The Moral Argument supports the existence of God: A case for God
Introduction to Moral Argument
Morality is a largely contested field between theists and atheists as both groups try to navigate morality and its implication. In order to make sense of morality, one must also understand logic and the laws that accompany it. There are laws to sound thinking of thought. The first law is that of noncontradiction which state that no proposition can be “both true and false at the same time and in the same sense.”[1] It is important to point out that statements cannot be both true and false at the same time in order to have sound logic. The second law is known as the law of excluding the middle. Every proposition must be either true or false as propositions must be one or the other. The third law is that of identity. The law states that every position is identical to itself. This means that if a proposition is true, then it is true.[2] It is important to include the laws of logic as there is no middle ground to the statement that theism is true when one considers all the data. Theism cannot be both true and false as there is no middle ground.
The Moral Argument supports the claim of theists as morality is best explained in a theistic worldview. Moral obligation appears to exist across cultures and demographics. Humans are obligated to behave in a certain way, but the question becomes, why? The Moral argument is broken down into four different components: moral facts, moral epistemology, moral transformation, and moral rationality. Theism provides a better explanation of moral obligation than that of a naturalistic framework as only theism can adequately explain moral knowledge, the obligations towards morality, being transformed to make moral decisions, and morality being rational even when it ends with a person losing their life.
Moral Facts
Moral obligations are not cautionary or suggestive ideals. Moral obligations are tasks that one has to do.[3] To have “moral obligation to perform an act is to have a reason of a special type to perform the act, and an explanation of moral obligations must illuminate this special character that obligations possess.”[4] The question becomes, why does a person have an obligation to behave a certain way? God exists and is a being that creates a social relation between himself and his creation. When relations exist, distinctive moral obligations exist.[5] These moral obligations exist because a higher power has commanded it which is known as Divine Command theory. Divine Command theory has strength to it as it makes the most sense of moral obligations.
The first key component to understand moral obligation is that they are objective, for which Divine Command theory is. A person can be mistaken about the moral obligation that they should follow but it solidifies moral obligation as an absolute instead of a relativist, changing obligation. Secondly, Divine Command theory gives a motivation to act morally and not only an obligation. By having a reason to perform an action, one is typically motivated to meet the obligation. When a person is lacking motivation for an action, that action is typically not performed. Thirdly, Divine Command theory adequately explains why moral obligation is universal.[6] Divine Command theory has advantages other systems of thought do not account for. The universal account of morality benefits Divine Command theory as theism roots human dignity in the higher power that created them. Considering the advantages of Divine Command Theory, it is appropriate to address some of the objects that people give it.
One of the key objections of Divine Command theory is the Euthyphro Dilemma. The Euthyphro Dilemma was created by Plato in which he delivers through a Socratic method. The question Plato raises is, “is something moral because God commands it, or does God command it because it is moral?”[7] In this dilemma, one is stuck with trying to pick one side or the other. This creates a problem because it “violated deep moral intuition about what is morally right.”[8] The issue is that if God commands something thus making it good, then morality could change as God could change his commands. An example of this would be if God commanded people to murder innocent people, that would then become the morally right thing to do. This is something that theists need to be able to respond to.
Theism responds to the objection by claiming that God is good. Stephen Evans, in God and Moral Obligation decides to go along with the counterfactual arguments against Divine Command theory because it relies on intuition and not logic. Evans goes along with the counterfactual argument and writes about how the same argument could be used against other systems of thought. To use a hypothetical scenario that is intuitive but not logical, creates objections that could go against every view. This is why it is important to stress that the command itself is not good, but that God is good, and the actions goodness is given based on a good God. Therefore, the Euthyphro dilemma is untangled from its potential problems as goodness is rooted in the character and nature of God and therefore not going to change.[9]This means that moral obligation is a lesser form of good that is rooted in what is ultimately good which is God himself. Theism actually roots moral obligations in God which gives it an advantage over other secular views. The question becomes, how does one know what the obligations actually are?
Moral Epistemology
C.S. Lewis in The Abolition of Man argues for “the Tao” which is a term for objective moral truth. Lewis argues from a rationalistic mind set in which he does not even bring in theism. Lewis argues that the moral law, the Tao, is self-evident. He argues this based on the fact that the Tao extends to different cultures and times. He makes an argument using heroic actions that go beyond obligations and are of high moral value. Luis uses the heroic example of dying for one’s country. Lewis makes his point by giving the example of a Roman father teaching his son to die on behalf of Rome as a noble thing. The father is “initiating his son into a noble tradition” and claims that the conviction is sincere to all who perceive the self-evident truth of the Tao.[10] Lewis uses the death for a good cause to prove the Tao as a logical explanation because if there is nothing after this life, then death for a good cause is actually illogical. Lewis then goes on to a future argument against the naturalistic viewpoint of the Tao.
Lewis explains that a person is responsible to the absolute values of the Tao, or a person is merely a naturalistic creature that is left to the manipulations of masters. If the Tao does not exist, then a person is enslaved to their natural impulses. C.S. Lewis makes an argument based on the future in which he claims genetic editing exists. If genetic editing is possible, then people will genetical engineer others in which they then become tyrants as they force natural impulses on people. Without the Tao, one has no reason to stabilize a certain impulse over another as there is no absolute good or absolute standard. If there is nothing beyond natural impulses, then the naturalist needs to take them for what they are, they cannot appeal to anything beyond.[11] This becomes a problem for the naturalist as each person should merely follow their impulses, no matter how bad it is.
In the Abolition of Man, Lewis does not root the Tao in God but instead he tries to root it in logic. This opens Lewis up to problems that he could have easily solved through rooting the Tao in God. If the moral law, Tao, is rooted in God then it is good, absolute, and unchanging.[12] The goodness in the Tao points to something beyond it. The moral Law exists across cultures and C.S. Lewis gives examples of it at the end of the Abolition of Man. Lewis made a mistake by trying to root the Tao in logic as that does not root it in something good and something beyond itself. Rooting the moral law in God eliminates the objections that C. S. Lewis was vulnerable to.
Moral Transformation
C. S. Lewis, in Mere Christianity, states that every human has an idea that they ought to behave in a certain way. Even with this idea of having to behave in a certain way, they have a second idea which is that they do “not in fact behave that way.”[13] All people have this sense of a moral gap in which they know what they should do but they fail to act in a manner they know is correct. How can one deal with this moral gap that exists? If Lewis thought that all people would fail reaching the moral law, then maybe it does not carry the moral authority that people think it should have. Lewis answers this objection by saying, “even if moral perfection is beyond our grasp, we’re hardly entitled to complain because, likely this hour, we could and should have done morally better than we did.”[14]
This is where people are divisive over moral transformation. One could believe that the moral law does not have the authority it should have because no one can reach it. This is not a problem for a theist, especially Christians, as humans are not tapping into the greatest power that can prevent them from breaking the moral law. The power that they are not tapping into is the power of God. God transforms a person to become a “new man, a revolution of the will, and radical transformation.”[15] The true question is how secularists would answer the moral gap in which one can do in multiple ways.
The first way a secularist can solve the moral gap is to puff up the capacities of human. It is not difficult to see that people puff up human capacities frequently. Kant has an issue when people start to exaggerate the capabilities of man. Kant claims that man is often self-conceited and exaggerates their powers.[16] It does not logically follow that the moral gap can be solved in a naturalistic framework.
Morality, and decision making, in a naturalistic framework requires a person to act and react based on their nature. This means that a person’s decisions are merely because their brain works a certain way. In a naturalistic framework, one cannot close the moral gap because human choices are determined based on the way they are wired. This would then mean that the moral gap is a hopeless endeavor because a person is at the mercy of the way their brain chooses to operate.
A second way to voice an objection to the moral gap is to reduce its demand. One can claim that the moral law does not give them a responsibility to feed those starving or dying from medical needs in other countries. Nell Nodding’s claims that moral responsibility is the result of caring and one cannot universalize moral judgments.[17] This is one way of lowering the demand of the moral law by claiming that it cannot be universalized as it is all based on caring. Considering the discussion on the Moral Law in previous pages through the Tao, it seems absurd to claim that moral laws are not universal. The Tao, according to C.S. Lewis, transcends cultures as it has existed in multiple cultures which he gives examples of at the end of The Abolition of Man. To claim that the moral law is not universal leads one to believe that the moral law is then subjective and changes. If the moral law is subjective and changes, who changes it or why does it change? Would this make the right thing in Nazi Germany be to murder the Jews? By lowering the moral gap through the claim that moral judgements are not universal, opens an atheist to more problems than a theist.
Considering moral transformation and the moral gap, the most logical explanation comes from a theistic worldview. A higher power has commanded mankind to behave in certain ways which they do not. As a result, all have failed at upholding this moral law. The moral law is universal across cultures, generations, and countries as it informs mankind how they should behave even though they continue to fail. One should not try to reduce the demand or overemphasize the capabilities of man as that causes more problems than solutions. Christian morality is a better framework as, according to Jürgen Moltmann, “it is guidance for changing the world.”[18] Christian Ethics have the capability of changing a person, and as a result, the world.
Moral Rationality
C.S. Lewis, believes objective moral truth is self-evident and one cannot prove it any more than one can prove the axioms of geometry. Lewis argues that one must accept practical reason with absolute validity as without it all attempts at creating a system of thought are doomed to failure.[19] For those that doubt the self-evident truth of the moral law, what he terms the Tao, Lewis gives an argument for how one can propose to persuade a person to die for good cause. Lewis uses this argument as it is a crucial question to evaluate the legitimacy of a system of thought.[20] Lewis does not mention whether or not death for a good cause is an obligation. He seems to be arguing that it is of value as it goes beyond duty to something heroic and beautiful. There is evidence that Lewis is not arguing a complete absence of moral duty but is instead using aspects of it as he also goes into a heroic action; death for a good cause.[21]
How can one explain this death for a good cause without appealing to a theist system of thought? If one appeals to it being part of a naturalistic framework, then it actually seems more logical to be selfish and allow another person to die on behalf of me. In a naturalistic world there is nothing after death and that would weaken the argument of dying for a good cause. How could one die for a good cause when there is no reward for the person dying? Why should one perform an action that does not benefit themself in any regard? It would not matter that others would benefit from my action of self-sacrifice as I receive no benefits for it. Lewis makes the argument that if one’s best sentiments are not connected to something objective, then rationality nor irrationality of self-sacrifice can be shown.
In a naturalistic framework, a person has instincts for self-preservation which this instinct will be in conflict with having to sacrifice oneself for a good cause. To claim that one instinct is “higher” than other instincts is a value judgment that is not derived from instinct. For naturalists, the moral law is often seen as an instinct that is developed over the course of an evolutionary process. Lewis refutes this objection by giving an example of a person in danger that cries out for help. When a person hears the cry for help, one is confronted with rival instincts. A person has the instinct for self-preservation, yet also has an instinct to help. At this point, a third aspect comes forth that tells a person to suppress one of their instincts. The one that rises up cannot itself be either instinct and must therefore be something different. Lewis gives the analogy of a piano to prove his point. Instincts are like piano keys. They merely make sound, but these sounds cannot tell you which to play in order. A person needs sheet music to tell them what piano keys to play. A person’s instincts are merely keys on a piano while the Moral Law is the sheet music that tells a person which instinct, notes, they should play.[22]
A second issue with claiming the Moral Law is merely an instinct, is that sometimes people feel guilty when they follow their instincts. Many people have the instinct for sexual intimacy. Yet, when a person has sexual intimacy with someone outside of their spouse, they often feel guilt and shame. This displays that there is something beyond our instincts that informs a person when they have made a mistake. It cannot be an instinct that tells us following our instincts is wrong as it is only wrong to follow that instinct sometimes. For example, sexual intimacy with a spouse is good while sexual intimacy with someone outside of their spouse often accompanies guilt and shame. There is something beyond instincts that informs us when following our instincts is proper.
A major flaw with believing the Moral Law is merely an instinct, is how does a person choose what to do when they have rival instincts. To claim that one instinct is better than the other is a value judgment appealing to something beyond the instinct. If the Moral Law were merely instinct, how could judgment be rendered to those who are following their instincts as it is merely their biology at work? If the Moral law is merely one’s instincts, then it actually lacks significance and should not be followed and is not significant.[23] Returning to Lewis’s argument of death for a good cause, if there is no afterlife, then dying for others loses its significance for the person dying as they would merely be dying for the hope that something good will come out of their death. In the end, the good that comes about from their death is meaningless as after some time, even that action is forgotten.
Conclusion
A theistic framework is more likely than the naturalistic worldview when one tries to make sense of morality. Divine Command theory rooted in the goodness of God ensures that all commands are good. All people know the Moral Law as the Tao is made known to mankind. Rooting the Tao in God gives absolute standards that are unchanging. A naturalistic worldview cannot adequately explain moral knowledge or transformation as choices are merely the way their brain has been wired to operate. Choice then becomes an illusion as one acts on their instincts and way they are wired. Theism logically explains moral transformation as people can transform to reflect the moral law. Through all of this, moral rationality is best explained in a theist worldview as death is not the end. Doing the moral thing, even when it leads to death, is logically explained through a theistic worldview as life continues after death. In a naturalistic worldview, morality lacks significance and has more issues than a theistic worldview. The Moral argument is explained sufficiently in a theistic worldview as one cannot play neutral with truth. Theism explains morality best as it makes sense of the most amount of information and follows the laws of logic.
What Now?
- Reflect on the Moral law and pray asking for forgiveness in areas that you have fallen short.
- Reflect on the goodness of God and write down five commands that God has given that are good. Write down why those laws are good as they save you from something.
- Seek an accountability partner to help you grow and keep God’s laws.
Want to read more?
To read Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis, click here
To read The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis, click here
Introduction How should Christians form their identity considering the truth of the
Jesus: The Messiah Born in Scandal Snapshot Jesus birth is one of great scandal. Most
Hell, Free Will, and a loving God (part 2) Snapshot God has given free will
Sources
[1] Steven B. Cowan and James S. Spiegel, The Love of Wisdom: A Christian Introduction to Philosophy (Nashville: B&H Academic, 2009) 18
[2] Ibid.
[3] David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls, God and Cosmos: Moral Truth and Human Meaning (Oxford University Press, 2016) 148
[4] Stephen Evans, God and Moral Obligations, (Oxford University Press, 2014) 9
[5] Ibid., 28
[6] Ibid., 28-31
[7] David Baggett, “Dr. David Baggett on the Euthyphro Dilemma,” November 2, 2014, in Moral Apologetics Podcast, produced by SoundCloud,
[8] Stephen Evans, God and Moral Obligation (Oxford University Press, 2014), 91
[9] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview, 2nd Edition. (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2017) 501.
[10] Baggett, God and Cosmos, 245
[11] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man or Reflections on Education with Special Reference to the Teaching of English in the Upper Forms of School. (HarperOne, 2001) 53-70
[12] Robert K. Garcia, Is Goodness Without God Good Enough? A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics. (Lanham: Rowman & Littefield Publishers Inc, 2009) 169
[13] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York: HarperOne, 2001) 8
[14] Baggett, God and Cosmos, 219
[15] Baggett, God and Cosmos, 221
[16] Ibid., 223
[17] Baggett, God and Cosmos, 229
[18] Jürgen Moltmann, Ethics of Hope, trans. Margaret Kohl (Minneapolis, MN: Fortress Press, 2012), 40.
[19] Lewis, The Abolition of Man, 49
[20] Ibid., 30
[21] Baggett, God and Cosmos, 246
[22] Lewis, Mere Christianity, 10
[23] Veritas Forum. “Is God Necessary for Morality?” Debate with William Lane Craig & Shelly Kagan.” (YouTube.com, n.d. Accessed June 26, 2022. Video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bhfkhq-CM84)