Previous Reason - Table of Contents - Next Reason
100 Reasons to Believe New Testament History
4. Moral Absolutes
Everyone believes that absolute moral values exist, and that they are, or ought to be, universally binding. Some argue against this notion, believing instead that all morals are relative, and that individual situations and societies decide what is morally right and wrong. While this belief may by popular, it is also easily refuted.
For example, if society really decides what is right and wrong, then which society are we to listen to? (Consider all the societal borders that we must cross every day!) Also, if society really sets the standard of what is right and wrong, then how are we to regard the great social reformers? Think of the abolishment of the slave trade in North America for example, which everyone agrees was a good change. Yet those social reformers who fought for this change were - if society decides right and wrong - immoral people!
If there is no God deciding what is absolutely right and wrong, then it's up to people to decide. But if people decide, then who are we to listen to and why? Moral absolutes must be anchored to something above human kind in order to be universally binding. The only thing that makes sense is that God is the determiner of absolute moral values.
In order to counter this argument however, many atheists subscribe to a principle known as "enlightened self interest." This principle basically states that our attempts to satisfy whatever lusts we may have ought to be curtailed so that they do not offend others. This is not due to a particular concern for the welfare of others, but simply as a guard against possible retribution. In other words, the proponent of "enlightened self interest" shows selflessness by regarding others in his attempts at satisfying his lusts, in order to be more thoroughly selfish!
If this principle is true, then no crime against another person is wrong absolutely. Things like murder, torture, child abuse and rape would have to be considered morally neutral acts. According to this principle then, the only thing wrong about murder or rape would be getting caught and punished. On the other hand, if the murderer or rapist doesn't care about going to jail, then the principle of "enlightened self interest" states that there really isn't anything wrong with their actions whatever.
Of course, very few people really believe that things like murder or rape are morally neutral acts, and those that do could only be described as being morally handicapped. We must conclude that certain acts are wrong absolutely and the very existence of moral absolutes constitutes a powerful evidence for God. Think of it this way:
Everyone agrees that absolute moral values exist, but
Moral absolutes cannot exist without God,
But moral absolutes do exist,
So God must exist.