God’s Existence: The Moral Argument

Why is murder wrong? There are a few ways to answer this question: murder is against the law, murder upsets the natural balance, or murder is wrong. Each of these answers displays a lot about the worldview of the person answering, but what is much more interesting is that almost all people, regardless of their worldview, will agree that, in modern legal terms, first degree murder is wrong. This suggests a moral compass common to almost all societies. This commonality of certain moral perspectives is referred to as moral law and used as evidence which points to the existence of a creator god.

This argument for the existence of a creator god is best expressed through the argument for the existence of morality that is posited by those who deny the existence of a creator. For this, we will use the naturalist worldview, which proposes that our world developed naturally with no interference or impetus that lies outside of the realm of scientific explanation. It is very difficult to argue that morality developed through naturalism, understood through Darwinian evolution. Why do humans express morality, feelings of guilt, and restraint outside of self interest when the greater animal kingdom exists without exhibiting the same behaviors? This is a major point of contention in the Darwinian explanation of the development of man. Traditionally, naturalists claim that morality evolved as a necessity, to provide order for societies, but societal norms fall short of providing a lasting answer to the question of moral law.

Thomas Hobbes was a political philosopher from the 18^th century. He has one major work, Leviathan, helped to shape the modern structure of sovereign states. He said that man’s natural state is one of turmoil and war, therefore societies must be created where man agrees to protect the rights and life of another, trusting the other man to do the same for himself, and thereby the society based on mutual trust ultimately protects all involved. That is the basis for our modern government. The way the world views the sovereignty of each nation is a parallel for how the naturalist understands morality; a group of people get together and agree upon certain rules, establishing laws to legislate morality among the said people, therefore creating a moral system that works for that society. This sounds like a great way to explain both the existence of morality and the reason why some do not adhere to their nations system of morality, but when examined, the naturalist explanation of morality fails at the hands of its own proponents.

The Christian response to the naturalist explanation of morality centers upon the long term viability of that explanation. The problem with the naturalist explanation is that each society sets forth its own system of morality creating an isolated closed system. This means that no society should leverage their morality against another. This prevents quite a problem for the naturalist. Under naturalistic morality, Hitler was well within the bounds of his society’s moral framework when he marched through Europe, because his moral framework was built upon the bed rock belief that the German people were the greatest evolutionary step. Therefore, he needed to help continue the evolutionary process by eliminating all of those who were not the fittest, and would therefore not survive. Even in the most liberal halls of academia, there are few people who are willing to stake their careers on the statement that Hitler was morally right in his march through Europe, the extermination of the weaker people in his own society (per the T9 initiative launched against the mentally disabled), and the pursued extermination of the Jews. Unfortunately, this is precisely what must be said if we consider morals to be a construct of a certain society and not the result of a broader moral law, which is the position of Christianity.

Christianity asserts that morality is a gift to man, by the common grace of God (as compared to the salvific grace of God). This is best understood as an aspect of the image of God, in which all men are created. Because the Bible explains explicitly that the law of God is written upon the hearts of men, the Christian can look at the atrocities perpetrated by man and rightly condemn them as evil.

The Christian explanation for the source of moral laws which are common to men across societal lines provides the most plausible explanation for why the world looked at the atrocities committed in World War II and felt them to be wrong. It is not possible for an animal moving through the steps of the evolutionary process to develop a sense of morality strong enough to override its sense of self preservation. Christianity, on the other hand, explains that our morality is given to us by God as he knits us together in the womb; this means that all morals are objectively created by God, not man. This morality is meant to provide guidance and instruction. It guides man in the way that will continue our societal existence. More importantly, it instructs men about the character and nature of God the creator.

Again, as with other arguments for the existence of God, this does not create an argument for the existence of the one, true, triune, Christian God. This is an argument for the existence of the creator of all men, and it does provide us with a glimpse into his nature and character. It does not provide a source to find saving faith in Christ. Thankfully, the God who instructs us in what is good and what is evil also provides us with a means to full knowledge of himself, the revelation of himself through the Bible.