6. Other Compelling Evidences (6)

☼ Exhibit #13: The Morality Argument

All humans are born with a concept of moral values – right and wrong, good and evil. Animals do not have this sense; they have no concept of right and wrong choices and are therefore amoral. Animals are driven solely by basic needs such as food, play, and comfort. This concept of morality makes humans different from any other creature on earth.

We all know deep inside what “is the right thing to do.” We all agree: a serial killer is an evil man, and Mother Theresa was a good woman.

Why is that? If evolution were true, how can it explain this shared concept of moral values? If humans are nothing more than a cosmic “accident,” a fluke of time and chance, why do persons have these moral values? Simply said, how can a vast number of amoral organic components result in a human being with moral values? And how can it be, if we evolved from an amoral ancestor, that we possess these moral values?

A similar reasoning is described by C.S. Lewis.[18] He questions the concept of morality. That is just not possible or logical. The heart of his argument follows this basic structure:

1.          Moral laws imply a Moral Law Giver.

2.          There is an objective moral law.

3.          Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver.

The first premise is self-evident. Moral laws differ from natural laws. Moral laws don’t describe what is, they prescribe what ought to be. They can’t be known by observing what people do. They are what all persons should do, whether or not they actually do it.

The weight of the argument rests on the second premise — the existence of objective moral law. That is, there is a moral law not just prescribed by us, but for us as well. Humans prescribe proper behavior for other humans. The question is, if there is evidence that a universal, objective prescription binds all humans. The evidence for such a law is strong. It is implied in our judgments that “the world is getting better (or worse).” How could we know unless there were some standard beyond the world by which we could measure our progress. Statements such as “Hitler was wrong” have no force greater than opinion, leaving us to decide if Hitler’s moral judgments are right or wrong depending solely on the cultural norms. If he was objectively wrong, then there is a moral law beyond all of us by which we are all bound. And if there is such a universal law, there must be a universal Moral Law Giver (God).[19]