top of page
Christianity teaches that we should love our enemies, and as much as possible, we should live in peace with all men. Some branches of Islam believe that one should behead their enemies. Again, for this point, which view is correct is irrelevant. Still, for anyone to have a meaningful conversation about which statement (if either) is accurate, one must assume that a proper view does exist. This requires an objective moral standard. So, unless objective moral categories of good, evil, right, and wrong exist in reality, our tendency to think in these terms is unexplainable.
What is the difference between the two?
An objective, according to the dictionary, is something not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts. In other words, this is a standard outside of us that is immaterial, unchanging, and universal. These are things that CAN NOT change due to votes or mob rule.
To be subjective, according to the dictionary, is based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. This is something that CAN be changed do to votes or mob rule.
Here are questions to ask, considering an Objective Moral Standard:
Can human beings construct an objective moral standard independent of God?
Can evolution or creationism explain morality?
Does Truth Exist?
Atheism fails to explain why we are obligated to fulfill or align our lives with any of these moral values that lead to human flourishing.
The atheistic Worldview is ultimately self-refuting! Harris, as a naturalist (the view that only nature exists), holds to "scientific determinism," which means he believes our thoughts and actions are causally determined by natural forces like physics, chemistry, and the initial conditions of the Big Bang. Therefore, humans could never freely choose any action, including actions with supposed moral properties. If naturalistic atheism is accurate, we have no logical grounds for objective moral values and no rational grounds for objective duty to align our lives with any personal codes of ethics. By making this move, however, they affirm that there is nothing wrong with Hitler's Holocaust, the molestation of young boys in the Penn State locker room by Jerry Sandusky, or the murderous actions of ISIS.
So here's how it goes then:
1- If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2- Objective moral values and commitments DO exist.
3- Therefore, God exists.
Point 1: If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
This point is important because understanding that morals are from God, and duties can be seen as "WE OUGHT" to do this. By assuming "We Ought" to treat others good, this implies an act we must do, which automatically implies truth. Truth is truth no matter what. We ought to love our neighbors, we ought to take care of the poor, and we ought not to kill babies because it is evil. These are all truth claims and objective claims. These are not subjective claims. For the Atheist, these claims are subjective and remain opinions. There is no leg that the Atheist can stand on when they claim we "OUGHT" to do anything. If God does not exist, we are only living in a subjective moral world based on each person. This is moral relativity. In the same way, if many religions lead to God, there are many morals. So in the same context, if there are many subjective standards, there are many morals.
This completely falls apart because simple example of a court. If we face a judge, does the judge go according to his own set of beliefs, or does he have a standard that he follows to pursue charges? If there are many morals, then each judge would be different. One would allow and the other would deny.
Point 2: Objective moral values and commitments DO exist.
Is murder wrong? Is stealing wrong? Should we seek justice for those affected by evil acts done by others? The answer is YES. If the answer is no, then by what standard and whose standard matches with what is already built into us, and how do we act when something is done to us? When someone steals from you, you simply do not say, THAT'S OK. You seek for justice and you know in your conscious, and through reason that what that person did was wrong and needs to face a form of judgment.
Point 3: If objective morals exist, then God must exist.
bottom of page