The basis of atheist belief - Part 6

This is the second to last post in a series of posts indicating that science itself provides evidence for the reality of Creator God.

While I often highlight the absurdities in the atheist faith, Christians and atheists actually have a lot of things in common. We share the same hopes and dreams for our children. We share the same revulsion toward the evil that’s in the world. While there are huge differences in our interpretation of what we see going on around us, we do need each other more than either of us would like to admit. One thing that atheists and Christians agree on is the presence of a seemingly inherent knowledge of morality. Again however we disagree on how and why our morals and values are present. Let me explain it this way.

. Have you ever had someone kill one of your children?
. Have you ever been mugged or robbed?
. How about someone taking your seat on the bus when it was obvious that you were about to sit down?
. Have you ever had a business partner or employee steal from you?
. Have you ever had someone cut you off in traffic?
. Have you ever had a spouse cheat on you?
. Have you ever had a friend lie to you?
. Has anyone done a hit-and-run on one of your vehicles?

Are any of these things wrong? Really?
How do you know they’re wrong?
As the old line goes, “Says who?”

The fact is, if God does not exist, then none of these things are "wrong." They may be annoying, even infuriating, but wrong? How could it be? As Richard Dawkins almost gleefully says, “There is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference . . We are machines for propagating DNA . . . it is every living object’s sole reason for being.”

If God does not exist, and if we are just one animal species among thousands, then even a rapist is nothing more than someone thumbing his nose at societal conventions. After all, rape and killing and taking food from another goes on all the time in other animal societies. Yet no would accuse animals of murder or stealing or even rape. Some people have made the case that rape can and should be expected within the selfish-gene paradigm. In fact, we can say this and know that it is completely coherent within the atheist paradigm. That is because:

. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations (def. below) do not exist

. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. (We know, and we know absolutely when someone does “wrong” to us).

Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion is also true:

God exists

Before I explain what this is saying, it’s important that I explain what it is NOT saying.

This is NOT saying that We must believe in God in order to live moral lives.

This is NOT saying that We cannot form an ethical system without reference to God

This is NOT saying that A person must believe in God to recognise that objective moral values exist.

Objective morals, values and obligations do NOT result from a belief in God.

Objective morals, values and obligations are the result of God’s existence.

If morals, values and obligations are NOT anchored in God or some other transcendent foundation, then they are nothing more than mist that disappears with the morning Sun. They are not objective but subjective and relative to the situation. Yet atheist consistently speak as though morals, values and duties are objective and they're objective because, well, because the atheist says so. That's just one of the many absurdities in the atheist's belief system.

However, just as physical laws are fully realised in the physical world, objective moral laws are fully realised in Creator God. As I stated above, our daily interactions with others shows we believe without doubt and we respond without hesitation in a manner which shows that objective moral duty is as real and independent of our recognition as is the natural order of things.

Our perceptions of natural and moral laws are givens of our experience.

People who are God’s enemies claim that if He exists, then God acts in a capricious and arbitrary manner. They sometimes use the Euthyphro Dilemma to make their point. Rather than taking more space describing the argument here I’ll let you Google it. Or you can go to Alonzo Fyfe's blog as he is addressing this same subject. However I will show how this so-called dilemma is terribly misunderstood. Something is not good just because God likes it. Nor does God like something simply because it’s good. Instead:

. Objective moral Goodness and Obligation are based on God’s character. Therefore, God’s commands are not arbitrary, for they are the inescapable expression of His Just and Loving nature, and -

. Since our moral obligations are grounded in the Divine commands, moral values and duties do not exist independent of God.

. What God commands or permits is good and what He forbids is wrong, bad, evil, and self-destructive. This is what it means for morality to be objective vs. subjective, selective or relative to the situation. Objective morality is not based on the individual’s character or personality or level of empathy, or that person’s likes or dislikes, sanity or insanity.

Neither is objective morality based upon our socio-biological or community trends. In another’s treatment of us, we know clearly what’s objectively right and what’s objectively wrong. It has nothing to do with what's acceptable in your community. For example, a Hitler or the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger may well believe that exterminating or euthanising those they deem unnecessary or a hindrance to society’s well-being to be a good and right thing to do. But those being exterminated know beyond doubt that it is not a good thing. You may believe that having sex with another person’s spouse is the right thing to do under your particular circumstances. However, let someone start screwing around with your spouse and the picture changes dramatically.

So why choose God as the arbiter of objective morals? Because any other point of reference is arbitrary and based upon taste, desire and current social standards. That is why atheists cannot say with any integrity that honour killings are wrong. Atheists cannot say with any integrity that female circumcision is wrong. The societies which have those standards have developed them in the same manner that a North American atheist has developed his. It’s subjective, relative to the situation and based upon the ebb and flow of societal norms.

Atheists might protest by saying that any behaviour that doesn't contribute to the health and flourishing of human society is wrong and bad and the opposite is right and good. But who is to arbitrate between what Saddam or Hitler thinks helps his society to flourish and what you believe accomplishes the same goal? Who's to judge between totalitarian and open democracy and anarchy? How can any atheist say that "Might is right" is good in "the wild" but not for the human animal? You're college society will say that cooperation with the laws of society is the best route and that crime is wrong. Someone who's grown up in a gangster society may say that crime is right and good and he may say so in order that he might feed his children.

That fact is:
. If God does not exist, then objective morals, values and obligations do not exist

. But we know from our interactions with other people that objective morals, values and obligations DO exist. (We know, and we know absolutely when someone does “wrong” to us).

Because the above premises are true and coherent, the following conclusion is also true:

God exists.