Cloyd B. Frock, Jr.
Where We’ve Been; Where We’re Going.
In my first article of this series (April, 2014), I concluded with a question: “If there is adequate evidence that God created all things in the heavens and on the earth, then why are so many people determined to continue arguing to the contrary?” I answered the question this way: “If [the god of atheism – rocks and dirt] is the author of all life, including mankind, then who cares how one lives? Live anyway you like, because there is no objective standard of morality that originates from rocks and dirt. If, on the other hand, the God of our Bible is the author of everything (and He is), and if He has revealed to mankind an objective standard of morality by which to operate within the universe, transcending every standard of morality that man, or a society of men, might devise (and He has), then all mankind, everywhere, is subject to the authority of God, and to His objective standard of morality.”
In my second article (May, 2014), I put forth all the evidence necessary to prove that the God of our Bible is that one, true God, and I promised that this month I would “tackle” the question of human morality, and the Atheist argument that implies, “If humanity originated from dead, lifeless, matter, then it necessarily follows that human morality originated from dead, lifeless, matter.”
The Moral Value of Rocks and Humans.
An interesting thing about rocks and dirt (and, to ensure all our bases are covered, “primordial sludge” as well) is that they really don’t care. They don’t care if you get robbed and murdered. They don’t care if your house burns down and you lose all of your possessions. They don’t care if you lose your job, or if you are homeless, or if you are starving. Face it: rocks, dirt and “primordial sludge” are just cold, uncaring and unfeeling! They have no moral or ethical value whatsoever, and no matter how long you may try to instill such values in them, they will never hold to anything more than “neutrality.”
On the other hand, human beings seem to care about stuff. If we hear about somebody getting robbed and murdered, we feel distressed over the news. If we hear that someone’s house burned down, and that he lost all of his possessions, we sympathize and reach out to him in kindness and concern. If we know somebody who has lost his job, is homeless, or is starving, we take him in, feed him, and try to help him “get back on his feet.” Yes, in this regard, there certainly seems to be a great difference between rocks and humans – the difference is that morality exists ONLY in the mind of a human being; and, science is confirming that to be true!
What Scientists Have “Discovered.”
Earlier this year, scientists from Oxford University “discovered” a new part of the human brain, which they’ve called the “lateral frontal pole.” They noted that this center of the brain is “unique to humans,” and is designed to “identify whether [we] have made bad decisions.”1
It may be newly discovered to scientists, but not to God. In Romans 2:15-16, the apostle Paul wrote that our conscience bears witness between ourselves and our thoughts, “accusing or else excusing”2 us, and in First Timothy 4:1-2, and in Titus 1:15, Paul wrote that an improperly trained conscience could become “seared” and “defiled.” In other words, the Bible teaches us that we must properly program our conscience to successfully navigate this world, and it is with God’s objective standard of morality that we may do just that. The Psalmist put it this way: “Your word I have hidden in my heart, That I might not sin against You!” (Psalm 119:11).
Subjective Morality vs. Objective Morality.
The Oxford scientists have proven that human beings have the capacity to properly determine “right” from “wrong,” yet the only way for there to be “right” and “wrong” is for there to be an objective standard by which one may determine “right” from “wrong”; Atheism implies that there is nothing objectively “right” and nothing objectively “wrong.” Notice that if it is true that nothing is objectively right, then it necessarily follows that nothing is objectively wrong; consider the implications!
One cannot claim it to be objectively wrong for a neighbor to rob and murder him, because the robber and murderer living next door might determine that it IS “right” for him to rob and murder. Of course, on this point, a nearly universal objection is raised by our Atheist friends, because they would certainly contend that to rob and murder them, or a member of their family, could not possibly be a “right” (moral) thing to do; but, in raising such an objection, they impose upon themselves a logical contradiction: either it is always wrong to rob and murder, or it is not always wrong to rob and murder. If it is always wrong to rob and murder, then objective morality DOES exist.
The only question remaining is this: “From where does that objective standard originate?” Does it originate with the individual? No, because there are – unfortunately – some people who DO believe that it is right for them to rob and murder their neighbor, and so the objective moral standard must originate from a higher source. Does it originate with the government? No, because there are – unfortunately – some governments that DO believe that it is right for them to rob and murder (e.g., Nazi Germany), and so the objective moral standard must originate from even a HIGHER source. Only from a mind that was entirely moral COULD such a standard originate – the mind of God.
On the wall across from the desk in my office I have a large whiteboard, on which I have permanently inscribed the following logical syllogism (mine is written in symbolic language, so I’ll spell it out here):
1) Atheism implies subjectivism;
2) Subjectivism implies that both murder and non-murder are acceptable alternatives;
3) Murder and non-murder are contradictory;
4) Any argument that implies a contradiction is itself false, since contradictory statements (accurately and precisely stated) cannot both be true; therefore, subjectivism cannot be true;
5) If Atheism implies subjectivism (#1), and if subjectivism implies a contradiction (#2 and #3), and if any argument that implies a contradiction is itself false (#4), then Atheism cannot be true.
There is a God, and as we have previously noted, there is more than sufficient evidence that the God of our Bible IS that God. If that is true, then humanity DOES have an objective standard of morality by which to live – the word of God.
The “Question” of Human Morality
Cloyd B. Frock, Jr.
1 thought on “The “Question” of Human Morality”
I love the contrast made between rocks and humans and feelings. Also, the scientific brain discovery.