The Moral Argument for God’s Existence

-
Most people who discuss the moral argument for God’s existence make a basic mistake: they form the argument based in part on the idea that everyone has a consistent idea of what morality is. That is not necessary.

I don’t think the standard form of the argument, that everyone's morality is the same when they express it, makes sense. That form ignores the reality of original sin or total depravity. Briefly, total depravity is not that all people are as bad as they possibly could be. It’s the idea that all people have a nature that is prone to disobey God, and that nature effects every part of their lives. No one’s conscience is immune from this, so no one’s conscience is perfectly conformed to God’s law.

But the argument doesn’t have to show that everyone’s morality is the same as they express it. The form of the moral argument I use comes from the Apostle Paul:

“Therefore you have no excuse, O man, every one of you who judges. For in passing judgment on another you condemn yourself, because you, the judge, practice the very same things. We know that the judgment of God rightly falls on those who practice such things.” (Romans 2:1-2, ESV)

It’s not that everyone knows the moral law off the top of their heads. It’s that everyone knows what is wrong when that wrong is done to them.

Two examples to make a point:

Let’s pretend for a minute. It’s 1930s German. You are a Jew. I am a Nazi. I have a gun pointed at your head in an attempt to exterminate you and your race. My culture is telling me that I should kill you. What do you say? Should I just feel sorry for you? Why should I empathize with a person who has no value and not pull the trigger? My culture and my sensibilities tell me to destroy you. What do you say? (Adapted from a lecture given by Walter Martin)

Another short but pithy comment overheard by Ravi Zacharias: “In my culture it is taught that we should love our neighbor. In other cultures it is taught that we should eat our neighbor. Do you have a preference?” (wording is from memory of a lecture and not exact)

This is the best form of the argument. This one carries weight.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

The Face of Terror

-
Osama Bin laden is dead. Since the rest of the internet is buzzing with opinions on that death, I thought I would weigh in. First, this is not the end of global terrorism. Like the Hydra of old, when one head is chopped off, two more take its place. We still need diligence in our fight against global terror. U. S. and allied Armed Forces still need our prayers. We still need a strong military and intelligence community. We have not yet cut off the Hydra’s immortal head. Second, the way to get to the ‘heart of the matter’ is with Christian missionary efforts. We must reach the people who make up those societies and population segments that produce terrorists . To tell a story I have told here before : Early in the twentieth century, Baptist evangelists preached through rural Mississippi and Alabama with such effectiveness that moonshiners could no longer sell their whiskey: All their customers were getting converted! In desperation, the whiskey sellers hired two men to murder on
Read more

The Canons of Dort

-
I believe that the Canons of Dort are true. This is a statement that came out the Synod of Dort, held from 1618-1619. The Canons of Dort outline the system of theology known today as the “five points of Calvinism.” The problem I have with most “five-point Calvinists” is that the Canons of Dort contain much more than five points. Many explanations of the TULIP (total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, irresistible grace and the perseverance of the saints) are gross simplifications of the Canons of Dort. [This is especially true of explanations given by those who oppose Calvinism. It is easier to knock down a straw man than it is to knock down a real man, and so it is easier to criticize an oversimplified Calvinism that the more robust form.] Some of those who teach the “five points” leave out some of the quotes below: This death of God's Son is the only and entirely complete sacrifice and satisfaction for sins; it is of infinite value and worth, more than
Read more

Intelligent Design

-
The Intelligent Design (ID) movement makes much of the argument from irreducible complexity. Dr. Michael Behe has become famous for a simple example, the mousetrap. He points out that the mousetrap will not perform its function without all of its parts. The wooden base, the metal hammer, a spring, a catch and a metal bar to hold back the hammer are all necessary parts. One component by itself will not catch a mouse. Mainstream evolutionary science has a counter-argument. To paraphrase Dr. Kenneth Miller, if you disassemble the mousetrap, each component can serve as something useful on its own. If we take away the catch and metal bar, we have something left that can serve as a paper clip. The spring could make a simple two-section key chain. The wooden base makes a paperweight. Evolutionary processes like random mutation and natural selection can combine and retain the useful parts as the complicated evolves to perform the complex function. The useful parts are combined into the mousetr
Read more