How Do We Know God Exists? Morality Exists
All cultures and civilizations have had law codes and morality. And, interestingly, there is a lot of overlap between societies. How can this be explained?
The most famous law code is the Ten Commandments. We teach that it was written by God in stone and given to Moses. But the Ten Commandments is not the only law code. The most famous of these other morality codes is The Code of Hammurabi. You have probably heard of it and you probably studied it in school. It is thought to have been written in the 1750’s BC. There is evidence of another, and older, law code from around 2400 BC that has been found in Ebla. Ebla is near Aleppo in Northern Syria.
Morals exist. And the non-believer has a really hard time figuring out how they got there. But as a Christian who believes God’s Word, the existence of morality just makes complete sense.
A Quick Summary Of The Naturalist Position
I will begin with the naturalistic position. A naturalist, as I am using it, is a person that doesn’t believe that anything but nature exists. There is nothing or no one outside of nature that created it or influences it in any way. They believe that all that exists is what can be seen, touched, smelled, etc.
If you read the post a few weeks ago on the creation of societal structures, this will sound very familiar. This will sound similar to the previous discussion on this topic because the person with a completely naturalistic worldview believes that morality and societal structures developed together.
The idea is that the sense of right and wrong for humanity developed over time. They believe that a group of apes tried to survive a time of scarcity together. It is thought that in a time of stiff competition for food, the competition made this one group behave differently. They cooperated more in the hunting and gathering of food.
We see this sort of cooperation all the time in the world. As I mentioned in a previous post, many different animals cooperate to hunt. But they don’t cooperate in the dispersion of what has been hunted. The strong get to eat their fill while the others get what they can. Some in the group get little to eat, and those animals often get sick and die.
The naturalist is saying that this cooperation was different. This cooperation is thought to have birthed morality and society. In this special group of apes, the naturalist believes that those that shared and cooperated better were favored and kept in the group. And so, the traits that worked for cooperation carried on while the other traits that might lead to the domination and harm of others passed away.
So, a sense of right and wrong, according to the naturalist position, is in no way a universal and objective truth. It is just what has made society function and develop over the centuries.
I quoted this last time, and it is worth looking at again. Michael Tomassello is a professor of psychology and neuroscience at Duke University states it quite plainly when he says,
“An essential part of the process of process of obligate collaborative foraging involved partner choice. Individuals who were cognitively or otherwise incompetent at collaboration—those incapable of forming joint goals or communicating effectively with others—were not chosen as partners and so went without food. Likewise, individuals who were socially or morally uncooperative in their interactions with others—for example, those who tried to hog all the spoils—were also shunned as partners and so doomed. The upshot: strong and active social selection emerged for competent and motivated individuals who cooperated well with others.”
The naturalist believes that a special group of apes were different. They formed a societal structure that emphasized what would keep them safe and kicked out what would do them harm. And from this, morality came forth.
An Explanation That Doesn’t Explain
When a child is in a biology classroom and is told the broad view that some apes developed into human beings, they can wrap their mind around that. And, with a little bit of explanation it makes some sense. There is a reason why so many people believe this today. It’s not completely incredible. But I think that this is as far as the naturalistic position can go. As soon as you do a little digging into the position, the whole thing falls apart. We saw this last week as we discussed the growth of societal structures. And here we see it again with morals.
The explanation above doesn’t really explain how things came to be the way they are. It’s an explanation for morals, but it’s not an explanation for a universal and objective moral standard. To be clear, there is a universal and objective moral standard out in the world. It does not seem to be the case as we observe the happenings of society, that this is something in development. Let’s think about this with some particular moral laws.
It is interesting to think that laws such as “Do not murder” have been universal. Murder has been illegal or at least thought of as immoral in all societies. Why would this happen? How could this take place?
Even cannibals, which many people would say are an obvious exception to this statement, seem to believe that murder is wrong. Even cannibals didn’t just hunt their neighbors. Cannibalistic societies have eaten deceased loved ones or people from enemy tribes after battles. There was also some ritualistic, and Christians would argue demonic, cannibalism among the Aztecs. After the heart was taken out and given to the Aztec sun god the body would be ritually consumed. But in Aztec culture, murder itself was wrong.
In fact, in the 1700’s BC, the code of Hammurabi states that all violence against people should be punished in kind. In it we read a phrase that we also find in our Bibles. “An eye for an eye and tooth for a tooth” is part of a law code from ancient Babylon in the 1700’s BC. Homicide was itself punishable by death.
And we see this throughout the Code of Hammurabi and other law codes around the world. They differ in some places. The punishments are often different. But murder, theft, rape, and other moral issues were seen as wrong.
It points to something more than the naturalistic position can explain. It points to a universal code of ethics that the naturalistic position cannot explain.
And, just like last week, Christians have the explanation for how these things came to be.
The Christian Position
Where do Christians say that morality came from?
Most of us immediately think of God giving the Law at Mt. Sinai. And we have good reason to think that way because it is a law code that came directly from God. But I do not believe the Law began there. It was revealed there at Mt. Sinai. We need to go further back in history to fully wrap our minds around the Christian position here.
We don’t believe that morality came into existence at Mt. Sinai. We believe that morality existed long before that. In fact, we would say that it has always existed in God Himself.
God has always existed. He has always been.
“In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth.” (Genesis 1:1 ESV)
As Christians, we begin with God standing outside of time and everything else to create the world. And not only did He create the world, but He created us as well.
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them.” (Genesis 1:27 ESV)
God didn’t just create us. He created us in His image.
Kings would put images of themselves scattered all over their kingdom. This image of them and the attributes they wanted to display was a reflection that they wanted to show to the people. This same language is used of you and I.
We are image bearers of God. He has created images of Himself around the globe, everywhere that He rules and reigns. And all the world sees in humanity different characteristics of God. And part of that is the morality that is universal and objective across all times.
We oftentimes speak of this as our conscience. This word comes from the Latin word “conscientia”, it means “with knowledge”. The prefix “con” in Latin means “with”. And the verb “scir” means “to know”. The verb “scir” is where we get the word “science”. The word “science” means “knowledge”. I go through this definition of the word because it matters. The very word “conscience” means “with knowledge”.
Think about the cartoon Pinocchio. Pinocchio is a wooden toy that wants to be a real boy. But Pinocchio doesn’t have a conscience. He doesn’t know how to behave. The fairy gives Pinocchio Jiminy Cricket to serve as his conscience so that one day he can be a real boy.
Real boys have consciences. Real boys know right from wrong.
And this is proven time and time again throughout history. That is why I have brought up ancient law codes and the behavior of humanity throughout time. Human beings know right from wrong. How?
God created us in His image. And so, we inherently know right from wrong.
Paul said it this way in the Book of Romans.
“For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on that day when, according to my gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.” (Romans 2:14-16 ESV)
The Christian view is rooted in the very nature of God and the fact that He created us in His image. Because of that, we have morality written on our hearts. Humans have always had God’s Law written on our hearts. Therefore, morals were not created they are and have always been.
The Explanation That Actually Explains Things
I have attempted, to the best of my ability to explain how Naturalism explains the creation of morals. And in so doing the falseness of their view is revealed. It is simply impossible to explain how this common morality exists worldwide from their vantage point.
But the Christian answer to this explains it. And it explains it very well. We were created in God’s image. And so, inherently we know right from wrong and we built societies and civilizations that reflect this fact throughout history and all over the globe.
Opportunities
I do believe that this gives Christians a major opportunity to witness to the glories of Christ. This is a conversation that can come up quickly and easily because we all make moral judgments every day. And the person you are speaking with has been created in the image of God and has His law written on their hearts.
The opportunity this creates comes when a person makes a moral judgment. If an atheist says to you that a certain person should receive a long time in prison, then asking “Why?” can spark a dialogue about this topic.
“Why do you believe that theft is wrong?”
“Why do you believe that murder is wrong?”
Inevitably, their response will be something to the effect of “Because it harms another person.”
“Why do you believe that is wrong?”
The goal of the questioning is not to be annoying. The goal of the questioning is to get to their foundation. You are digging to the bottom of this moral statement to figure out the foundation it is resting upon.
What you will find is that the moral statement is not resting upon any foundation at all. If the statement is one that is morally accurate, then you will find that the person is relying upon their God-given conscience for their understanding of right and wrong. They are image bearers of God and can’t help but do such things.
R. Dwain Minor