top of page
Search
Writer's pictureEdward D. Andrews
Aug 1210 min read

Does the Moral Argument Demonstrate the Existence of God?

The Innate Recognition of Moral Truths: A Universal Experience


Morality is a fundamental aspect of human existence, and the recognition of moral truths is deeply embedded in the human conscience. Across cultures and historical periods, certain moral principles have been universally acknowledged. For instance, the inherent wrongness of acts like murder and rape is recognized instinctively by individuals regardless of their cultural background. This universal moral awareness suggests that there is something inherent within humanity that discerns right from wrong, independent of external influences.


The apostle Paul alludes to this innate moral sense in Romans 2:14-15, where he states that even those who do not have the law "show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness." This passage underscores the idea that basic moral insight is accessible to all people as part of God's general self-revelation. While individuals can suppress or ignore their conscience, this moral awareness remains a fundamental part of what it means to be human.


This universal recognition of moral truths is not merely a matter of cultural conditioning or social consensus. Rather, it points to a deeper, objective moral order that transcends individual or societal preferences. This is the starting point for the moral argument for the existence of God, which asserts that objective moral values exist and that their existence implies the existence of a moral lawgiver—namely, God.



The Moral Argument for God's Existence: A Logical Framework


The moral argument for God's existence can be succinctly formulated as follows:


  1. If objective moral values exist, then God exists.

  2. Objective moral values do exist.

  3. Therefore, God exists.


This argument rests on the premise that objective moral values require a foundation that is independent of human opinion or cultural practices. If moral values are truly objective—binding on all people at all times—then they must be grounded in something beyond the natural world. The most plausible explanation is that these moral values are rooted in the character and nature of God.



The Nature of Objective Moral Values: A Reflection of God's Character


Objective moral values are those that remain true regardless of individual beliefs or cultural differences. For example, the wrongness of torturing an innocent person is not contingent on social norms or personal opinions; it is a moral truth that holds universally. The question then arises: where do these objective moral values come from?


The theistic response is that objective moral values are grounded in the very nature of God. God, as a perfectly good being, is the source of all moral goodness. His character defines what is morally right, and His will is the standard by which moral actions are judged. In this view, moral values are not arbitrary commands but are reflections of God's unchanging nature.


This understanding of moral values as rooted in God's character is supported by the biblical narrative. In Leviticus 11:44, God commands, "Be holy, because I am holy." This directive illustrates that the moral standard for humanity is based on the holiness of God. Similarly, in Matthew 5:48, Jesus instructs, "Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect," reinforcing the idea that God's nature is the ultimate measure of moral goodness.



The Impossibility of Objective Morality Without God


If God does not exist, it becomes difficult, if not impossible, to account for the existence of objective moral values. Without a transcendent source, morality would likely be reduced to mere social conventions or personal preferences. In a naturalistic worldview, where the universe is seen as a product of impersonal, mindless processes, there is no basis for intrinsic moral value or objective moral duties.


Some atheists have recognized this challenge. For instance, Friedrich Nietzsche famously declared, "God is dead," and with that declaration, he acknowledged the collapse of any objective basis for morality. Without God, Nietzsche argued, there can be no ultimate meaning, purpose, or value. In a purely naturalistic framework, moral values become subjective and contingent, varying from person to person or culture to culture.


Yet, even those who deny the existence of God often act as though certain moral principles are objectively binding. For example, the widespread condemnation of atrocities like genocide or human trafficking suggests that people intuitively recognize that some actions are inherently wrong, regardless of societal norms or individual beliefs. This recognition points to the existence of objective moral values, which in turn suggests the existence of a moral lawgiver.



Kant's Moral Postulate: The Practical Necessity of Belief in God


Immanuel Kant, an influential philosopher, argued that while the existence of God cannot be proven through traditional metaphysical arguments, belief in God is a practical necessity for morality. In his Critique of Practical Reason, Kant proposed that moral duty and the pursuit of the highest good (the summum bonum) require the postulation of God and immortality.


Kant's reasoning can be summarized as follows:


  1. Human beings desire happiness.

  2. Morality, expressed as the categorical imperative, is a duty for all human beings.

  3. The unity of happiness and duty constitutes the greatest good.

  4. The greatest good ought to be sought, as it represents the ultimate moral goal.

  5. Finite human beings cannot achieve the unity of happiness and duty on their own within this life.

  6. Therefore, it is morally necessary to postulate the existence of God, who can bring about this unity, and the immortality of the soul, which allows for the full realization of the greatest good.


Kant did not present this as a theoretical proof of God's existence but as a moral postulate—a necessary assumption for the coherence of moral reasoning. Without God, Kant argued, the moral life would be ultimately futile, as the highest good could never be fully realized.



The Objectivity of the Moral Law: Rashdall's and Sorley's Contributions


Hastings Rashdall and W. R. Sorley further developed the moral argument by emphasizing the objectivity of the moral law. Rashdall argued that the existence of an objective moral law implies the existence of an absolutely perfect moral Mind, which he identified as God. He reasoned that moral ideas require a mind to exist, and since the moral law is absolute, it must be grounded in an absolute Mind.


Sorley expanded on this by asserting that the moral law is not only objective but also independent of human consciousness. He argued that the moral law exists prior to, and is superior to, human minds. Therefore, it must originate from a supreme moral Mind—God. Sorley distinguished between natural laws, which describe the universe, and moral laws, which prescribe how humans ought to act. The prescriptive nature of moral laws indicates that they are not part of the natural world but are instead rooted in the divine.



Trueblood's Moral Argument: The Rationality of Moral Law


Elton Trueblood, an evangelical philosopher, added a significant dimension to the moral argument by emphasizing the rationality of moral law. Trueblood argued that the existence of an objective moral law is necessary to make sense of moral discourse and ethical judgments. He reasoned that without an objective moral law:


  1. There would be no basis for moral agreement or disagreement.

  2. Moral judgments would be meaningless, as each person's perspective would be equally valid.

  3. Ethical discussions would be pointless, as there would be no objective meaning to ethical terms.

  4. Contradictory moral views would both be considered right, which is logically incoherent.


Trueblood concluded that the existence of an objective moral law requires the existence of a moral Legislator—God. Without God, the moral law would lack any meaningful foundation and moral obligations would be reduced to mere preferences.



C. S. Lewis' Moral Argument: A Popular and Persuasive Defense


C. S. Lewis, one of the most influential Christian apologists of the 20th century, presented a compelling version of the moral argument in his book Mere Christianity. Lewis' argument is particularly effective in its simplicity and its ability to resonate with the everyday moral experience of individuals.


Lewis argued that the existence of a universal moral law is evident from the fact that people engage in moral disagreements, make moral criticisms, and feel the need to justify their actions. These activities presuppose the existence of an objective moral standard that transcends individual opinions.


Lewis also addressed common objections to the moral argument, such as the claim that morality is merely a result of social conditioning or herd instinct. He argued that the moral law cannot be reduced to social convention because certain moral principles, like the wrongness of murder, are recognized across cultures and are not merely the product of societal norms. Furthermore, the moral law cannot be equated with herd instinct because it often calls individuals to act against their natural inclinations for the greater good.


In response to the problem of evil, Lewis pointed out that the very recognition of injustice or evil presupposes the existence of a standard of justice by which such things can be judged. If the world were truly devoid of any moral order, the concept of injustice would be meaningless. Thus, the existence of evil, rather than disproving the existence of a good God, actually points to the reality of an absolute moral standard, which in turn implies the existence of a Moral Law Giver.



The Moral Argument and Human Dignity: A Theistic Foundation


The moral argument not only provides a basis for the existence of God but also for the intrinsic value and dignity of human beings. If objective moral values exist and are grounded in God's character, then human beings, who are created in the image of God, possess inherent worth and dignity. This view contrasts sharply with naturalistic or atheistic perspectives, which struggle to account for the intrinsic value of human life.


The biblical affirmation of human dignity is rooted in the creation narrative, where humanity is described as being made "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27). This divine image endows each person with inherent value, regardless of their abilities, social status, or circumstances. The recognition of this value is foundational to the Christian understanding of morality and justice.


In a world where human rights are often championed, the moral argument provides a robust foundation for these rights. If humans are valuable because they bear the image of God, then their rights are not granted by society but are inherent and inalienable. This theistic grounding of human dignity offers a more compelling basis for human rights than secular alternatives, which often struggle to justify why humans should be treated with dignity and respect.



The Moral Argument and the Challenge of Relativism


One of the significant challenges to the moral argument is the rise of moral relativism, which denies the existence of objective moral values. According to relativism, morality is subjective and varies from person to person or culture to culture. What is considered right or wrong is merely a matter of personal or societal preference.


The moral argument directly challenges this view by asserting that certain moral principles are universally binding and not subject to individual or cultural whims. For example, the prohibition against murder is not merely a social construct but a reflection of an objective moral truth that applies to all people, regardless of their beliefs or cultural practices.


The rise of relativism has led to a moral landscape where ethical decisions are often made based on convenience or preference rather than on objective moral standards. This has resulted in a society where actions that were once universally condemned are now tolerated or even celebrated. The moral argument calls into question this drift toward relativism by reminding us that moral truths are not subject to change based on human opinion but are grounded in the unchanging nature of God.



The Moral Argument and the Problem of Evil


The problem of evil is often cited as a challenge to the moral argument for God's existence. Critics argue that the presence of evil in the world is incompatible with the existence of an all-good, all-powerful God. If God is both good and powerful, they reason, He would not allow evil to exist.


However, the moral argument can turn the problem of evil on its head. The very recognition of evil presupposes the existence of an objective standard of good. If there were no objective moral law, then the concept of evil would be meaningless, as there would be no standard by which to judge actions as good or evil.


C. S. Lewis, who once struggled with the problem of evil during his time as an atheist, came to see that his very objection to God based on the existence of evil actually pointed to the reality of a moral lawgiver. As he famously wrote, "A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line." The recognition of evil, far from disproving God, actually affirms the existence of a moral standard that transcends human opinion and points to the reality of a good and just God.



The Practical Implications of the Moral Argument


The moral argument is not merely an abstract philosophical exercise; it has profound practical implications for how we live our lives. If objective moral values exist and are grounded in God's character, then our moral obligations are not optional or subject to personal preference. They are binding on all people at all times, and we are accountable to God for how we respond to these obligations.


This understanding of morality challenges the prevailing cultural narrative that encourages individuals to "follow their own truth" or "do what feels right." The moral argument reminds us that there is a higher standard to which we are all accountable and that our moral choices have eternal significance.


Furthermore, the moral argument calls us to a life of integrity, where our actions align with the objective moral values that God has established. It encourages us to pursue justice, compassion, and righteousness, not because they are convenient or culturally acceptable, but because they reflect the character of God and are inherently good.



Conclusion: The Moral Argument as a Compelling Case for God's Existence


The moral argument for God's existence is a powerful and persuasive case that appeals to both the intellect and the conscience. By grounding objective moral values in the character of God, the moral argument provides a robust foundation for morality that is both universal and binding. It challenges the relativism of our age and calls us to recognize that true moral authority comes from a source beyond ourselves.


In a world where moral confusion and ethical drift are increasingly prevalent, the moral argument stands as a reminder that there is a higher standard to which we are all accountable. It calls us to live lives of integrity and righteousness, reflecting the moral law that God has written on our hearts and revealed through His Word.


About the Author

EDWARD D. ANDREWS (AS in Criminal Justice, BS in Religion, MA in Biblical Studies, and MDiv in Theology) is CEO and President of Christian Publishing House. He has authored over 220 books. In addition, Andrews is the Chief Translator of the Updated American Standard Version (UASV).


RECOMMENDED READING


21 views0 comments

Comments

bottom of page