Recently, some friends related a conversation that took place in a local high school classroom, in which the basis for moral values was being discussed.
While the class was talking about a particular moral issue, a student named Alister chimed in with a popular view that something is only wrong if it contradicts a person's own “moral code.” If we do something we believe is morally good or neutral, he implied, who could possibly find fault with that? It's not up to other people to tell us what to believe.
Sensing a need to not completely endorse this view, called moral relativism, the teacher cautioned “Yes, but you have to be careful – following this view could lead to social chaos!”
To this Alister had a very consistent reply: “Who's to say chaos is a bad thing?”
When you think about it, he's got a point. Anarchists are those who share a “personal moral code” that values social chaos. Their perspective suggests to them it would be a good thing, rather than bad, to have society break down. The teacher has merely suggested that anarchy is undesirable to most people, rather than presenting an alternative framework that explains how anarchy is actually morally wrong – even for anarchists. By appealing to a majority view, he has failed to provide a satisfactory basis for moral standards.
When Alister asks “Who's to say...?” he perceives that the discussion is really about authority, the authority to prescribe standards for human behaviour. If you're going to say that it resides with each individual, as relativism does, then you really can't complain when someone steals your car, or destroys your city. If you're going to say instead that it's a general consensus within a given culture, then yes, that's a kind of delegated authority, but it's not moral authority. Moral authority doesn't require majority support. We speak of a “majority of one,” which is when just one individual takes a stance upon “moral high ground.” This notion is only valid, however, if such ground exists.
So it seems clear that if something is believed to be wrong, that doesn't make it so, no matter how many believe it. Human say-so is insufficient to establish actual goodness, actual wrongdoing, and actual justice or injustice. What would establish these things, and make them so, is the existence of a genuine moral authority for all human beings. Without that, our sense of what is right and wrong is simply mistaken, and our views are at bottom, arbitrary.
To illustrate our conclusion, let's imagine how the conversation might proceed.
Imagine at this point that another student, let's call her Andrea, walks over to Alister and pokes him in the eye. “Hey!! You can't do that!” Alister objects, predictably, amidst tearful groans. “Sir, did you see what she just did to me?!”
“Who am I to say it's wrong?” comes the teacher's snappy reply, to the sound of raucous laughter. With bruised ego, and feeling like everyone is ganging up on him, Alister changes his tune and blurts out “Alright! Maybe it really is wrong, OK? At least, it feels like she should be punished for that. Your moral code is really warped, Andrea!”
Just when it seems like everyone finally agrees and can move on to discuss something else, a voice from the back calls out “Yeah, but why?” Alister replies, “Who said that – you, Alex? I just told you I basically agree, OK? I still think people have their own moral code, but I suppose some people's could be considered wrong, like the Nazis, anarchists, and um... Andrea. Are you telling me you don't agree with that?”
“I do agree! It's wrong to hurt or kill someone, or steal or destroy their property.” she says, to which Alister replies, “Then I guess that's that.”
“Well not quite...” Alex objects, “...we should have reasons for our views. You haven't answered my question, and given us a reason why.”
Most people, when pressed, would agree with Alex that reasons are important. But they do need reminding, because it is something our culture has largely forgotten. Postmodern philosophy has led to a disinterest in knowing the truth, in figuring it out together, and this leads us to settle for mere statements of opinion. We've lost interest not only in learning other people's reasons, but in whether they have any. We're content to not provide any of our own, partly because at the best of times we can't quite remember what they are!
If anyone did give clear and compelling arguments for their point of view it wouldn't be surprising to hear them summarily dismissed as “just” the person's opinion, which they are “entitled to.” (What is really meant by this is that a person is not entitled to imply that another opinion could be wrong.) The great new sin is to be so arrogant as to have reached a conclusion, accepting some reasons as superior while rejecting other perspectives for being poorly justified. Conversely, it is now considered of utmost virtue to be so open-minded that you remain persuaded of nothing.
This all leaves us only wishing to know who agrees and disagrees, something neatly demonstrated in television surveys of what the public “thinks” about controversial issues, based on YES/NO phone polls. It is opining, and nothing more. If we really think perspectives in themselves determine truth we have not only completely succumbed to relativism, but have rejected humanity's greatest enduring question – “Why?” This must surely represent a poverty of mind and spirit.
People espouse moral relativism, as Alister did, but can be seen to contradict themselves when push comes to shove. When Andrea inflicted pain on him, he instinctively objected. Doing so presupposes that it is morally objectionable, which requires some basis for it being that way. When challenged by Alex to provide a reason why, Alister would most likely respond in the way most others do, by saying “It just is.” If he doesn't believe in a real Creator God whose unchanging character is the defining standard for goodness, and for evil in what contradicts it, then it would seem that the only other response is a non-response such as this.
The Bible offers us key insights into what is taking place here in our classroom scenario.
The first, is that discussions about the source for right and wrong are echoes of Eden, part of countless such echoes throughout our history. From the very beginning, it was forbidden to participate in determining good and evil. God simply does not partner with us in this matter; neither does He acknowledge anyone's personal “moral code.” Not only is it the Creator's prerogative, but only He can determine it since goodness is essential to His nature (evil is defined as that which is contrary to God's character). Jesus taught us that only God is truly good – not mere human beings – and Scripture also affirms that it is impossible for God to lie.
We, on the other hand, are capable of lying, of contradicting truths expressed by God. His instructions to us are good and fair, but we can twist His words, “exchanging the truth of God for a lie” (Romans 1:25). Tragically, that's what we did do in Eden. We abused our freedom by taking what wasn't ours to take, becoming sons and daughters of disobedience.
Behind the modern “Who's to say?” is the ancient device, “Did God really say...?” It is the impulse to wrest power, to usurp God's throne, to question or deny any external moral authority. It has become the defining characteristic of a fallen human race, reenacted for millennia in the hearts of us all. The settings might be different, with an updated cast of characters and more sophisticated excuses, but we are all still complicit in that first act of rebellion.
This then, is the insight: that modern moral contexts remain echoes of Eden, where the choice is always fundamentally about submission to the truth dispatched by God.
This leads us directly on to the second relevant insight, which is that at some level, every person is aware of this. Perhaps not directly from the original scenario, if in fact they've never come across the Genesis account. After all that is Jewish heritage, now Judeo-Christian. The Bible itself takes this into consideration, calling the mindset that does not necessarily know the content of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. “gentile” and “greek.”
Perhaps this is true of Alister in our dialogue, and relativists in general, that they don't have enough information about God, and their accountability to Him, in order to respond rightly. It is true that they weren't the ones tempted in the garden of Eden, and perhaps, had they known God directly as Adam and Eve did, they would not have disobeyed. Likewise, their forebears weren't camped at the base of Mount Sinai when the ten commandments were given, and they weren't taught God's statutes in their childhood. Without enough knowledge about God's standards and specific instruction about right and wrong behaviour, one would think they are just doing their best, and can't really be blamed.
And yet the Bible explains why we are “without excuse,” in Romans 1 and 2. It is because God's existence and His nature are impossible to miss, He's “made it plain” to us through everything He's created. Humanity does know God, all too well, and we “suppress the truth in unrighteousness.” Gentiles, including those who live in post-Christendom western societies, still have God's requirements “written on their hearts,” reinforced through the moral sense we call our conscience, and even present to our minds (Romans 2:14,15).
In light of this deep awareness, where the echoes of Eden reverberate within and without, human beings must live in denial of what we know, if we would still pursue autonomy. So strong is the heart's knowledge of its actual guilt before a holy God, that it solicits the mind to provide respite – any reassuring philosophy or experience, that would seem to explain the guilt away.
Even if it means believing contradictory things. Yes, irrational thought, or moral and cognitive dissonance is tolerated and even embraced, if it helps us shake off the sense of guilt. This attempt at excusing oneself through willful ignorance, is exposed by God's general and special revelation, which comes through the testimony of Creation, through our in-built conscience, and through the Bible. Trying to avoid our culpability by deluding and confusing ourselves, leads us tragically to deny our desperate need for forgiveness.
It should be added that this insight into human motives does not mean that at some level, people aren't sincere in their doubts. They certainly believe they are sincere, which is actually what sincerity entails. But the notion that the “seeker” is really neutral and unbiased, like an ideal juror in a court case, objectively weighing the evidence for and against God's existence, is a complete myth. Rather, “there is none who seeks God, no not one.” This means seeking Him of our own volition, but of course if God grants a sinner to truly seek Him then it would be a return – like the prodigal son – an admission and re-discovery of inconvenient truths intentionally put to one side.
This all has import for conversations like the one taking place in our classroom, because it would inform us as Christians that moral relativism is a ruse. Deep down, everybody believes in the objective validity of right and wrong, it's just that people are avoiding the clear implication of this, which is God.
So Christianity predicts something. It predicts that people have underlying convictions that might be seen to contradict what they will say at times, that might be brought to the surface. Just listen out for the language of objective morality: should, is, good, evil, right, wrong, fair, unfair, justice, injustice, deserving punishment... Ask people why this is so, as Alex did. Help them see the undesirable consequences, as did Alister's teacher, with a view to probing deeper. Poke someone in the eye, like Andrea did, metaphorically speaking. It is helpful to use such theoretical illustrations, even more morally outrageous than that, to dig deeper into people's convictions. Then, if a relativist cannot actually bring themselves to admit that even the most heinous crimes are morally wrong, the only thing left is to point out the tragedy of this view.
Of course, not all conversation is at the everyday level, and so in Part 4 we will conclude with a more intellectual challenge, changing tack by exposing other fundamental convictions that also actually depend on God.
Our conversation now shifts from its high school setting to a university courtyard, years later, where Alex, Alister and Andrea catch up between classes for some chitchat and a bite to eat. Alex still seeks reasons for things, and always carries an informative book for when conversation becomes boring (it usually does). Alister still likes chaos, but for him it has come to take on a different significance, as we shall see shortly. And Andrea, pursuing a degree in behavioural science, still enjoys stimulus-response.
“Chaos theory is where it's at!” announces Alister abruptly, causing Alex's gaze to rise above her book and Andrea to freeze momentarily, in the middle of slurping a long noodle. Sensing that the girls had failed to appreciate the gravity of his statement, Alister tried dazzling them with some powerful new concepts: “Scale invariance!” “Non-equilibrium thermodynamics... boundary conditions!” “Um... strange attractors.”
“You're a strange attractor.” quipped the girls almost in unison.
Undeterred, Alister went on to explain the finer points of this promising new field of study, and finished his pitch with a confidence guaranteed to impress: “It holds the promise of explaining everything.”
“No kidding? Can it explain chaos theory?” mused Alex.
Alister: “What do you mean?”
Alex: “Well, can it explain the really quite extraordinary fact that, even though the universe began chaotically, here you stand today with the semblance of a reasonably intelligent mind? You're explaining complicated abstract concepts to us, that depend on advanced mathematics, logical reasoning, scientific investigation, and so on. How can chaos give rise to minds that can comprehend it?”
Alister: “You're equivocating.”
Alex: “But I'm not even cold!”
Alister: “No, it means using the same word with different meanings. Yes, 'chaos' normally means random events: things basically crashing into each other haphazardly, like at the beginning of the universe. 'Chaos theory,' on the other hand, is about how things that appear to be generated randomly are actually not. You see, apparently complex patterns can emerge from quite simple starting conditions.”
Andrea: “Why... is it so...”
Alex: “So then, it's a misnomer.”
Alister: “A crime that isn't serious?”
Alex: “No! It means using the wrong label for something.”
Alister: “I guess so, yeah. Better to call it 'deterministic chaos.' Sounds like a contradiction, I know. But the point is that order can result from dynamic and fluctuating processes, that seem to be random and out of control, but are really still determined by initial conditions.”
Alex: “Thanks. So then, the same question applies. How can determinism explain thinking minds? Doesn't it hold that brains are merely biological machines, and that the thoughts they produce are merely the chemical firings of neurons?”
Alister: “I guess that's true, yes.”
Alex: “So how can determined thoughts make any sense at all, or be accurate and trustworthy?”
Alister: “Well they are, so I guess the human mind is an exception to the rule. I do believe we have freedom to think and to act. I'm not a strict determinist. But I still think chaos theory, or something like it, will show how most of the complexity in the universe has a simple origin.”
Andrea: “You believe you have a mind that freely thinks?”
Alister: “That's right.”
Andrea: “Then you accept the basic tools of reasoning, which we call logic?”
Alister: “Yep.”
Andrea: “Does logic apply universally?”
Alister: “Are you trying to trap me?! First explain what you mean by that.”
Andrea: “Is there a distant galaxy where 2+2=5? Or where square circles are real?”
Alister: “Nope, that's nonsense.”
Andrea: “It's nonsense because it's a contradiction. The basic ingredients of philosophy are really just common sense: things are what they are, and they're not what they're not. Anything else is a contradiction. It's safe to say that whatever is a logical impossibility also doesn't really exist.”
Alister: “You're right, that is pretty basic.”
Andrea: “And, if you start your reasoning from correct premises, according to these and other rules of logic, you are bound to find out that your conclusion is true – not just theoretically, but, if it can be tested, true in reality as well. Do you agree?”
Alister: “Yes I do, that's sort of how science works. Solid logical reasoning, including the use of maths, has proved very successful in describing how the universe really operates.”
Andrea: “Isn't that surprising?”
Alister: “Definitely maybe.”
Andrea: “Har har. Aren't logic and mathematics merely human conventions, according to your view?”
Alister: “Indeed they are.”
Alex: “Then how can we expect human conventions to be universally applicable to the real world, not only in distant galaxies where we may never travel, but also long before we even existed? It seems as though we shouldn't expect that, and should be surprised when we do find it.”
Andrea: “Yeah, can you give us any plausible account of how our thinking capacity could not only come to exist, but also be trustworthy and accurate? And while you're at it, how the universe itself should be comprehensible to us in terms like E=mc2? Remember, you should begin from your belief in a random, chaotic universe.”
Alister: “You girls are ganging up on me, just like you've always done! I don't know everything, but I do know that somehow thinking minds have come about, genuinely free from totally determined thoughts, and that in turn, these minds have formulated tools for thought that hold true universally for interpreting the universe. Yes, the universe is intelligible and intelligence exists. That much is obvious, even if we don't know the exact details about how things got that way.”
Andrea: “Sorry, Alister. We're not ganging up on you... it's not personal. We're as interested as you are in understanding things.”
Alex: “I guess the point is that if we compared two views of the beginnings of the universe, one of them seems to explain the things we've been talking about straightforwardly, and even anticipates them, whereas the other view is basically surprised by them and is yet to offer a convincing explanation.”
Alister: “Go on.”
Andrea: “The Christian scenario starts with God, while the secular or atheist view starts with nothing. Both equally difficult for the other to accept, but these seem to be the only two alternatives, so choose we must.”
Alister: “Hang on a sec, who made God?”
Alex: “God is eternal and unmade. What I want to know is how nothing could possibly turn itself into everything?”
Andrea: “See what I mean? Hard for the other side to accept. Moving on, these naturally lead to two contrasting explanations. On the one hand you have God, a supreme Mind, quickly bringing into existence a universe of supreme order. On the other hand you have mindless randomness, somehow ordering itself over eons of time, leading eventually to a universe of supreme order.”
Alister: “I don't see your point. I'm aware of the basic choice here, and I can't really believe in a supreme Mind.”
Andrea: “Not even Einstein's? Alister, any way you look at it, minds – not just the mere machinery of physical brains – are pretty amazing. Real conscious intelligence exists, with all its successful application to understanding and harnessing physical things. Even human minds are mind-blowing, and need some explaining.”
Alister: “Fair enough, go on.”
Andrea: “Well, it's straightforward to believe that God's supreme Mind produced our minds, and that His intelligence organised the physical universe into orderly, functional systems. The fact that the physical world is intelligible to us, and that we in turn have intelligence to study it, is to be expected if God created things that way. He is the source of both things. He has given us the capacity to formulate logic and mathematics, so they are not merely human conventions after all. God is intelligent and logical, and everything else follows naturally from this.”
Andrea: “On the other view, nothing follows naturally. You have to say things like something follows from nothing! You have to hold that random chaos leads to radically different things: ordered systems and sophisticated minds. You have to account for the fact that these minds seemingly invented tools of mathematics and logic that are uncannily fit for describing reality (a reality that is uncannily fit for them). How could a blind, senseless universe ever be expected to give rise to beings capable of comprehending it at this level?! ”
Alex: “So Alister, what's your explanation?”
Alister: “Is that your point, that my view is a lot harder than yours to explain, or that I don't have any good explanation yet?”
Andrea: “That's part of it, yes. But the real problem is that the moment you begin to investigate solutions, you are already assuming the validity – without giving any account for it – of your equipment and tools to do so. You're assuming you have genuine free thought, that your thoughts are reliable if they're logical, and that these are universally suited for describing reality.”
Alex: “I seem to remember a conversation in high school where you did some assuming too – you admitted that some things really are morally wrong, but you didn't offer us a good reason why.”
Andrea: “Oh yeah, I'd forgotten all about that! Alister, you're still taking for granted things that are explained by our starting point, and as it stands, seem incompatible with your own. That's basically the point.”
Alister: “Can't I assume as much as I want to?”
Andrea: “Of course. But I'm not sure why you would want to, because the more you assume the less you explain. We do have to test out different assumptions, but it's in order to discover which assumptions have the greatest explanatory power.”
Alister: “Be that as it may, I still owe you a poke in the eye.”
Andrea: “You're bluffing.”
Alister: “Then how do you explain... THIS!!?”
Andrea: “Owwww!!! We really need to explain you away!”
Alex: “Ahhh... good times.”