Morality's Reality

This natural morality would teach us that we are to fight our way to the top of the pack by tooth and nail (as some people do). We may even eliminate anyone who gets in our way. We would also murder other people and take what they have. Cannibalism and infanticide would be perfectly acceptable. Of course, cannibalism and infanticide is perfectly acceptable to some people.

Claiming that morality is a human invention is an interesting turn of events. This is because atheists claim that God cannot exist because human beings invented the idea of God's existence. Atheists believe that we ought to have no concern about what humans claim to be God's moral code. This is because since there is no God, it was human beings who invented these morals and then claimed that God authored them. But if human beings invented these morals, why reject them for other morals that other human beings invented? Apparently atheists have a certain scale by which they weigh moral claims-those claimed to have come from God are rejected and those claimed to have come from nature or non theistic humans are accepted. This is, of course, somewhat semantic since atheism is amoral and must borrow moral concepts from theistic moral systems. Moreover, if morality is a human invention it evolved, is still evolving, and will continue to do so. If morality is not absolute we could not condemn the actions of the past and only tentatively condemn the actions of the present. We could not condemn those who do not share our moral values because they may be evolving beyond our subjective moral concepts. Atheists condemn persecutions by Christians without foundation. Christianity condemns persecutions by Christians with a foundation.

Furthermore, one of atheism's faith based dogmatic beliefs is that humans evolved form "lower" life forms. If this is so we must ask at what point in our evolution did it become immoral to, for example, commit murder? Was there a specific point in time or is this merely an arbitrary conjecture? Atheist will certainly agree that animals should not, and cannot, be held morally responsible for acts that we would consider immoral had a human committed them. By why should this be so? Since in the atheist view we are nothing but glorified animals and we derive our morals from nature why not hold animals morally responsible? Richard Dawkins; Oxford professor of evolutionary biology, has written, "We are not, then, merely like apes or descended from apes; we are apes."1 In his "The Descent of Man," p. 180 Charles Darwin wrote, "In a series of forms graduating insensibly from some ape-like creature to man as he now exists, it would be impossible to fix on any definite point when the term 'man' ought to be used."
We aught to ascertain what level of moral evolution they have reached and hold them accountable for their actions. Another reason that atheist will provide for not holding animals morally responsible is that animals either have no consciences, nor are conscious, nor are able to engage in thought (since they function on instinct) or some such thing. But what is their proof for these views?

Atheists besmirch Christianity for the dark episodes of its past, and rightly so. However, they must borrow Judeo-Christian morals in order to do so. Atheists generally believe that morals are completely situational, individually decided, or decided upon by a general consensus.

Firstly, situational morals are really no more than doing what is convenient at the time. Individually decided morality is similarly subjective and conveniently self-serving. Generally conceded morality appears to be nothing but a convenient concept to utilize as an argument and is very dangerous. It appears to be a convenient concept for the following reasons: we would have to conduct very accurately opinion polls and in a place like Nazi Germany we certainly would not want to follow the morality of the majority.

Some atheists argue that if morality is absolute why is it that all people do not follow the same morals. In fact, why is it even that not all Christians follow the same morals. These facts only prove that it is a personal free choice that determines whether people will follow the moral law. These facts do not prove that there is no moral law. It is illegal to drive through a red light (with the exception of emergency personnel) but people still run red lights. Does that mean that it is not illegal to run red lights? No, it merely means that people purposefully choose to break the law.

Atheists argue that there are no absolute morals given by God because there are so very many moral systems. However they then turn around and claim that naturally evolved morals are absolute because the whole world agrees on them. But how can this be since atheists hold to various moral systems?

When and where has atheism provided such a moral code? And what if the code is broken, what then? Do you do better next time? But how does this make up for the last time? And what if you are not aware of when you broke the code? Problems arise when the individual as author of the code, interpreter of the code, editor of the code, and enforcer of the code. We are free to regard or disregard it, we are free to forgive ourselves or simply excuse ourselves. We are in no way subject to anyone or anything else. Since we are in the process of evolving there is no reason to think that we have reached our pinnacle.

Moreover, does it really stand to reason that naturally occurring morals (or are they instincts?) would be to not steal, murder, lie, etc.? How would such actions give us an evolutionary edge? I could certainly succeed more in life if I simply stole whatever I wanted, whenever I wanted, from whomever I wanted. I could lie to people in order to deceive them for my own personal gain. I could simply eliminate my competition-in procreation, in business, etc.

But let us get back to the absolute moral code that Judeo-Christians, and some atheists, uphold.
In the Judeo-Christian view the moral code calls us to accountability.
In the atheist view the moral code is merely a temporary evolutionary survival mechanism.
In the Judeo-Christian view violations of the code require atonement.
In the atheist view violations of the code are irrelevant.
In the Judeo-Christian view atonement is offered from God to the sinner as a gift.
In the atheist view it is all irrelevant, but if it was relevant there would be no atonement.
In the Judeo-Christian view un-atoned violations of the code requires separation from the holiness of God.
In the atheist view lack of atonement is meaningless.

We conclude by providing a quote that refers to George F. R. Ellis, who attended the University of Cape Town and graduate school at the University of Cambridge, he is a cosmologist, Quaker philanthropist, antiapartheid activist, and policy guru:

"In a speech delivered last year at the Center for Theology and the Natural Sciences in Berkeley, Calif., he argued that observations of human behavior-including the behavior of those who claim that all moral systems are arbitrary cultural artifacts-indicate that a universal moral law does exist. 'The foundational line of true ethical behavior, its main guiding principle valid across all times and cultures, is the degree of freedom form self-centeredness of though and behavior, and willingness freely to give up one's own self-interest on behalf of others,' Ellis proposed. He calls the principle kenosis, a Greek word for self-emptying."2

1. 1. Richard Dawkins; fellow of New College and lecturer in zoology at the University of Oxford, writing in the Late City Final Edition 4-9-89
   
2. 2. W. Wayt Gibbs, "Profile: George F. R. Ellis - Thinking Globally, Acting Universally," Scientific America, Oct. 1995, p. 55