III.
The Moral Argument
Simply put, this
argument states that since there is an objective moral law, there must be a
moral lawgiver. There are valid reasons
the connection can be made between the objective moral law and the
lawgiver. For example, all different
human cultures throughout different time periods and even different religions
have developed similar standards regarding absolutes of right and wrong. For example, robbery, fraud, murder, and
other similar offenses are considered wrong in all cultures in all time periods
of human existence. Of course, there are
disagreements on some issues, but a comparison of criminal law codes across
different nations today reveals significant similarity. Burglary, assault, and bank robbery are
universally considered to be criminal behaviors. The moral argument may seem to be vulnerable
to attack on the basis of a few actions that are considered to be criminal in
some locations, but not others. For
example, smoking marijuana is legal in Amsterdam. Certainly, there are variations regarding
acceptable behavior, but every human being knows there are some things which
are just plain wrong. Some simple
examples show the strength of the moral argument. If I break into a man’s home, beat him, then
assault his wife or daughter, that would be considered wrong in any culture at
any time. If I steal something that
belongs to another person, that would be considered wrong at any time in any
culture. The considerable agreement of
unacceptable actions indicates a higher standard than simple human consensus. If there was no higher moral law than human
consensus, how could anyone condemn the Nazi murder of six million Jews or
slavery or racism? Why is this so? If morality is simply made up by each person
or society, then people could decide that anything is acceptable and not feel
any pangs of conscience. But, we do have
a conscience. As Romans 2:14-15 states,
“For when Gentiles who do not have the Law do
instinctively the things of the Law, these, not having the Law, are a law to
themselves, in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts,
their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or
else defending them.” Because there is a
higher moral law, there must be an external source for this law. One may also add here that, because this moral
law is only understood by sentient beings, there must be an intelligent source
for the law. There must exist a moral
lawgiver, also known as God.
IV. The
Argument from Desire
Every
desire we have corresponds with something or some way that can satisfy the
desire. For example, physical desires
such as hunger, thirst, and sleepiness can be met with food, drink, and
sleep. Even non-essential physical
desires, such as those associated with drug use and sex, have objects that can
fulfill those desires. Non-physical
desires, such as for power, love, revenge, friendship, and others, are all
capable of being met. This does not mean
they will be met or that it is proper to meet them, but it is possible. Because some desires humans have cannot be
met by anything on earth, and since all desires correspond with something that
can satisfy them, there must be something beyond this life. Throughout history, humans have consistently
exhibited a desire to know God and the spirit world. Though many different ideas of God’s nature
have been conceived, there is a universal desire among people to know what else
is out there beyond this life and beyond this world. People have varying levels of inquisitiveness
of the supernatural, but everyone at some time wonders, “Is this life all there
is?” Because we all have a desire to
know God (in some form), there must be a real God. Because we all desire to live beyond this
life, there must be another life after death, since all desires correspond with
something real that can meet the desire.
C.
S. Lewis explained this argument by saying, “Creatures are not born with
desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a
thing as food. A duckling wants to swim: well, there is such a thing as water. Men feel sexual desire: well, there is such a thing as sex. If I find in myself a desire which no
experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I
was made for another world. If none of my
earthly pleasures satisfy it that does not prove that the universe is a
fraud. Probably earthly pleasures were
never meant to satisfy it, but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing.”[1]
Someone
may offer the rebuttal that they desire to see a unicorn or a round square or
travel to another galaxy. Since these
things are impossible, one could say it is not necessary that God exists or
there is life after death. In response
to this, it may be stated that these types of desires are simply absurd
extrapolations from things that already exist.
Besides, no one really wants to see a round square, this is merely a
statement made for the sake of argument.
However, the desire to know and please God is very real, particularly if
we look at the things people have done in the name of pleasing God: building pyramids to offer human sacrifices,
burning heretics at the stake, and flying airplanes into buildings. The intent here is not to bash other
religions, but to make the point that people throughout history and even today
have been very serious about their desire for God and the afterlife. We humans sometimes inappropriately seek
fulfillment: overeating, spiritual
perversions, and looking for love in all the wrong places. This does not mean the desires themselves are
inherently wrong. Desires for water,
food, sex, and love are not wrong if met appropriately. The desire to know God and life after death
is valid and good. The Bible indicates
that God himself has placed this desire in us:
“He has also set eternity in their heart” (Ecclesiastes 3:11).
The
real issue?
The
purpose of this blog is to discover the truth about God. Many people are honestly open-minded and willing to accept the truth when you find
it. Congratulations and welcome to the
site. Others, unfortunately, use the
claim that there is no god or that god is unknowable as a smokescreen for the
real issue. What is the real issue? My unwillingness to accept the fact that, if
I believe in God, I know I will need to change the way I live. So, because I don’t want to give up (insert
sin of choice), I attempt to deny the existence of God; while in my heart, I
know He’s there. The sad thing about
this reasoning is that, whatever God wishes us to give up is destructive anyway
and God will replace it with things that are much better. It is incredibly illogical to hold on to my
pet sin when God is offering to give me everything! As Paul said more eloquently, “He who did not spare His own Son, but delivered Him over
for us all, how will He not also with Him freely give us all things?” (Romans
8:32)
Selected Bibliography:
Behe, Michael, Darwin’s
Black Box, New York, NY: The Free
Press, 1996.
Gonzalez, Guillermo, and Jay Richards, The Privileged Planet, Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing, 2004.
Kreeft, Peter, and Ronald Tacelli, Handbook of Christian Apologetics, Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994.
Lewis, C. S., Mere
Christianity, New York, NY:
MacMillan Publishing Company, 1943.
Rana, Fazale, and Hugh Ross, Origins
of Life, Colorado Springs, CO:
NavPress, 2004.
Strobel, Lee, The Case for a
Creator, Grand Rapids, MI:
Zondervan, 2004.
[All Biblical quotations are from the NASB version.]
No comments:
Post a Comment