Morality and God: Is there a connection
About a week ago I attended the debate between Eusebius McKaiser and Prof. John Lennox on the topic of Morality and God. I must say that I was a little perplexed with the discussion and I suspect this might have something to do with the fact that I have no training whatsoever in philosophy. So with that disclaimer, here is my opinion on the matter.
Firstly, it might be useful to read Mr. McKaiser’s comment on the topic here:
http://www.iol.co.za/capetimes/on-that-point-eusebius-mckaiser-1.1754668#.VCaHi_mSzGJ
The one thing I found a interesting was the fact that both debaters stated that they believe in the concept of absolute, or maybe rather universal morality. From what I understand, the idea is that all people (or most people at least) follow the same basic set of moral standards. Everybody pretty much agrees that murder and rape is wrong, even though some would still choose to do so in-spite of this knowledge. The big question then becomes, why would this be the case? Why would humanity in general follow the same set of basic moral principles, and whether God has anything to do with this?
So for me the big question then revolves around the origin of moral principles.
Morality from the Christian world-view
When looking at this question from a Christian world-view, to which I subscribe, the answer I would present is the fact that we are made in the image of God. It is this that sets us apart from all the rest of the animals, the ability to think and evaluate things that pertain to right and wrong, the fact that we have a spiritual dimensions which animals lack. The ability to do art, to be creative (as I do when I am busy with an engineering project), to think in abstract terms, to do science and to know right from wrong (in a moral sense). These are all abilities that were bestowed on us when God not only made us from the ‘dust of the earth’ (like the animals), but also created in us something more. He created us in His image.
It is important to note here that morality from this perspective has absolutely nothing to do with the Law given in Exodus, or the rest of the Bible. This is a characteristic of being a human being made in the image of God. The ability to know right from wrong is built-in, the Law has a completely different purpose. Mr. McKaiser’s comment in his article makes it clear that he is not making this distinction. Morality (or the lack thereof) has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of salvation as defined in the Bible.
I would like to use the following illustration to point out the major difference.
This picture implies that one would be JUDGED according to your morality. This is NOT what the Bible says.
This is, in my opinion, the more correct illustration of what morals are, an indicator to which road to go down. Morality is a design feature of humans (created in God’s image) that allows us to know the difference.
So with this in mind, how do I answer the memes below?
Completely agree. The ability to know right from wrong is due to the fact that we are made in the image of God, not the fact that we read and obey a set of rules.
Again, completely agree.
Agree with the first statement, not so much with the second. Morality has completely and utterly nothing to do with salvation as defined in the Bible.
Morality from a Naturalistic world-view
Now, suppose I consider the question of the origin of morality from a naturalistic, Darwinian perspective. From this perspective morality could be interpreted to be a survival tool. Murder is wrong, because we as a species become stronger because it allows us to better survive in a hostile world. It makes more sense to stick together and work together against the wild animals out to kill us, than to try and go at it alone because we are afraid of our fellow human beings.
I cannot imagine why rape would be wrong from this perspective though. Maybe because it would make us feel unhappy, another by-product of evolution? In nature, there are quite a few examples of ‘rape’ and ‘murder’ going around, even among primates like chimps, with whom we share 90% or so of similarity in our DNA. In fact, looking after the weak is counter-productive. Old people tend to be a burden on our economy, with no hope of any future benefit. Why should we keep them around?
When we look at the whole debate around abortion, this way of thinking becomes abundantly clear, and points out the obvious difference between the two world views. If there is no God, then morality must (by definition) be a man-made concept and therefore be rather arbitrary. Some people choose to define life as starting from birth, but from a naturalistic perspective, it really doesn’t matter. How is this child different from one hour before birth, to one hour after? Why do we consider it OK to murder a child before birth, but not an hour after? These are simply arbitrary lines of morality that you draw if you subscribe to a naturalistic world-view. When does life become ‘sacred’, and what does that even mean in this world-view?
Now I must say at this point that I am stating this very simplistic, and I suspect that there has been plenty of attempts to answer these in the formal philosophical circles.
So in conclusion it appears as if this whole debate will boil down to what your beliefs are in terms of the existence of God. Personally I would be hard-pressed to explain the need (never mind the existence) for morality if I were to find out that God does not exist. On the other hand, if God does exist, and the Bible is true, then I have a viable explanation of why we are different from the rest of the animals, not only in terms of morality, but many other things as well.