Subscription Lists
Point of Reference
by Fred Price
So-called “New Atheists” such as Christopher Hitchens, Daniel Dennett and Richard Dawkins claim that kindness, generosity and goodness are not found exclusively among religious people. (Which is true to a degree.) But then they go on to assert that these social inclinations are part of our “human nature” and can be explained within the framework of Darwinism; the good or moral things we do having value because of their beneficial influences on our species and thus our societies. Claiming that morality and social order don’t need a God or religion to give authentication to society or civilization, they then question whether even heinous crimes – or sin – such as rape and murder is wrong; just because God says so.
The struggle then comes in identifying what morality really is and what – or who – is responsible for it. Where did the ideals of ethical treatment of others originate? Do they have any value outside a certain set of parameters? The real issue being: Who gets to define what constitutes morality? Mr. Dawkins admitting that, “Science has no methods for deciding what is ethical.”1; and then goes on to deny the very existence of evil or good by asserting, “If the universe were just electrons and selfish genes, meaningless tragedies… are exactly what we should expect, along with equally meaningless good fortune. Such a universe would be neither evil nor good in intention…” Which from his perspective (or bias) is exactly what he sees displayed in our universe, where “…at bottom, (There is) no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”
Paul Copan, in “Is God A Moral Monster?” challenges that assertion with one of his own. “New Atheists are absolutely correct that we don’t need to believe in God or follow the Bible to have a general knowledge of what’s right and wrong. (Because) Like theists, atheists have been made in God’s image, and can recognize the same sort of virtues and behaviors,… Having been made in the divine image, we’ve been designed to function properly by living morally.”2 The problem with Dawkins’ moral relativism is that it purposefully restricts itself, applying ethics situationally, not universally. The Christian, on the other hand, realizes it’s not enough to intellectually grasp a concept but to be genuine, you have to become a moral being patterned after something or someone other than yourself.
Where do dignity and the rule of law come from in a world of mere electrons and genes; more to the point, is it even possible to develop any morals in a world where – as Dawkins believes – humans merely “dance to the music of their own DNA”? For by its very nature, a convergence of random incidents and unforeseen mutations of thoughtless, meaningless, impersonal genes can’t offer any legitimate theories concerning human dignity. Self-centered disregard being a major factor in any life based on the ruthless ideal of survival of the fittest.
Most societies today benefit from the proposition that mankind was created in God’s image and are thus deserving of dignity and respect; even if they don’t recognize or acknowledge it. On such beliefs we base our ideals of fair play and social justice and devise our system of rule of law by virtue of a law written on our hearts by someone or something outside of ourselves. (Otherwise we do what’s right for us, pretty much to the exclusion of everyone else or have a system imposed on us by whoever has the most power to enforce it.
Guenter Lewy, an agnostic political scientist from the University of Massachusetts admits, “Adherents of (a naturalistic) ethic are not likely to produce a Dorothy Day or Mother Theresa. Many of these people love humanity but not individual human beings with all their failings and shortcomings. They will be found participating in demonstrations for causes such as nuclear disarmament but not sitting at the bedside of a dying person. An ethic of moral autonomy and individual rights, so important to secular liberals, is incapable of sustaining nourishing values such as altruism and self-sacrifice.” (Upon which much of Christian living is based.) Charles Darwin expressed similar reservations about his research when he said, “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, (if) developed from the mind of lower animals , are of any value or at all trustworthy.”
The crux of the problem centers on the likelihood of humans – with convictions developed from the mind of “lower animals” – devising ethical and moral ideals which they then not only apply to themselves but seek to “convince” others of their appropriateness – peaceably or otherwise – because they work to the benefit of the greatest number of people; when in fact history shows that even modern man tends to discover what works best for him and then tries to force that system on others – whether it benefits them or not. That’s not to say that a naturalistically determined sense of morality couldn’t have any value as it might serve as an aid to survival – at least for some – but it would by its very nature be ego-centric, self-seeking and at times cruel; much like the behavior we see displayed by people whose lives are lived under the influence of what scripture calls our “sin-nature.” A moral inclination that is far different from the morality characterized by selflessness, long-suffering, other-oriented Christ-followers.
The foundation for that outlook of life originating in God’s good character, which informs our world-view and value system, as we mirror – however inadequately at times – His image and purposes throughout our lives.
1From “A Devil’s Chaplain”
2Baker Books Publishing
Rate it:
Fred Price - married (50 years), father of two grown children, grandfather of six.
Fred retired earlier this year after 42 years as a factory worker. He has always had a heart for young people and the challenges they face today. Over the years Fred has taught Discipleship Groups for High School and college students.
Receive the newest devotional each week in your inbox by joining the "Point of Reference" subscription list. Enter your email address below, click "Go!" and we will send you a confirmation email. Follow the instructions in the email to confirm your addition to this list.