Expanding on the Moral Argument
Either it’s all come about by sheer chance (in which case, there is no rhyme or reason to any of it) or it’s come about through design (in which case, there must also be a Designer).
The moral argument for God’s existence (see earlier blog) points out that, because there would be no rhyme or reason to a universe
formed by chance, if some things really are right and some things really are wrong (and this is more than some evolutionary illusion), it must also be true that God exists (once again, see earlier blog for
To summarise: in a chance, non-designed universe with no rhyme or reason, nothing is truly right or wrong.
But this doesn’t only apply to right and wrong.
In a chance, non-designed universe with no rhyme or reason – everything meaningful is ultimately an illusion. In his book, The
Reason for God, Tim Keller puts it like this:
‘If there is no God, and everything in this world is the product of ‘an accidental collocation of atoms’, then there is no actual purpose for which we were made – we are accidents...then what we call ‘beauty’ is nothing but a neurological hardwired response to particular data...In the same way, though music feels significant, that significance is an illusion. Love too must be seen in this light. If we are the result of blind natural forces, then what we call ‘love’ is simply a biochemical response, inherited from ancestors who survived because this trait helped them survive.’
So, my rephrase of the moral argument (see previous blog) can be expanded like this:
- Most people believe that:
...our sense of beauty is more than an ultimately meaningless illusion;
...our sense that people matter is more than an ultimately
...our sense that our lives in this world have some kind of
significance is more than an ultimately meaningless illusion
- If God does not exist, none of these statements are true
- Therefore, if any of these statements are true, then it must also be
true that God exists
Of course, many atheists have no problem answering this argument, they simply insist that, ultimately, our sense that life has meaning is, indeed, a mere illusion.
And once again, I can’t prove they're wrong.
But, once again, is it even necessary to prove it? If we are honest with ourselves, do we really believe that our lives in this world are ultimately meaningless? In our heart of hearts, do we genuinely believe that (though we may feel concerned about what happens to us and our loved-ones) there is no rhyme or reason to anything and what happens to anyone is (ultimately) of no real significance at all?
If you did believe that, would you bother getting up in the morning? Would you ever care deeply about anything ever again? Would you be interested in articles like this?
Most people believe that life does have significance; that beauty and morality and love cannot be reduced to mere illusory quirks of human
evolution. I think they’re right. But (as logically consistent atheists like Richard Dawkins admit) they are only right if God exists.
What do you think?