The moral argument for God’s existence basically says that if objective moral values exist (absolute right and wrong), these values must come from a personal Being transcending the various opinions and cultural nuances of mankind.
A few hold the extreme position stating there is neither such thing as right that is always right, nor wrong that is always wrong. They site examples illustrating the contrast of differing perspectives and cultural practices. For example, some may view the men who flew into the World Trade Center as terrorist, while others see them as freedom fighters. Another example points to some cultures striving to love their neighbors while others work to eat their neighbors.
Yet when one of these hardliners was asked how he felt about the cruel treatment of children by Nazi doctors, he responds by stating that he did not like what happened to those children, and he would not have enjoyed witnessing what happened to those children, but he could not say that the Nazi doctors were doing anything wrong. This man’s mind contradicted his heart. He didn’t intellectually believe in evil, but even he couldn’t escape an emotional belief in evil.
This continues to illustrate the presence of moral sensibilities within the human heart. What needs to be explained is where this moral compass originated. Is it merely an emergent quality of evolution, or does it reside there as a faint reminder that we were created in God’s image.
Noted atheist and ardent proponent of evolution, Richard Dawkins, has done much in an attempt to promote the theory of evolution as the only intellectually sustainable position, yet even he seems confused as to what he actually believes. In his book The God Delusion he argues that morality is based on evolution. Yet this seems to contradict his understanding in River Out of Eden where he observes evolution being unconcerned with right and wrong.
Dawkins’ inconsistencies aside, can evolution truly account for the formation of conscious morality in human beings? For the sake of argument lets consider evolution as a source for morality. If morality did indeed evolve through the blind mechanism of natural selection, then there is no more reason to trust such a morality than one we may receive from reading tea leaves. Both are impersonal and blind to meaning and purpose.
Henry Middleton in his article Can Morality Be Based In Our “Selfish: Evolutionary Past? says, “Moral standards deal with right and wrong, what should and should not be done. That implies a choice that requires personality and consciousness. A transcendent moral standard would therefore need to be grounded in a conscious, personal, and transcendent reality. Christians find this in God—the only place where such a standard can be found.”
Also, as noted by Jay Wesley Richards in his article Naturalism in Theological and Biblical Studies, evolution is driven by behavior, not beliefs. As long as an animal behaves in a self-preserving way, its beliefs are irrelevant. For instance, a deer can believe a mountain lion is his mother, while simultaneously believing the way to get his mother to love him is to run away. The natural selection of evolution doesn’t choose between beliefs, only behavior.
The bottom line is that evolution could only determine what is, not what should be, therefore it is a completely inadequate explanation for the human heart’s passionate reaction to good and evil.
No comments:
Post a Comment