Morality and God
People articulate different reasons either for the defense of a Supreme Being’s existence, or for the rejection of one. Still other suggest that because such a question lies beyond the discernible physical, an agnostic response is the most appropriate.
Without belittling those more cautious than I, who would suggest that such knowledge is beyond our reach (and therefore doesn’t warrant our confidence), I would appeal to Rabbi Harold Kushner, who in Who Needs God, tells of a time in which he taught the teenagers of his congregation about the Holocaust, only to ask them ‘why’ Hitler was wrong. The students responded naturally, only to have the Rabbi remind them that the Nazis had passed laws sanctioning their own actions. This however was a detail that did not alter the teenage perception of Nazi wrongness.
Few questions of morality appear as easy as those which invoke the memory of the Holocaust, however, my belief that rightness and wrongness are not simply a matter of human consensus, suggest to me that rightness and wrongness lie far deeper and find their origin in a God who exists.
Bertrand Russell, not a theist, would argue: "I cannot… refute the arguments for the subjectivity of ethical values, but I find myself incapable of believing all that is wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it."
So there you have it. I believe in God, because I believe that certain things are right and certain things are not, and if there was not a God to sanction such things, then it seems they would be little more than a matter of consensus which I do not suppose they are.
K.
Since some rather notoriously attach thoughts I have not expressed to my posts, let me make two disclaimers
-recognizing a God who sanctions certain things as right or wrong hardly points to the identity of such a God
-recognizing a God who sanctions certains things as right or wrong hardly demands our own ability to distinguish between them
I don’t see why you need G-d, Kelly. All you need is a system of nature. Right is in accorance with nature, wrong violates it. What could be more objective than that–if objectivity is what you are looking for.
Richard
Comment by Richard — April 29, 2008 @ 1:46 pm
Right is in accordance with nature, wrong violates it.
But the who decides what a violation against nature is? Are people governed just by animal instinct or do our views and choices concerning right and wrong stem from something else?
I found the story about the students and their response to Nazi Germany really interesting! There are many things that though legal and generally accepted in our world, I can’t accept as right. Where does that stem from?
For me, it stems from the belief that the government or any other created human institution, is not my highest authority. They are not who I will answer to someday or where my morals come from. Thank God for that.:)
Anyway, interesting topic!
Comment by Colleen — April 30, 2008 @ 2:05 am
I agree with you that without G-d, natural law moral theology doesn’t work. But, then, who decides what G-d forbids and demands of us? G-d alone is hardly more helpful than scripture alone.
Comment by Richard — April 30, 2008 @ 2:17 am
Its not WHO decides what God forbids or demands. God Himself tells us these things. Believers read the Love Letter He wrote, the Word of God, and either accept or reject it…… The ten Commandments are very clearly spelled out. The morality of situations is very clear to us throughout the whole Old Testament and New. Of course, some people choose to disbelieve, or twist God’s words, but for those who Love Him, He is actually very clear in what pleases Him and what does not. Kate
Comment by Kate — April 30, 2008 @ 6:11 am
Richard, interesting comment. It slightly refocuses the question when I would suggest that the system of nature (which may be responsible for morality) likely has it’s own genesis.
But I don’t want this to go in the direction of what’s right/what’s not, because as I said, recognizing a being responsible for legislating behaviour hardly demands that we are able to distinguish between the good and bad (whether the Bible attempts to speak for such a being on matters of morality is not my interest here, but even if it was, it hardly supposes that there would be some sort of uniform interpretation that would make matters of morality simple to determine…).
K.
Comment by K. — April 30, 2008 @ 10:47 am
St. Thomas Aquinas has five philosophical proofs for the existance of God. These might be interesting to some readers. http://www.newadvent.org/summa/1002.htm. there are reasons for beleif in God that are outside the moral debate. A hundred years ago most Canadians would have had the same Moral values becuase of a more overtly religious and catechized society. now, however, this has all changed. A well catechized catholic could think that polygamy is wrong, but everyone else could think it is ok. That is becuase, although everyone has the moral code inscribed into their being, it has been skewed by the fall. Thus, because of the fall, morality appears as though it has become subjective, when it has not. There is still definate truth but God is above all of this and he has given the Holy Spirit to his Church so that it might remind people of the law that has been given them. This inner moral code, though skewed, is indeed a sign of Gods work in humanity but he has also given us sound minds and intelligence to discern whether he is there or not.
Comment by Sean Wilson — May 5, 2008 @ 2:10 pm
Excellent post, Kelly…….. and Sean, I agree with you, 100%!!!!!! I couldn’t have put it better! Exactly what I was thinking! Kate
Comment by Kate — May 6, 2008 @ 12:33 pm