A group on campus here at UK has taken this idea to heart, and they have decided, like so many other people in the world, that religion is not only unnecessary but a hindrance to progress. The modern atheist argument seeks to suggest that religion has actually been a force for evil in the world. And so, this collegiate group has put up posters all around campus saying "You can be GOOD without GOD." They are wrong.
Without God
Sociobiologists such as E.O. Wilson have claimed for years that the innate sense that humans have for "right" and "wrong" is simply psychological artifact of evolution. They love to talk about how prehistoric men began treating each other well out of a well-formed sense of reciprocity. If I treat my colleague well, it is more likely that he will treat me well in the future. And the more we treat each other with this mock respect, the longer we are theoretically able to extend the life of the species. In this view, all kind acts are given a selfish root, and altruism is said to be an extension of the survival instinct.
The problem with this theory is that, while these descriptions at face value seem to prove their point, what we find is that the actions Wilson and his peers describe begin to change with each iteration of his theory into something they were not at the outset. You see, altruism which stems from selfishness is not really altruism, and so the atheist is led to believe that there is no such thing as altruism. And while unmitigated acts of altruism are certainly not very common, they do exist. One cannot visit the memorials in Washington, D.C. and leave with a sense that every single one of the men who died in the various wars of this nation's history all fought simply to keep their own genetic material alive.
In fact, it is folly to even suggest that anything resembling morality could come from solely natural causes. While I still have my doubts about speciation through natural selection on a global scale, the natural selection process certainly exists on in a small sense. And what do we call this system? "Survival of the fittest." Nature does not care for the weak or sick, does not weep for infants dying or smile when a disease is cured. In fact, it could be said that the morality of Nature is that morality which kills off the weak to preserve the strong and congratulates the virus for overcoming an immune system. This is the morality of Nature.
A Broken Compass
But this picture seems so far from what we actually see in humanity in real life that it is quite unnerving. So, it behooves us to ask, where does this human conscience come from? Again, I say, it does not come from men.
First, any morality which is derived from the mutual consent of the people is not morality at all. If I know that those rules I follow were made up by men no better than myself, I have no reason to follow those rules. Who is to say that your morals are greater than mine? We speak of a "moral compass," and indeed this is a fitting metaphor. But what good does a compass do if each of us gets to pick his own direction for North? On the contrary, it is precisely because North is defined by something much larger than any one of us (and any group of us) that my compass is a useful instrument.
It is therefore my assertion that to say that the concepts of good and evil arise from human institutions is to abolish the institution of morality as we know it. Certain atheists have embraced this concept- we call them "post-modernists." I have no qualms at all about making the following statement: The post-modern argument is one of the most foolish tenets ever conceived by mankind. Not only does its argument not make sense, its argument doesn't exist! I will attack this subject later. Let this suffice for now, or contact me if you wish to discuss it more.
What the atheist is left with, therefore, is to give some arbitrary entity the Greater Force by which they ascertain their moral North. Some men have tried letting human desires be this Force- they are called humanists. Some have attempted political parties- they are called fanatics. The modern thought is that this Force is Evolution itself. I hope I have already sufficiently answered this claim above. If not, I will attempt it again some other time. At any rate, every physical or "rational" bulwark soon proves futile or insufficient.
Good with God
What the rational thinker is left with, then, is the irrational. "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise..." (1 Cor. 1:27) The only real authority in which I can reasonably place my trust to direct my morals is one which is greater than man- no, greater than Nature itself. Herein lies the stumbling block for the atheist. But once again, religion proves the stronger argument.
And God does tell us what true morality looks like. "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good." (Micah 6:8) "You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed." (Psalm 119:4, actually just read the whole chapter some time) "I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, by which the person who obeys them will live." (Ezek. 20:11) But the God of Christianity went ever farther than that. He actually came down to earth and showed us what true morality looks like. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are —yet he did not sin." (Hebrews 4:15) "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34) "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps." (1 Peter 2:21) "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1)
Unlike all of the previous suggestions, a supernatural Creator is more than capable of determining right and wrong. And, no matter how I feel about His moral structure, I have no choice but to submit to it. When I do, however, I find that it satisfies the innate feeling I had all along.
So, I leave us with the following argument:
1. We humans have an innate sense of right and wrong.
2. Morality must be derived from a source above humanity.
3. Atheism by definition cannot provide an adequate extra-human agent.
4. Therefore, religion (specifically Christianity) provides the best explanation for this moral sense and the self-evident existence of inherent virtue.
P.S.- I failed to address the mechanism by which this innate sense is incorporated into humans. For the Christian, this is definitely the Holy Spirit. For the non-Christian, it seems that even if they do not fully possess the Holy Spirit, they still have some sense (even if it is under-developed) of right and wrong. I do not profess to know exactly what the agent is which produces this. It could be a rudimentary spirit, or perhaps some elements of Nature do provide a correct sense of morality. This sense is, I remind you, incomplete, but it must exist. (see: Romans 1:20)
No comments:
Post a Comment