The structure of the argument is as follows:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore God exists.
In a purely natural, materialistic
universe, moral values and duties emerge simply to facilitate survival of the
people in charge, whether they be rulers of the Third Reich or the elected
politicians of a parliamentary democracy. They are not objective in any sense.
What is right for one society is wrong for another. People within a given
society can make up their own rules of right and wrong in defiance of the
legally enshrined laws as long as they don’t get caught. In principle, nothing
is ruled out – genocide, eugenics, rape, murder, greed, lust for power are not
objectively wrong. It’s all just social convention, either forced by the ruling class or agreed by the majority for what they perceive to be their own individual or collective interest (e.g. give work and purpose to the unemployed, as did Hitler in 1930s Germany).
In such a universe there is no reason to regard a human
being as having any sacred value. He or she is valued only according to how
useful he or she is to society, or to neighbours, friends and relatives. His or her life is worth no more than that of a
blade of grass, a bacterium or a dog. All are the products or by-products of a
purely mechanical evolutionary process in a pointless universe. The concept of
morality is just an illusion manufactured by the brain, along with justice, love, truth and beauty. Even altruism is
dismissed as an evolutionary device. A
philosophical materialist talking about morals is deluded if he thinks he has
the authority to pronounce any of the Ten Commandments right or wrong. Which is
not to say he can’t act morally. Most do; but they can’t do so without
contradicting their godless worldview.
Neither are moral duties objective under this materialistic
worldview. Animals do not have moral duties: animals kill for food but they
don’t murder or act with gratuitous cruelty; neither are they expected to protect other animals with animal rights. On the naturalistic view animals
are no different from humans other than by degree. If humans are not qualitatively different from animals there is no qualitative
difference between refraining from harming another human being and eating with
bad table manners.
And yet we know this is not true. Objective moral values and
duties do exist. We feel bad or apprehensive when transgressions occur: e.g. when a person is murdered or tortured. We know this intuitively and they exist throughout humanity in
all its manifestations. They are not illusions. So where does objective
morality come from? It can only be God. It is God’s own nature which is good. It
is from God that the commandments for living come and they flow out of his
nature.
John