by C.S. Lewis, a former atheist, plainly says, ‘If the solar system was brought about by an accidental collision, then the appearance of organic life on this planet was also an accident, and the whole evolution of Man was an accident too. If so, then all our present thoughts are mere accidents-the accidental by-product of the movement of atoms. And this holds for the thoughts of the materialists and astronomers as well as for anyone else’s. But if their thoughts-i.e. of materialism and astronomy-are merely accidental by-products, why should we believe them to be true? I see no reason for believing that one accident should be able to give me a correct account of all the other accidents. It’s like expecting that the accidental shape taken by the splash when you upset a milk jug should give you a correct account of how the jug was made and why it was upset.’ 1
The Moral Argument for C.S. Lewis is as follows:
1.) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.
3.) Therefore, God exists.
Now this is a logical reason, since 3 follows necessarily if premises 1 and 2 are true. Premise 2 seems intuitively obvious to most people. Mass murdering is unequivocally, objectively wrong. Killing innocent children, torturing animals, have dog fights…all for fun is objectively wrong. That is it is wrong for most of humanity, everywhere. These morals exist worldwide as universal morals. Now if anyone denies premise 2, they don’t need an argument, they need help.
The evolutionary explanation strips morality from humans and reduces it to mere descriptions of animal behavior or conduct, a simple physiochemical reaction of the brain’s cognitive functions. Darwinist can only explain past conduct…past behavior. It cannot inform or predict a human’s future behavior. It only serves to reduce morality to mere descriptions of behavior, which involve both motive and intent. Both of these behaviors are nonphysical elements that can not, even in principle, evolve in a Darwinian sense. So where do morals come from? Why do they seem to apply only to human beings? Are they the product of chance? What world view makes sense out of morality? Why are babies born with what developmental psychologist’s call an intrinsic compassion (one baby cry’s in the nursery, and the others join in).
Moral laws suggest a moral lawgiver, one who communicates through higher, moral laws. Fore example, most people would not murder someone. They deem this to be morally wrong. He expects His imperatives to be obeyed or certain consequences occur. Danish philosopher Soren Kierkegaard pointed out that a person could not have anything on his conscience if God did not exist. Morality is grounded in our hunger for justice. We desire for a day when all wrongs are made right, when innocent suffering is finally redeemed, and when the un-caught guilty are finally punished. This also explains our own personal sense of dread. We feel guilty because we are guilty and most people seem to sense that we might have to answer for our own crimes.
Robert Wright offers no empirical evidence whatsoever for his thesis. He seems to assume that moral qualities are in the genes because he must; his paradigm will not work otherwise.
Take this comment as an example: “Human beings are a species splendid in their array of moral equipment, tragic in their propensity to misuse it, and pathetic in their constitutional ignorance of the misuse” (emphases mine).* Wright reflects on the moral equipment randomly given to us by nature, and then bemoans our immoral use of it with words like “tragic,” “pathetic,” and “misuse.” 2
When he’s asked about the origin of life I have never seen anyone who supposedly is an expert on the subject more tongue-tied. He simply doesn’t know what to say except that maybe life emerged on planet earth as a result of extraterrestrials, which, of course, must mean that life did come from some sort of intelligent design. Of course he doesn’t recognize that he actually spoke in favor of intelligent design while disparaging it.
One notable example of this challenge to the transcendent nature of morality mentioned in his book is what he calls the new science of evolutionary psychology. Its adherents advance a simple premise: The mind, just like every part of the physical body, is a product of evolution. Everything about human personality marital relationships, parental love, friendships, dynamics among siblings, social climbing, even office politics can be explained by the forces of neo-Darwinian evolution. 2
Even the moral threads that make up the fabric of society are said to be the product of natural selection. Morality can be reduced to chemical relationships in the genes chosen by different evolutionary needs in the physical environment. Love and hate; feelings of guilt and remorse; gratitude and envy; even the virtues of kindness, faithfulness, and self-control can all be explained mechanistically through the cause and effect of chance genetic mutations and natural selection.
This explains the moral universals found in almost every part of the world. If these are simply chemical reactions, then taking a human life is just part of the natural, evolutionary process in the brain. How could the killer be held responsible. He is a victim of his brain chemistry. Logic tells us that, by necessity, a Creator or Moral Lawgiver was required to impart internal, intrinsic morals and that this is where they came from and the Source of them. Moral, values and character are not just a bunch accidental or random chemical reactions in the brain are they? I thought the theory held that it was all about survival of the fittest, not making decisions not based solely on self, but only the animal specie benefiting from any given situation and even at the expense of others?
1. C.S. Lewis (1898-1963), The Business of Heaven, Fount Paperbacks, U.K., p. 97, 1984.
2. Robert Wright, The Moral Animal Why We Are the Way We Are: The New Science of Evolutionary Psychology (New York: Pantheon Books, 1994), 23.
Thank you for your comment Charlie. I actually know that God has provided a way for all mankind to know. Rom 1:20 says “For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities–his eternal power and divine nature–have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” Inexcusable means “without any defense” (compare Rom. 1:20). He has nothing to say, he is silenced (compare Romans 3:19); he is guilty and he knows it!
I encourage you to read Romans chapters one and two. The fact that God is good and forbearing and long-suffering ought to lead men to repentance! Men ought to run to God seeking His mercy! But instead men despise God, harden their hearts and refuse to repent! Today, during this age of grace God’s goodness and grace and mercy abound towards all men, but men still refuse to repent. In the tribulation period, God’s severity and judgment and plagues will abound towards all men, but men will still refuse to repent (see Rev. 9:20-21). However, when a sinner does repent, whether now or then, there is great joy in heaven (Luke 15:7,10).
The Gentiles do not have the written law of God. They do not have the law of Moses. But according to these verses they have God’s law WITHIN THEM, “written in their hearts.” Although they have never seen a copy of the Ten Commandments, they know that it is wrong to murder, steal, lie, etc. And their conscience condemns them when they do such things. Here are two examples: 1) Acts 28:3-4. These barbarians never saw the Ten Commandments but somehow they knew that murder was wrong and that it was punishable by death! 2) Genesis 26:6-11. This heathen king had never seen the Ten Commandments yet he knew that adultery was wrong.
Here is a syllogism for you. If God exists and he wishes us to follow a system of morality, he would have made such a system clear to all that seek to follow him.
No such system exists. People agree in principle that murder (defined as the unjust taking of life) for example, is wrong but they don’t agree on what constitutes the unjust taking of life. How many times have Christians themselves disagreed? The Roman Catholic Church says capital punishment is wrong, other Christians disagree. Most Christians agree on the concept what is known as the “just war” but Christians disagreed on the “justice” of the Iraqi war and Quakers consider any kind of killing to be against God’s commandment. Not so many years ago Christians had no hesitancy about torturing and killing other Christians with different theological points of view. To them it wasn’t murder, it was defending their particular version of the faith.
So we all agreed in principle that murder is wrong but what kind of divine lawgiver is it that gives you a principal which no one can agree on practice?
Human beings have a lot in common with each other so it’s not uncommon or surprising that they share some basic concepts one of which is that members of the society cannot be allowed to simply go around and take the life of another member without good reason. Society would collapse. But that “good reason” varies from situation to situation and culture to culture, century to century. That combined with the inability to find universal standards that apply everywhere and at all times, strongly implies that these values are evolutionary and circumstantial in nature, and are not absolute nor are they are not clear in implementation as they would be if they were attributable to any absolute divine lawgiver who intended us to follow them.
I invite you to email me back with your thoughts.
Thanks
You’re syllogism is skewed because it doesn’t take into account man’s free will and particularly how it relates to the fall of man or original sin. I argue that there is a clear system…it is called the Bible…it is called the life of Jesus Christ…now how you interpret that is your choice (which of course is where man’s free will and sin come into account (because people can interpret the Bible however they choose in order to defend their religion or belief, etc.) which if you ask me is sinful and should be considered blasphemy. It is just like politics and the Constitution…you have your strict constitutionalists and your interpreters. If you have ever met someone who really gets it…who really understands God’s message and intent, they will tell you it doesn’t matter what religion you choose or what path you take to get there…they will simply tell you to read the Bible and understand the life of Jesus. This is so because God only asks of us one thing…and that is to be genuinely sorry for your sins. Period. He understands that you will screw up and sin all along the way, but in the end, if you really are truly sorry for what you have done, and you did indeed strive to act as his son did, you are promised eternal life. That is his system. Just as politics gets corrupted, so does religion. You can’t use figures like the Pope or other religious clergy to stand as the poster children of all religious thought…that would be like using Bush or Obama to stand as the poster children for all political thought…clergy get corrupted too.
So your next point is going to be, if those people are easily corrupted, then what is there to say that the people who wrote the Bible and wrote of Jesus’s life aren’t corrupted then too?
Maybe they were, maybe they weren’t. That isn’t important. What is important is that the Bible calls us to a common theme of goodness and asks us to work through, with, and for a Divine entity. That common theme is not corruptible in the sense that there is only one side to the issue. Something can only be corrupted if there is another side or something to corrupt it to. You can only believe in God. There is no other option…thus making there be no other option to corrupt it to. People who don’t believe just choose not to, their belief or faith is already established by making the choice. Therefore, once you accept your belief…those corruptible entities don’t matter.
God’s system is allowing freewil to man. It’s to the extent we accept the belief in God do we share the Being of God in our innerselves. When this is in harmony we need not look any further to one self and one’s neighbor to bond with Gift of God.