists and evolutionists have very little to say about moral law because it, like human consciousness, is an internal reality. There are no atoms that make up the moral law, just as there are no atoms that make up consciousness. With no atoms, there are no molecules; without molecules, there are no cells, and without cells, there can be no evolution. In other words, the moral law didn’t come to you from the goo via the zoo. It is a brute fact residing in the deep recesses of the heart. It is a created reality. That is what makes us different from all the other animals. Philosopher Anthony O’Hear writes, “It is our perception of good and evil, of just and unjust, which distinguishes us from animals. But the Darwinists live and die by their evolutionary presuppositions. Christian philosopher William Lane Craig asks us to consider this: there are no moral obligations in the animal kingdom; think about it. The lion kills the zebra, but he doesn’t murder the zebra. In the same way, the male dog sometimes breeds with its mother or sister. It procreates with its kin, but it doesn’t commit incest. The hammerhead shark copulates violently with the female shark, but he doesn’t rape her. There is nothing morally wrong with these behaviors because no moral obligation is pending upon them. These things in the animal world are things that “just are.” They are brute facts for them. But those things are not considered things that “just are” in human society; they are all egregious violations of moral obligations. Why? Because God does not and did not create Himself. It follows that He does not, or did not create moral values; they are eternally present in His being. In part, that is what Christians mean when they proclaim, “God is holy. God is righteousness. God is just.” For that reason, when God creates humans in His image and likeness, they must acknowledge objective moral values and treat each other accordingly.
But further, what this means is that if you are a Darwinist and believe in evolution, then there is no moral ground to stand on concerning the Holocaust or any other moral evil. Since Darwinists believe that survival of the fittest is a natural outworking of evolution, then there is no moral law that says the Holocaust was morally wrong or evil. In fact, without the moral law, what Hitler did is no different than the lion killing the zebra or the dog breeding his sister; “it just is.” The Russian writer and Christian philosopher Fyodor Dostoyevsky said, “If God didn’t exist, everything would be permitted.” For Hitler, God did not exist; in his mind, everything was permitted. Even Nietzsche wrote that morality “has truth only if God is the truth; it stands or falls with faith in God.” Even the atheist recognizes, though fails to admit, that there is no grounding for morality outside of the Moral Being that Christians call God.
Even so, Nietzsche argues that Christian morality is a “narrowing of perspectives.” But I must ask: Do we really want to broaden our perspectives? How broad should the road be when it comes to the torture of a child? Shouldn’t the perspective on murder, rape, theft, child abuse, etc., ad nauseum, be very narrow? Beyond that, who gets to set the boundaries? The military strongman? The intellectuals? The masters? Maybe, as Nietzsche suggests, it should be the philosophers who are “the commanders and the law-givers.” But I hardly think so.
Join us again next week as we continue to probe the moral argument for evidence: 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@ isGoddead.com.
