Debate 6: Moral Law

It would be premature to launch into the topic of a grace-based relationship without first giving support to the notion that God is a person capable of relationship. So far, I have operated from the viewpoint that the concessions made by the atheist in the masturbation debate were genuine. He said something to this effect: “let’s assume everything you [Christian theist] believe is true. It does not help your argument [that existence of sin does not disqualify faith in God] but hurts it.” At this point, we really must consider the facts behind what is being discussed. The facts are what C.S. Lewis describes as the Moral Law. NEGATIONofP is essentially using a universally understood truth, which proves the existence of God, in his attempt to disprove God. Kind of ironic, but it is a tactic used by atheists as long as there have been atheists. Since they have no truth to stand on, they often employ ‘bait-and-switch’ in their reasoning. So, before we describe the grace-based relationship in more specific terms, let us first examine the Moral Law and how it gives evidence to a personal God capable of relationship.

First, recognizing the Moral Law brings an honest thinker to accept that there must be some intelligent mind behind it. I’ve touched on Natural Law in previous posts. Natural Law would include laws of physics, laws of biology, and laws of chemistry. We cannot get ourselves within a rock or a pig to determine if there is anything more than Natural Law governing the way they behave in the universe. The only thing we can study from the inside to find this out is man; and after a sincere look at what goes on within man, it turns out that something else does exist. Moral Law conveys an absolute standard. It is no good to call it instinct or merely preference, because the Moral Law often requires that we must choose between competing instincts and act against our preferences. The Moral Law must somehow be above either of those and distinct from them; put there by Somebody (*). For the next part of this, I hope you won’t mind me deferring to someone more skillful. An extended excerpt from C.S. Lewis will bring this point home faster so we can move on. In Mere Christianity (Touchstone Books, 1952), C.S. Lewis writes:

We have two bits of evidence about the Somebody. One is the universe He has made. If we used that as our only clue, then I think we should have to conclude that He was a great artist (for the universe is a very beautiful place), but also that He is quite merciless and no friend to man (for the universe is a very dangerous and terrifying place). The other bit of evidence is the Moral Law which He has put into our minds. And this is a better bit of evidence than the other, because it is inside information. You find out more about God from the Moral Law than from the universe in general just as you find out more about a man by listening to his conversation than by looking at a house he has built. Now, from this second bit of evidence we conclude that the Being behind the universe is intensely interested in right conduct—in fair play, unselfishness, courage, good faith, honesty and truthfulness. In that sense we should agree with the account given by Christianity and some other religions, that God is ‘good’. But do not let us go too fast here. The Moral Law does not give us any grounds for thinking that God is ‘good’ in the sense of being indulgent, or soft, or sympathetic. There is nothing indulgent about the Moral Law. It is as hard as nails. It tells you to do the straight thing and it does not seem to care how painful, or dangerous, or difficult it is to do. If God is like the Moral Law, then He is not soft. It is no use, at this stage, saying that what you mean by a ‘good’ God is a God who can forgive. You are going too quickly. Only a Person can forgive. And we have not yet got as far as a personal God—only as far as a power, behind the Moral Law, and more like a mind than it is like anything else. But it may still be very unlike a Person. If it is pure impersonal mind, there may be no sense in asking it to make allowances for you or let you off, just as there is no sense in asking the multiplication table to let you off when you do your sums wrong. You are bound to get the wrong answer. And it is no use either saying that if there is a God of that sort—an impersonal absolute goodness—then you do not like Him and are not going to bother about Him. For the trouble is that one part of you is on His side and really agrees with His disapproval of human greed and trickery and exploitation. You may want Him to make an exception in your own case, to let you off this one time; but you know at bottom that unless the power behind the world really and unalterably detests that sort of behavior, then He cannot be good. On the other hand, we know that if there does exist an absolute goodness it must hate most of what we do. This is the terrible fix we are in. If the universe is not governed by an absolute goodness, then all our efforts are in the long run hopeless. But if it is, then we are making ourselves enemies to that goodness every day, and are not in the least likely to do any better tomorrow, and so our case is hopeless again. . . . He is our only possible ally, and we have made ourselves His enemies. . . .

Christianity tells people to repent and promises them forgiveness. It therefore has nothing (as far as I know) to say to people who do not know they have done anything to repent of and who do not feel that they need any forgiveness. It is after you have realized that there is a real Moral Law, and a Power behind the law, and that you have broken that law and put yourself wrong with that Power—it is after all this, and not a moment sooner, that Christianity begins to talk. When you know you are sick, you will listen to the doctor. . . . [Christians] offer an explanation of how we got into our present state of both hating goodness and loving it. They offer an explanation of how God can be this impersonal mind at the back of the Moral Law and yet also a Person. They tell you how the demands of this law, which you and I cannot meet, have been met on our behalf, how God Himself becomes a man to save man…

Ok, this brings us to our topic well enough. If you require more argument supporting 1) the absolute standard existing in Moral Law, or 2) an intelligent designer to creation and morality, or 3) why the power behind the universe must be an absolute goodness, that’s fine. You may follow the link above, get a copy of Mr. Lewis’ book, and read it in its entirety. For my purpose, it is enough that you understand the questions that Christianity claims to answer.

In the masturbation debate, if the atheist and the theist were truly beginning from the position that everyone stands condemned by what is clearly observable in human behavior, then they have no points of argument to debate; since the theist in this case is a Christian and that position pretty well describes a fundamental doctrine of Christianity. The obvious fact, however, is the atheist does not consider Moral Law legitimate because it is so often broken. Natural Law, he claims, is never broken. I don’t intend to discuss miracles in this post, but it is plain that an atheist isn’t allowed to believe in miracles. He cannot break Natural Law; therefore, it cannot be broken. A narrow view if ever there was one. But the point he does not wish to dwell on is that Moral Law is observable. Human behavior does leave all men condemned and at odds with the law giver.

NEGATIONofP declares himself to be perfectly moral, having never broken his standard of morality. From his video, we can assume his standard of morality only holds whenever he cannot hide the truth. So it is okay to lie, but not okay to lie to someone who knows you are lying. It is okay to steal, but not okay to steal from someone who knows you are stealing. Or perhaps it depends on the person. If you like the person or want something from them, you don’t lie to them or steal from them unless they will certainly not find out; but if you don’t like them, it is okay even if they know, as long as they never tell someone you like. Or maybe if you want the person to like you, only lie to them or steal from them if they don’t know about it. Whatever! This lands us into a realm of moral relativity, which doesn’t fit the observable reality. It fits the behavior, but not the reality. In reality, we are not observing a strange creature and analyzing behaviors we cannot explain. If we were, we might well come to the conclusion that Moral Law were some such nonsense as all that. But we are studying man, which we know about because we are men. We know that whether someone knows we lied or not, we still believe it wrong to lie. We don’t like being lied to. Even people who lie in order to flatter are held in contempt. We have names like toady, sycophant, brown-nose, and suck-up. All derogatory!

Moral Law is legitimate, observable, and absolute. Humans, unlike rocks or guns, are created as free moral agents. Being free moral agents, we choose to break Moral Law whenever it pleases us to do so. Sometimes we can hide our inequity from each other, which itself is a breach of Moral Law. So far, we have simply explained what we can observe. The uneasiness we feel as a result of breaking the Moral Law is also observable. Only sociopaths and psychopaths fail to show predictable physiological responses to deliberately breaking Moral Law. This is not to say they do not have any, just that we cannot consistently predict what they will be. This observable fact indicates that the Moral Law must ultimately have consequences; a purpose. Moral Law gives us the ability to know that we are broken and have perverted our intended nature. God follows His Moral Law perfectly, just like a rock follows His Natural Law perfectly. It is why Jesus did not transform rocks into bread as Satan tempted Him to do. From bread He brought forth more bread. From fish He brought forth more fish. From water He brought forth wine. From death He brought forth life. All things God does in nature. The purpose of Natural Law is this: it gives us the ability to distinguish supernatural from natural. Without it, we cannot know God—without miracles, Jesus could not have demonstrated that He is who He claims to be.

This leads us to where were going all along: Divine Law — the grace-based relationship. I’ll cover it in the next installment.

Series Navigation for “I Love A Good Debate:”

(1) | (2) | (3) | (4) | (5) | (6) | (7) | (8)