I Don't Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist: Chapter Seven

Have you ever had a thoughtful conversation with someone close to you similar to the one with Frank and his friend? What were some takeaways you learned to do and not do next time?

...

Without an objective standard of meaning and morality, then life is meaningless and there's nothing absolutely right or wrong. Everything is merely a matter of opinion.

...

Argument for the Moral Law

1. Every law has a law giver 2. There is a Moral Law 3. Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

There are many reasons we know that the Moral Law exists, but for now, write down the eight reasons presented on page 172.

1. The Moral Law in undeniable 2. We know it by our reactions 3. It is the basis of human rights 4. It is the unchanging standard of justice 5. It defines a real difference between moral positions (e.g., Mother Teresa vs. Hitler) 6. Since we know what's absolutely wrong, there must be an absolute standard of rightness 7. The Moral Law is the grounds for political and social dissent 8. If there were no Moral Law, then we wouldn't make excuses for violating it

Confusion # 6 - Absolute Ends (Values) vs. Relative Means - confusing the end (the value itself) with the means to attaining that end.

Both sides may agree on the absolute end; they just disagree on the relative means to achieve it.

What are some different names for Moral Law? (pg. 170)

Conscience, Natural Law, Moral Code, and Nature's Law.

The Moral Law: What Do Darwinists Say?

Darwinist Edward O. Wilson claims that our sense of morality has evolved in the same way ourselves have evolved - by natural selection. Morality is materially and genetically determined. It is based on inherited feelings or instincts, not on an objective standard of right and wrong. Materials don't have morality. Physical properties are not responsible for morality. Human thoughts and moral laws are not material things. Morality cannot be merely an instinct because we have competing instincts and something else often tells us to ignore the stronger instinct in order to do something more noble. Wilson says that social morals have evolved because those "cooperative" morals helped humans survive together. This assumes an end - survival - for evolution, when Darwinism, by definition, has no end because it is a non-intelligent process. Even if survival is granted as the end, Darwinists cannot explain why people knowingly engage in self-destructive behavior or why people often subvert their own survival instincts to help others. Wilson and Darwinists assume that survival is a "good" thing, but there is no real good without the objective Moral Law. Darwinists confuse how one comes to know the Moral Law with the existence of the Moral Law. Even if we come to know some of our "moral sentiments" because of genetic and/or environmental factors, that doesn't mean there is no objective Moral Law outside ourselves. We can show how moral values are discovered, but it would not show that those values are invented. Morality exists independently of how we come to know it.

Lastly, What cannot be explained by Darwinists?

Darwinists cannot explain why anyone should obey any biologically derived "moral sentiment."

After reading the conversation Frank Turek had with his friend, Dave, over dinner, what significant truths did he share with his friend?

Deep down Dave wanted to help people. And never questioned where that moral obligation came from as a nonbeliever. A nonmaterial belief to do good instead of evil.

Ideas Have Consequences

Examples: Adolf Hitler used Darwin's theory as justification for the Holocaust, and because humans are considered no better than any other species, Peter Singer justifies killing babies up to 28 days of age and James Rachels believes mentally retarded people may be used as lab experiments or food. Nazi-like experiments cannot be condemned by Darwinists, because there is no objective standard in a Darwinian world.

In your own words, explain how there would be no way to measure moral differences without Moral Law. (pgs. 177-179)

Excerpt from Mere Christianity: "There are two reasons for saying it belongs to the same class as mathematics. The first is, as I said in the first chapter, that though there are differences between the moral ideas of one time or country and those of another, the differences are not really very great — not nearly so great as most people imagine — and you can recognize the same lay running through them all: whereas mere conventions, like the rule of the road of the kinds or clothes people wear, may differ to any extent. The other reason is this. When you think about these differences between the morality of one people and another, do you think that the morality of one people is ever better or worse than that of another? Have any of the changes been improvements? If not, then of course there could never be any moral progress. Progress means not just changing, but changing for the better. If no set of moral ideas were truer or better than any other, there would be no sense in preferring civilized morality to savage morality, or Christian morality to Nazi morality. In fact, of course, we all do believe that some moralities are better than others. We do believe that some of the people who tried to change the moral ideas of their own age were what we would call Reformers of Pioneers — people who understood morality better than their neighbors did. Very well then. The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people thing, and that some people's ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something — some Real Morality — for them to be true about. The reason why your idea of New York can be truer of less true than mine is that New York is a real place, existing quite apart from what either of us thinks. If when each of us said 'New York' each means merely 'The town I am imagining in my own head', how could one of us have truer ideas than the other? There would be no question of truth or falsehood at all. In the same way, if the Rule of Decent Behaviour meant simply 'whatever each nation happens to approve', there would be no sense in saying that any one nation had even been more correct in its approval than any other; no sense in saying that the world would ever grow morally better or morally worse." In short, to believe in moral relativism is to argue that there are no real moral differences between Mother Teresa and Hitler, freedom and slavery, equality and racism, care and abuse, love and hate, or life and murder. Moral relativism is false.

In your own words, explain how there are no real moral grounds for political or social dissent without the Moral Law. (pgs. 180-181)

For if there is no Moral Law, then no position on any moral issue is objectively right or wrong - including the positions taken by atheists. Without the Moral Law, no one has any objective grounds for being for or against anything! But since we all know that issues involving life and liberty are more than mere preferences, that they involve real moral rights, then the Moral Law exists.

In your own words, explain how we couldn't know justice or injustice without the Moral Law. (pgs. 176-177)

How do you know the world is unjust? Because there is justice. "My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?" -C.S. Lewis

In your own words, explain why we wouldn't make excuses for doing wrong if moral laws didn't exist. (pg. 181)

If there were no Moral Law, then we wouldn't make excuses for violating it. 1. You don't need to plead with people to tolerate good behavior, only bad. 2. We only make excuses when we act against the Moral Law. We don't make excuses for good behavior, most would say that makes no sense, but we make excuses when we act against the moral law. You don't need to plea to be tolerated for good behavior.

In your own words, explain why our reactions help us discover Moral Law. (pgs. 173-174)

Long story short, there are absolute morals. And if you really want to get relativists to admit it, all you need to do is treat them unfairly. Relativism is ultimately unlivable. Reactions help is identify right and wrong. The moral law is not always the standard by which we treat others, but it is nearly always the standard y which we expect others to treat us.

In your own words, explain why Moral Law is undeniable. (pgs. 172-173)

Relativists argue: 1.) There is no absolute truth. 2.) There are no absolute moral values. First one is a truth claim in itself. Moral values are practically undeniable. Your rights, in itself are values. If you say it is "not right" for anything, you are addressing a moral value issue.

When we say the "Moral Law" exists, what does that mean? (pg. 171)

That all people are impressed with a fundamental sense of right and wrong. Everyone knows, for example, that love is superior to hate and that courage is better than cowardice.

What are some things that "we can't not know"? (pg. 172)

That it is wrong to kill innocent human beings for no reason. Some people may deny it and commit murder anyway, but deep in their hearts they know that murder is wrong. They just may not feel remorse. Murder is wrong everywhere. It is not a virtue.

Confusion # 5 - Absolute Morals vs. Moral Disagreements - just because there are different opinions doesn't mean morality is relative.

The controversy really is over which value applies or takes precedence. This moral disagreement exists because some people are suppressing the Moral Law in order to justify what they want to do.

Confusion #3 - Absolute Morals vs. Applying Them to Particular Situations - An absolute Moral Law can exist even if people fail to know the right thing to do in a particular situation.

The fact that there are difficult problems in morality doesn't disprove the existence of objective moral laws. If just one moral obligation exists, then the Moral Law exists. If the Moral Law exists, then so does the Moral Law Giver.

Confusion #2 - Absolute Morals vs. Changing Perceptions of the Facts - confusion between the existence of an absolute moral value itself and the understanding of the facts used in applying that value.

The perception of a moral situation is relative (whether witches are really murderers), but the moral values involved in the situation are not (murder has always been and always will be wrong).

Confusion #1 - Absolute Morals vs. Changing Behavior - confusing behavior with value.

They confuse what is with what ought to be. What people do is subject to change, but what they ought to do is not.

In your own words, explain why there would be no human rights without the Moral Law (pgs. 175-176)

We couldn't know what was wrong unless we knew what was right, and vice versa.

Examples:

We do not currently regulate the amount of nicotine in an individual cigarette; therefore we need not do this. If nature does not make it, we shouldn't have it. We've always had Bonfire, so we always should. The Electoral College is specified in the Constitution, so we can't do away with it. Of course homosexuality is immoral. You don't see any animals doing that. It's totally natural to have many sexual partners. Go with it. Oh, Larry, why are you so upset about my cheating on the exam? I saw an article saying 70% of college students admit to cheating. I think it's to be expected that people will do whatever it takes to get what they want. So, people should do what they have to do. The simple fact is that war is good for mankind, since the tendency to conflict is a human instinct. Why do you argue about whether abortion is moral? It's legal isn't it?

Confusion #4 - An Absolute Command (What) vs. a Relative Culture (How) - the difference between the absolute nature of the moral command and the relative way in which the command is manifested in different cultures.

What should be done is common to all cultures, but how it should be done differs. The moral value is absolute, but how it is practiced is relative.

In your own words, explain how you couldn't know what was right or wrong, without the Moral Law. (pgs. 179-180)

Without the Moral Law, you couldn't know what was right or wrong. In order to know what is wrong, you must have some idea of what right is. "No one has the truth" is a claim that the person themselves knows the truth itself. They often deny moral law but assume it in the next, if it were to fit their agenda.

The is-ought fallacy occurs..

when the assumption is made that because things are a certain way, they should be that way... In effect, this fallacy asserts that the status quo should be maintained simply for its own sake. (From Texas State University)