Morality: Who Needs God?

God's existence has direct bearing on how we view morality. As Dostoyevsky so famously put it, "Without God, everything is permitted."

At first glance, this statement may not make sense. Everything is permitted? Can't there be a morality without an infinite God?

Perhaps some of the confusion is due to a murky definition of morality we owe to moral relativism. Moral relativism maintains that there is no objective standard of right and wrong existing separate and independent from humanity. The creation of moral principles stems only from within a person, not as a distinct, detached reality. Each person is the source and definer of his or her subjective ethical code, and each has equal power and authority to define morality the way he or she sees fit.

The consequences of moral relativism are far-reaching. Since all moral issues are subjective, right and wrong are reduced to matters of opinion and personal taste. Without a binding, objective standard of morality that sticks whether one likes it or not, a person can do whatever he feels like by choosing to label any behavior he personally enjoys as "good." Adultery, embezzlement, and random acts of cruelty may not be your cup of tea -- but why should that stop someone from taking pleasure in them if that is what they enjoy.

Is having an intimate relationship with a 12-year-old objectively wrong just because you don't like it?

Perhaps murder makes a serial killer feel powerful and alive. A moral relativist can say he finds murder disgusting, but that does not make it wrong -- only distasteful. Hannibal, the Cannibal, is entitled to his own preferences even if they are unusual and repugnant to most.

Popularity has nothing to do with determining absolute morality; it just makes it commonplace, like the color navy.

"But this killer is hurting others!" True. But in a world where everything is subjective, hurting an innocent person is merely distasteful to some, like eating chocolate ice cream with lasagna. Just because we may not like it doesn't make it evil. Evil? By whose standard? No one's subjective opinion is more authoritative than another's.

Although many people may profess to subscribe to moral relativism, it is very rare to find a consistent moral relativist. Just about everyone believes in some absolute truths. That absolute truth may only be that it is wrong to hurt others, or that there are no absolutes. The point is that just about everyone is convinced that there is some form of absolute truth, whatever that truth may be. Most of us, it seems, are not moral relativists.

Not too many of us believe that killing an innocent person is just a matter of taste that can change according to whim. Most of us think it is an act that is intrinsically wrong, regardless of what anyone thinks. According to this view, the standard of morality is an unchangeable reality that transcends humanity, not subject to our approval.

An absolute standard of morality can only stem from an infinite source. Why is that?

When we describe murder as being immoral, we do not mean it is wrong just for now, with the possibility of it becoming "right" some time in the future. Absolute means unchangeable, not unchanging.

My dislike for olives is unchanging. I'll never start liking them. That doesn't mean it is impossible for my taste to change, even though it's highly unlikely. Since it could change, it is not absolute. It is changeable.

The term "absolute" means without the ability to change. It is utterly permanent, unchangeable.

Think of something absolute. Take for example an icon of permanence and stability -- the Rock of Gibraltar. "Get a piece of the rock" -- it lasts forever!

The nature of absolute is a bit tricky to grasp because we find ourselves running into the same problem of our finite selves attempting to perceive the infinite, a topic we have discussed in a previous article in this series. Everything that exists within time undergoes change. That's what time is -- a measurement of change. In Hebrew, shanah means "year," sharing the same root shinah, "change."

If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change -- since it exists within time -- where can we find the quality of absolute?

Its source cannot be in time, which is constantly undergoing change. It must be beyond time, in the infinite dimension. Only God, the infinite being that exists beyond time, is absolute and unchangeable.

Therefore an absolute standard of morality can exist only if it stems from an infinite dimension -- a realm that is eternal, beyond time, with no beginning and no end.

In addition to the demise of morality, moral relativism inevitably leads to the death of education and genuine open-mindedness. The thirst for real learning comes from the recognition that the truth is out there waiting to be discovered -- and I am all the more impoverished with its absence.

If everything is relative, then it makes no difference what anyone thinks. Ideas no longer matter. With no absolute standard of right and wrong or truth and falsehood, the pursuit of wisdom becomes nonsensical. What are we searching for? If no idea is more valid than another, there is no purpose in re-evaluating one's belief system and being open to exploring new concepts -- since there is no possibility of ever being wrong.

A common argument often heard for supporting relativism is that in the world at large we see a plethora of differing positions on a wide range of moral issues. Try to find one issue all cultures universally agree to!

Only the unhistorical and inhuman belief that opinions are held for no reason would prevent the undertaking of such an exciting activity.

The plethora of disagreements demonstrates exactly the opposite point. If everything is relative, what on earth are we arguing about?

Imagine walking down the street and you hear a ferocious argument taking place behind a door. People are yelling at each other in a fit of rage. You ask a bystander what the commotion is all about. He tells you this is a Ben & Jerry's ice cream store and they're fighting over what is the best flavor of ice cream.

Real debates and disagreements occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions, not mere preferences of flavors. Think of a time you experienced moral outrage. The force behind that anger is the conviction that your position is the correct one. Matters of preference, like music and interior design, do not provoke moral outrage.

What provokes our moral outrage? Injustice? Cruelty? Oppression? There is the sense that an absolute standard of morality is being violated, an objective standard that transcends humanity, that stems from an infinite and absolute Being.

** Christianity & Democracy **

God loves us, so we must be lovable.
If we're NOT lovable, then why would God love us?
We must be worth something, if God loves us.
In fact, that's our only REAL worth.
The source of ALL our worth is in the fact that God loves us.
Often, you hear Protestants say: "It was really Protestantism that is the root of democracy. If it weren't for Protestantism, we wouldn't HAVE democracy, because they question authority, which allowed the secular world to grow up, and that allowed the separation of Church and state, so that you don't have the Church running society. So if it weren't for Protestantism, we wouldn't have democracy."
Protestants say that. It's one of the points they seem to like to make. I don't agree with that one minute, because the whole idea of democracy is that each individual human being has worth and value. Why give everybody the vote if everybody doesn't have some kind of value? If we're all a bunch of serfs that are just to be ordered around, or slaughtered in battle, to keep the ruling class in position, or to make them richer, why have a democracy?
Just in the very idea of human rights: God endowed every one of us with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's really fundamental to our Constitution. Well, where does that idea come from, the idea that each human being has value? What a difference from the ancient worlds' ideas! Where did that come from? Well, it came from Christianity; it came from religion. Because God loves us, God came down and took on a human form, and died a horrible death, for us! That means we are something. We have some value, that we can't be just slaughtered, we can't just be enslaved. That's the whole basis of HUMAN RIGHTS. Without Jesus Christ, there would not be democracy as we understand it.
Of course, the Greeks had democracy in Athens, but it was limited: not for women, not for slaves. I think at some point, it was just for property owners. It wasn't for everybody. This idea that every single human being has worth and value, and you cannot go out and kill them, or throw them into jail and torture them: that makes sense to us. We just sort of say: "Well, of course. Obviously." That's because we live in a Christian culture. We grew up in it, and so we take it for granted. But if it weren't for Christianity, the people who devised the idea of democracy would not have had anything to build on. That idea would have just died.
Catholicism was the religion for 1500 years. Very deeply imbedded in the whole idea of Catholicism is the idea that Jesus died for us, and that gives us our worth, the fact that God loves us. If you look at the incredible humanitarian behavior of Catholic clergymen and religious nuns and monks over the centuries, and centuries, and centuries: that says something. Setting up hospitals for the poor: it was Catholics who did that. Setting up schools for the poor: it was a priest who came up with that idea, which was very radical for its time.
You can see this idea of Christianity giving the lowest people a sense of worth, giving EVERYBODY a sense of worth that they never had before, and the fact that Christianity has first appealed to the very poorest. Slaves were the first people who really believed in Christianity, because instead of being NOTHING, they were now SOMETHING.

-- the whole idea of democracy is that each individual human being has worth and value. -- -- in the very idea of human rights: God endowed every one of us with the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That's really fundamental to our Constitution.

The idea that God endowed us is not really fundamental, CJ.
The fundamental, revolutionary concept was that individual rights are inalienable and must be protected from governmental infringements by a system of limited power, checks & balances.
One such 'check' was to keep separate church & state.

Well, where does that idea come from, the idea that each human being has value?

From the ancient worlds' ideas, - the Greeks had democracy in Athens, - the Romans a Republic, the Norsemen their Danelaw. Even the Five Tribes had a form of democracy.

but it was limited: not for women, not for slaves. I think at some point, it was just for property owners. It wasn't for everybody. This idea that every single human being has worth and value, and you cannot go out and kill them, or throw them into jail and torture them: that makes sense to us. We just sort of say: "Well, of course. Obviously." That's because we live in a Christian culture. We grew up in it, and so we take it for granted. But if it weren't for Christianity, the people who devised the idea of democracy would not have had anything to build on. That idea would have just died.

The historical record does not really support your theory.
By and large, Christianity vigerously supported the autocratic form of states & kingdoms.
The United States was the first government that rejected such governmental establishments of religions, and even specified that religious tests cannot be required to hold office.

Our founders had their fill of state/religious theocracy.

This is true, non-Christians can know the moral law as Paul noted; however, logical derivation of absolutes is impossible. Objectivists claim that their ethics are the most reasonable of the lot, not that they've detected and are conforming to a pre-existing moral order.

The problem is, by our terminology of "a pre-existing moral order", we are stacking the deck against the Atheist by deliberately equating the ideas of "Transcendent" and "Absolute".

You and I may agree that the Law of Gravity is Transcendent (that is, established by an All-Powerful God).
But can we not admit also that even a Unitarian like Newton, or an Atheist like Hawking, are competent to apprehend that the Law of Gravity is Absolute (admitting of no exception)?

They Atheist may well not agree that the Law of Gravity is Transcendent (established by a Pre-existent Intelligent Design). But they would agree that it is absolute (i.e., that any Breach thereof is attended by painful Consequences).

Likewise, the Atheist may not admit that the Moral Law is Transcendent (that is, established by an All-Powerful God). But unless we are "stacking the deck" by equating the Transcendent with the Absolute, I would not deny that that Atheist is able to apprehend that the Moral Law is Absolute (admitting of no exceptions, and that any Breach is attended by painful Consequences). And I do not deny that, like unto Physical Law, the Atheist is capable of apprehending this natural Fact by Scientific Observation and Experimentation.

("Hmmm.... I deduce by Enlightened Self-Interest that it will be useful for me to not murder or steal from or defraud other men; so that they will consent to extend the same respect towards me... yes, that makes sense...")

I still don't understand how you square Calvinist Christianity with Randian libertarianism. First, you have the denial of free will. Then you have Calvin's Geneva, which is a pretty awful example for a 'live and let live' society...

In the FIRST place, I am not a "Randian" Libertarian. I have not even read the Books of Ayn Rand. I am a Nymeyer Libertarian (Frederick Nymeyer, the publisher of Progressive Calvinism, was the founder of "Libertarian Press, Incorporated" fully a decade before Annie Rand ever published her own Objectivist Newsletter).
- HOWEVER, if Frederick Nymeyer correctly understood the Pauline Doctrine of Neighborly Love ("Love does no Wrong to a Neighbor; therefore Love is the fulfillment of the Law" -- Romans 13:10) in 1952...
- Then who am I to object if fully a decade later the Randian Libertarians came along in 1962 and published their own Non-Aggression Principle ("No one has the right, under any circumstances, to initiate force against another human being, nor to delegate its initiation")?
In the SECOND Place, I do not for even one second deny the Freedom of the Human Will. I am a Calvinist, fer cryin' out loud... I affirm the absolute Freedom of the Human Will. (I also affirm the Fall of the Human Spirit). If you want to know what a Calvinist believes... meaning no offense, why not just ask me? I am a Calvinist, I know what we believe, you need not make up your own Straw Men. We are not ashamed of our beliefs; we are entirely Dignified in them, for we believe them to be absolutely Biblical. You may freely ask me what we believe, and I will freely tell you.
In the THIRD place... No-One but NO-ONE has any rightful charge whatsoever to lay against the Republic of Calvin's Geneva. It may not have been the sort of place where you or OWK would have felt comfortable living; it may not even have been the sort of place where I would have felt comfortable living. But since the days of Moses the Prophet, Calvin's Geneva is the only Republic in the History of God's Earth where the Consent of EVERY SINGLE ONE of the Citizens was obtained before a Lawful Constitution was Ratified.
- "And the Levites shall speak, and say unto all the men of Israel with a loud voice... Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them. And all the people shall say, Amen." (Deuteronomy 27:14,26)
"Consent of the Governed" does not mean Majoritarian Tyranny.
"Consent of the Governed" means EACH AND EVERY ONE.
Since the Days of the Prophet Moses, NEVER in the History of the World had there been a Republic like Calvin's Geneva, and NEVER has there been a Republic since.
Even an Atheist Libertarian such as OWK will admit the Right of Free Association, and the Right of Free Covenant.
And though you might not have Voted for the Ordinances of Geneva, you cannot DENY the Right of the Free Citizens of Geneva to UNANIMOUSLY vote such Ordinances for themselves... lest you deny the Right of Free Association, and the Right of Contract. They were 20,000 citizens, perfectly free, and masters of their own town. The Genevese people were absolutely sovereign; they knew no other limit to their legislative power than their own will, and this people voted the ordinances from the first chapter to the last.

No Man of any Conscience can possibly lay a charge against Calvin's Geneva.

Since the Days of the Prophet Moses, NEVER has there been a Republic such as this.

NEVER has there been a Republic founded upon the Legal Foundation that "ALL the People shall say, Amen."

NEVER has there been a Republic which was predicated upon the Principle that "Consent of the Governed" means EACH AND EVERY ONE.

THAT is the Heritage of Calvin's Geneva.

Every good and useful thing in the whole history of Human Liberty and Republican Governance ever since, has grown from this Mosaic-Calvinist Root.

"Consent of the Governed" means EACH AND EVERY ONE.

That is the Political heritage of John Calvin.
That is the Political heritage of Calvin's Geneva.
And in terms of Political Application, that is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.


*Random acts of cruelty may not be your* cup of tea, but who says your standards are for everyone?**


If everything in the finite universe is undergoing change, where can we find the quality of absolute?


Heated debates occur only because we believe there are right and wrong positions.