If There Is No God

If there is no transcendent God, there can be no such thing as truth and absolute right. If there is no God, we cannot condemn people for dedicating their lives to their own pleasure and we cannot demand that they place society above themselves. We have no standard by which we can prove that doing good to others is any better than ignoring the needs of others and doing good only for oneself.

In a world without God to underscore absolutes, we can’t expect anyone to live according to any standard society chooses to set up. If there is no God, all rules are mere opinion and none have authority.

The Dilemma of Unbelievers

Here is the dilemma of unbelievers: Since they cannot prove by reason that society ought to be preserved, they must choose between two alternatives: They must either accept the idea as an absolute (see Blog #10, Absolutely) or reject it as an outrageous demand in a godless universe where self is on its own.

If they accept it as an absolute, they lose their rationale for being unbelievers, because such a counterintuitive moral concept can have force only if it has roots in an absolute God to whom we are responsible. But if unbelievers reject God as the authority behind morality, they must dismiss the tug of their hearts toward duty to others as an illusion. Of course, even if they dismiss it, they may still choose to give in to it merely because doing good to others makes them feel good.

If the preservation of society is an absolute truth from God, then the laws we pass to curb the impulses of individuals for the benefit of the whole have force. But if the preservation of society is merely a human concept, there is nothing absolute about these laws, and they are unfair because they contradict the rights of the individual.

We Ought To

In spite of what makes sense, all of us—believers and unbelievers alike—are saddled with the notion that there are certain things all humans ought to do. We ought to give aid to those in need. We ought to defend innocent children against abuse. We ought to be honest and truthful. No one, not even unbelievers, can break free from the tug of such “oughts.” They grip us like gravity.

When we look beneath these oughts, we find the assumed absolute: Society ought to be preserved. That idea should mean nothing to unbelievers, yet they can’t get rid of it. It’s like trying to throw away a boomerang—it keeps coming back. The concept is firmly entrenched in the mind of every sane human being, yet human reason did not produce it and cannot defend it.

No God, No Sense

People who do not believe in God may claim that they look out for others, because they think it is the unselfish, right and noble thing to do. They may even be sincere when they say this, because these innate feelings come from their hearts. But it makes no sense for such feelings to be in their hearts. The feelings are inconsistent with their denial of God.

Terms like unselfishness, sacrifice, nobility and concern for others have no real meaning without a solid absolute on which to base them. Without absolutes to prescribe such unselfish behavior, it makes perfect sense for unbelievers to spend every precious moment packing their own lives with all the pleasure and gratification they can grab, and let society take care of its own future.

Should Society Be Preserved?

The assumption that society ought to be preserved may be a tenet that seems too obvious to question. But is it really? Isolate the idea from God, and it can be neither proven nor supported by reason. From the unbelievers’ point of view, it is not even a reasonable idea. They have only a few short years to call their own and then it’s all over for them. Why should they care if civilization survives past their own death? They have no stake in its future. Why should they divert precious time and energy from their own brief lives to do anything for others? And yet unbelievers do so the world over.

The Invention Theory of Morality

The invention theory explains morality as a set of rules that humans have devised for self-preservation through trial and error over the millennia of history. Behavior that helped or strengthened society was encouraged and called “right.” Behavior that hurt or weakened it was prohibited and called “wrong.”

When people claim that morality is simply mankind’s invention to preserve society, they assume that society ought to be preserved. It is the assumed, unproven truth on which their morality rests. They may deny that absolutes for morality exist, but the moment they make any kind of moral claim—such as the proposition that society ought to be preserved—they have planted their feet on a moral absolute. They can’t help but do so because for any foundational assumption to be held as valid, it must be based on an absolute. Unbelievers may lock the door against absolutes of any kind, but the moment they claim any action to be right or wrong, some kind of absolute has sneaked in through the window.

The Innate Moral Code

How can we explain an innate moral code that is consistently present in all societies? How do we explain a sense of morality that gives virtually every sane person on the planet an innate sense of right and wrong? Believers explain it easily: God planted the standards of morality in the human conscience and stands as the ultimate absolute behind it. This explanation shows us why the moral code is universal and also gives it the weight of authority.

Unbelievers deny that morality must derive from God. But without God as the source, any rational explanation for morality collapses. Without God as the source and basis of morality, we cannot find an explanation for it that is consistent with reality. However, a number of alternative theories have been advanced.

The Universal Nature of Morality

We all take morality for granted. It is something that everyone assumes to be universally true. We treat it as an absolute. All societies have laws protecting human life, all have rules governing marriage and family relationships, all condemn stealing and all encourage doing good to others. This universal moral sense is a telling landmark in our search for certainty.

Some societies enforce morality strictly, while others are lax on one or more points. But within every society there are people who resist the imposition of morality on their behavior in an extreme manner. Examples include Hitler during the holocaust and the political figure-heads that accepted the killing of female babies in some Asian countries.

Usually these aberrations are short-lived, as elements within or outside a society will become outraged enough to rise up and stop the aberrant behavior. Some societies strongly emphasize some parts of the moral code while virtually ignoring others. But despite the variations and distortions, the same basic sense of morality appears wherever humans live together.

Who Decides What is Right?

People in general expect to be treated fairly and courteously. We assume that those around us know the basic common rules of right behavior, and we believe they should conform to them. Some people deny that such rules exist, and all of us occasionally ignore the rules or break them. But our behavior shows clearly that deep down inside, we all have an innate sense of morality. People would not yell at rude drivers unless they believed that rude driving is wrong. It makes no sense to express anger at bad behavior unless you believe there is a standard that defines good behavior. And you assume that everyone out there is aware of this standard. In fact, before you can disagree with anyone about anything, the two of you must agree on one thing: a standard of right and wrong. Adversaries in an argument must assume they share a common standard that defines right before either can expect to convince the other that a standard has been violated.

The Shape of Trust

There is no need to limit our knowledge solely to what we can learn within the confines of our own subjective experience. We can share data, test conclusions, and thus expand our own knowledge. When collective experience and applied reason indicate the general shape of truth, we can get a fair idea of the bigger picture, even though it may not always be in sharp focus.

Many people who have adopted the postmodern outlook nevertheless believe in God. They seem to accept the idea of God intuitively without feeling any need for rational proofs. But even when believers don’t require verification, the capacity to verify must be there. It’s like a parachute or a fire extinguisher or a spare tire. You may never expect to use it, but you need to keep it handy. Belief in God must be rational even when reason is not actively engaged. Believers need to be ready to defend its rationality, because others out there do need to be convinced. For them, all unverified assertions or faith stories will seem like superstitious fables unless we can show them that our belief has a solid rational base.

The Postmodern Distrust of Reason

Postmodernists like to use the well-known illustration of blind men describing an elephant to show that reason has a fatal weakness. Each man felt only part of the elephant and concluded that the entire elephant felt like their limited sample. But the failure of the blind men was not a failure of reason; it was a failure of reasoning. The men applied reason poorly and got poor results. But reason is not discredited by poor usage any more than Beethoven’s music is discredited by poor performances.

But let’s go a step further and say that every blind man felt the elephant’s side and each had such strong preconditioned biases that the reports varied wildly. One said it felt like a stone wall, another like the bark of a tree, and yet another like peanut butter. Although none of these highly subjective reports would help anyone understand the truth about an elephant, none would affect the true reality of the animal. The elephant would exist objectively with textures and features that retained their specific character regardless of all reports to the contrary.

Truth exists objectively even if no one apprehends it accurately. Denying or ignoring this fact is at the core of the postmodern error.

Can I Trust What I Think?

A newborn baby looks up at her mother and tries to focus on the face smiling down on her. The baby has never seen a face before and has no idea what she is looking at. Her undeveloped brain will not hold the concept that the faces of her mother and father exist even when they are not within her field of vision. But later as her father begins to hide his face behind a blanket and play peek-a-boo, rudimentary reason tells her that he exists even when she cannot see him.

As she grows, she learns to apply reason to her broadening world. She observes facts such as sunrises and sunsets, the disappearance of ships over the edge of the horizon and the position of certain stars at certain times. Applying reason to these facts allows her to determine the shape of the earth is round, not flat. Reason points her toward facts and truths that she cannot know except by exercising the rational facilities of her mind.

But is reason dependable? Can we believe what it tells us about facts and truths that are not readily apparent, or do our personal experiences and conditioning so overwhelm reason as to render it untrustworthy?