Billions of humans once lived on earth, and billions are there now. Each human is unique, and yet they have an interesting common feature: people recognize good and evil. Although they disagree as to the specifics of morality, humans concur that right and wrong exist. As C.S. Lewis notes in Mere Christianity, people acknowledge some sort of moral code every time they argue. The point of arguing for both parties is proving themselves right according to a moral standard. Instead of attacking the standard, people try to justify themselves using the standard. For example, in response to being called a cheater, a person usually tries to show how they did not cheat rather than arguing that cheating is acceptable. By doing this, a person shows that they believe in a moral law code. Most everyone does. Lewis explains that even if someone claims not to believe in good and evil, they will no doubt complain that other people have wronged them. From this, it follows that humans, despite their attempts to convince themselves otherwise, have a sense of right and wrong. The question now is where it came from. If an almighty creator made people, then morals must have been established by him. For, if something else caused morality’s development, and the creator did not want humanity to have ethics, he could have put an end to it. So if there is a creator, he must in fact want humans to have morals. Yet, if evolution caused humanity’s existence, then some natural cause brought about morality. So, can evolution account for good and evil, or does morality demand a creator?
In order to avoid either option, some people have suggested that when a person calls an action good, they merely means that it pleases them. These people would explain that in the same way a person calls chocolate cake good, they call steadfastness good. In other words, they like faithfulness and chocolate cake the same way. Now, even if morality is only labeling pleasure, the question remains: why does everyone want certain behaviors over others? Yet, morality must be deeper than likes and dislikes. A child may get physical pleasure from eating a stolen candy, but most likely feels guilt from having stolen it in the first place. In Mere Christianity, Lewis argues for a moral law with the following example: Bob accidently trips Lewis so that he falls, and Rick fails in a malicious attempt to trip Lewis. Lewis will be madder at Rick, even though Bob caused him more pain and inconvenience. Bob actually hurt Lewis, whereas Rick did not physically do anything to him. Rick, and not Bob, trespassed against the universal moral code. Also, cruel historic events are condemned by people today. They call actions like genocides wrong even though they themselves were not directly harmed by the cruelty. Those who laid down their lives for others are celebrated as heroes by many, even if the celebrators themselves were not saved. Therefore, people recognize wrong and right actions even if they did not benefit or suffer from them. Thus, right and wrong are not extensions of personal preferences; they are deeper than that.
Since good and evil do, in fact, exist, they had to come from either evolution a creator. Firstly, examine the naturalistic response. Perhaps humanity’s ethics developed just like thumbs did, in order to help people survive. However, morality can demand actions such as dying to protect someone else. Morality cannot control who obeys its demands. Besides, its dictates apply to all people. Thus, it could just as easily cause death to the strong, putting it at odds with evolution, which revolves around the famous idea of the “survival of the fittest.” Further, some aspects of right and wrong harm survival. From an evolutionist stand point, killing life’s weaker forms, even from the murder’s own species, helps the natural process. In one of the darkest times in history, Hitler attempted to rid the world of people with disabilities, among other “inferior” groups. His behavior is so appalling that people see Hitler as the embodiment of evil. One of Hitler’s motive for the Holocaust was, in fact, keeping his race genetically ‘pure.’ Yet morality declares that humans ought to love one another and should certainly not murder. Evolution could not have ingrained in humans the feeling of obligation toward actions that do not help them or the fittest survive. Someone else is responsible.
Since scientific process cannot cause the conscience, it must have come from a creator. Based on what can be seen of these orders, the God of the Bible could definitely be that creator. Indeed, the whole of Christianity depends on a God who gave humans rules to follow. The Bible declares, especially in Genesis 3 and Romans 1, that everyone has a sense of good and evil. Secondly, commands found in the Bible align with many of the truths that society has accepted. For example, murder, stealing, and providing false evidence against your neighbor are all prohibited in Exodus 20, better known as the Ten Commandments. Honoring your parents and putting others first are also commands (Ex. 20:12; Phil. 2:3). Further, the Bible recognizes right and wrong as objective, and does not bend them based on the circumstances. The Christian God, too, makes no allowances for wrong doings. Further, He is perfect and good, and therefore capable of creating a moral law code for humans, but still gives people the choice between obeying him or not. That explains why humanity knows it should behave in a certain way. Coupled with the Bible’s reliability, Christianity’s case is strong. Morality does, in fact, require God. Because of this fact and evidence, we can be confident in God’s existence. We should be so thankful that God gives us many reasons to believe in Him, which allows us to love Him with all our minds (Matt. 10:27). He has given us belief with the sturdy foundation of the objective truth of his existence.
Sources:
The Bible. English Standard Version, 2011 ed., Crossway, 2001.
“Breeding the New German ‘Race,’” The Holocaust and Human Behavior, https://www.facinghistory.org/holocaust-and-human-behavior/chapter-5/breeding-new-german-race
Lewis, C. S., Mere Christianity, HarperCollins Publishers, 2001.
Image Credit: Tingey Injury Law Firm on Unsplash.com