The case of the existence of God is a basic and fundamental issue that runs in the human mind. The fact whether God exist or not has no middle. It is impossible to logically affirm both the existence and non-existence of God. Atheists claim that God does not exist while theists boldly affirm that God exist. The agnostics say there is not enough evidence to make a decision while the sceptic doubt that God’s existence can be proven with certainty. The only way to answer the question “Does God exist?” is to seek out and examine the evidence because if there is a God then He would certainly provide adequate evidence for His existence. Theists advocate that there is enough evidence to show beyond reasonable doubt that God exist.
Cause and effect – The cosmological argument
Everyone agrees that the Universe exists and is real. An entity that can not account for its own being is contingent because its existence is dependent on something outside of itself. The universe is therefore contingent since it can not explain or cause its existence. So what caused the universe?
The law of causality is a universal law and states that every material effect must have an adequate antecedent cause. This law is analytically true i.e. by definition or analysis. There’s no effect without cause neither is there a cause without effect. The effect can not be superior to the cause reason why the statement adequate antecedent cause is used. To the question on what caused the universe, we have three answers; firstly that the universe is eternal; it always has existed and always will exist. The second is that it is not eternal; but it created itself out of nothing and thirdly that the universe is not eternal and was created by something or someone anterior and superior to itself.
People who do not believe in the existence of God such as Hoyle would say the universe is eternal to avoid the fact that there is a beginning reason why they developed the steady state theory. The discovery that the universe was expanding forced Dr. Hoyle to explain both an expanding and eternal universe by suggesting that at points in space called “irtrons” hydrogen was coming into existence from nothing and their displacement of existing matter causes the expansion of the universe; and that the gaseous hydrogen condenses into clouds of virgin matter from where new stars and galaxies form, etc.
The astronomer Jastrow noted that the steady state theory has been shown to be incorrect and that some astronomers still favour it because the notion of a world with a beginning and an end makes them uncomfortable. The steady state theory violates the first law of thermodynamics which state that matter can neither be created nor destroyed but can be converted into energy and vice versa, with the total amount of matter and energy in the universe remaining unchanged. Dr. Jastrow noted five points to show the failure for the attempt to explain an eternal universe; the motions of the galaxies, the discovery of the primordial fireball, the laws of thermodynamics, the abundance of helium in the Universe and the life story of the stars. The astrophysicist concludes that the universe has a beginning as seen from the second law of thermodynamics. SO the universe is not eternal.
On the auto-creation of the universe, no reputable scientist would agree with the fact that a material thing can create itself. With the evidence that the universe has a beginning hence has a cause anterior and superior to itself; evolutionists escape this by claiming that the universe came from nothing. Claiming that the universe is a result of a random quantum fluctuation in a spaceless, timeless void coming out from absolute nothingness; they violate the first law of thermodynamics. In addition these claims have no empirical data that can support this fact. This battle went on to the inflationary model to the chaotic inflationary model none of which found any success. The fact that the universe created itself is absurd both philosophically and scientifically because for something to create itself it should have enough causal power to cause its own being, and it would have to have the causal power of being before it was.
One thing is clear then that the universe had a beginning and it did not create itself from nothing, but is an effect having a cause. The cause/effect principle states that wherever there is a material effect, there must be an adequate antecedent cause and that no effect can be qualitatively superior to, or quantitatively greater than, its cause. Since the Universe is not eternal, and could not have created itself, then the Universe was created by some-thing, or Someone, that: (a) existed before it, i.e., some eternal, uncaused First Cause; (b) is superior to it—since the created cannot be superior to the creator; and (c) is of a different nature, since the finite, contingent Universe of matter is unable to explain itself. Nothing produces nothing and since something exists, then something has existed forever. Everything can be classified into either matter or mind. Since something existed forever, then either matter or mind is eternal. But we have seen that matter is not eternal from the discussion about the universe, thus mind is eternal. From another direction everything is either contingent or non-contingent. The universe is not eternal hence contingent and so depends on a cause or a non-contingent force. Sir John Eccles in his research on synapses confirms that human beings consist of a mysterious compound of physical and intangible spirit; which is nonmaterial thinking and perceiving. He added that this nonmaterial self survives the death of the physical brain. The philosopher Norman Geisler confirms that this nonmaterial self or mind is all-knowing eternally and in an unchanging way. Jastrow confirms Eccles point of view that many scientist have come out from their closet and believing in the immortal human spirit and divine creation.
Scientifically, the choice is between matter only and more than matter with the difference being: (a) time, chance, and the inherent properties of matter; or (b) design, creation,
and the irreducible properties of organization. In particular cases there are two scientific explanations for the origin of the order that characterizes the Universe and life in
the Universe: either the order was imposed on matter, or it resides within matter. We have not seen any evidence yet to show that it resides within matter but our evidence is of a non-contingent, eternal, self-existent mind that created the universe and everything within it.
Design in nature – The teleological argument
The law of rationality in logic states that one should accept as true only those conclusions for which there is adequate evidence. Theists affirm that there is adequate evidence to show that God exist. They often employ the teleological argument which suggests that where there’s purposeful design, there must be a designer. It is deduced that order, planning, and design in a system are indicative of intelligence, purpose, and specific intent on the part of the originating cause. Atheist philosophers also agree with the fact that everything designed has a designer but they do not accept that the universe shows purposeful design; so they say there’s no design in nature adequate to substantiate the conclusion that a designer exist.
The science writer Lincoln Barnett says modern physicists who prefer to solve their problem with recourse to God say nature mysteriously operates on mathematical principles. The precision, complexity, and orderliness within the Universe are not disputed but atheists do not want to concede design because of its implication for a designer.
Our universe is estimated to be 20 billion light years in diameter. There are an estimated one billion galaxies in the universe, estimated sextillion stars in the universe, with 100 billion stars in the milky way galaxy which would take 100 000years for light to cross its diameter. So the diameter of the galaxy is approximately 587 quadrillion miles. The Earth distance from the sun is exactly positioned to receive the proper amount of heat and radiation to sustain life though the interior of the sun is estimated to be at over 20 million degrees Celsius. If the earth were moved 10% to or from the sun too much heat or too little heat respectively will be absorbed destroying the life on earth. The earth departs from its line in the orbit by one ninth of an inch every 18miles. If it departed by one eight we will be so closed to the earth to be burned up and if it departed by one tenth of an inch we will be so far from the sun that we would freeze to death. Likewise the position of the earth with respect to the moon is just correct to maintain the tides. If it were moved just by a fifth the tides could reach 35-50 feets high twice a day.
If the rotation of the earth were halved, the seasons would be doubled in length leading to harsh heat and cold over much of the earth. If it were doubled the seasons would be halved. In either case it would be impossible to grow enough food to sustain the earth’s population. If the tilt of the earth’s axis were reduce from the 23.5 degrees to zero, all the water would accumulate at the poles leaving vast deserts in their place. If the atmosphere were much thinner, meteorites would strike our planet with much force and frequency causing worldwide devastation. If four-fifth of the earth were not covered by water but less, temperature extremes would be erratic than they are, and we soon would be out of air to breath if oceans were considerably smaller since 90% of the oxygen comes from microscopic plants in the seas.
These exacting requirements for life are not by accident. The Earth has exactly the right distance from the sun, the right diameter, right distance from the moon, right atmospheric pressure, right tilt, right amount of oceanic water, right weight and mass, etc. This is by design but atheist claim that all these are of fortuitous accidents. The atheist Richard Dawkins was forced to admit the very conclusion of the theists that the statistical improbability of the Universe “just happening by blind chance” is staggering; and that the only alternative is an intelligent Designer, and theists extend that this intelligent designer is God.
Design of the human body
Humans go about wondering on the astonishing scenes from our unique universe without wondering about themselves; a marvellous creation. Some evolutionists credit this to a fortuitous circumstance in nature without recognising that this is the result of purposeful design by a master designer.
While noting that the organisation of the body can be grouped at different levels starting from cells, to tissues, to organs and finally the systems; a look at these levels will show how the body is designed to live in this our universe. The human body has over thirty kinds of cells making approximately 100 trillion in an average adult. The diameter of the cells range from 0.05mm to 0.25mm; meaning that if we line the cells in an average human end-to-end it would encircle the earth over 200 times. The cell is made up of a cell membrane of about 0.06-0.08µm thick which allows selective transport into and out of the cell. It also has the 3 dimensional cytoplasm with over 20 different chemical reactions, and having the communication, waste disposal, nutrition, repair and reproduction components. There are also several organelles within the cytoplasm. The third component of the cell is the nucleus which is found within the cytoplasm and is the control centre having most of the genetic material. It’s within the nucleus that we find the DNA which is about 6feets long when unravelled hence if all DNA in an average human were placed end-to-end it will go to the sun and back 400times (186million miles). The DNA molecule is made up of atoms and a cell has about 1014atoms and since an average human has 1014cells then the human body has about 10 million sextillion (1028) atoms.
Information is stored chemically in DNA which is decoded by RNA. Human technology has not yet attained the chemical storage of information and in addition the amount of information stored in a human cell is approximately a trillion (1012) bits. A library of over 10 million volumes would have about a trillion letter equivalent to the size of the cell memory showing intelligence and great design. Within the DNA, the complexity of the genetic code is not by chance but evidence of an intelligence source.
The human body has several tissues with 600 muscles containing 6 billion muscles fibres which make up 40% of body’s weight. They provide the power for movement in the body. Muscles can be grouped into involuntary and voluntary muscles which require thinking before any action can take place. The muscles of the arm are voluntary where as the heart and intestines have involuntary muscles and so work regardless of our control. Muscles work by contracting (initiated by the nerves in the skeletal muscles) and in pairs. When one contracts the other is relaxed (at rest). The muscle is made up of a bundle of muscle fibres. It uses glycogen (sugar) from food as fuel; consuming it just in a similar way an automobile does. Who then engineered this? Certain muscle movements are only peculiar to humans showing that they are not a kind of “evolved animal” but created by an intelligent designer. The largest organ of the body; the skin is made up of two layers and has the skin layer, the glands and the nails. The skin layer is made up of dead cells which are constantly replaced by new ones in the uppermost layer; epidermis (which has melanin for skin colour). The lower layer; dermis is made up of nerves, blood cells and glands such as the sweat and oil. The nails are mostly made of dead cells and those of the hands grow faster than those of the toes. The soles of the hands and feet are rough to provide better grip and they have no hairs. Hair is a sentry system which helps to warn the eye when something strikes it, helps to squeeze the oil glands of the skin, acts as filters in ears and nose. It only grows to a certain length and fall off. The skin has the following values:
1) The skin is a protective fortification that keeps harmful bacteria from entering the human
system.
2) It is a waterproof wall that holds in the fluids of the body. Our bodies are about 75% fluid.
3) It protects the interior parts of the body from cuts, bruises, etc.
4) With its pigment, melanin, it shields the body from harmful rays arriving on the Earth from the Sun. Beck calls melanin “an epidermal light filter” (1971, p. 745). Do light filters in-
vented by man require intelligence?
5) The skin’s many nerve endings make it sensitive to touch, cold, heat, pain, and pressure. Thus, it is a major sense organ.
6) The sweat glands (2 to 5 million in the whole body) help eliminate waste products and also function in cooling the skin.
7) The oil glands lubricate the skin and help keep it soft—while at the same time providing a waterproofing system. Though soft, the skin is quite durable.
8) About one-third of the body’s blood circulates through the skin. The blood vessels, by contracting and expanding, work to regulate body temperature. If body temperature increases by 7 or 8 degrees, and remains there for any length of time, a person almost always will die. The skin is thus a radiator system (see Brand and Yancey, 1980, p. 154). Does a radiator happen by accident?
9) The skin absorbs ultraviolet rays from the Sun, and uses them to convert chemicals into vitamin D, which the body needs for the utilization of calcium. The skin is therefore a chemical-processing plant for the entire body.
The eye is a very complex organ of the body which is made up of millions of cones, rods and more than a hundred million light-sensitive receptor cells. The eye’s focus is easily adjustable, it has a variable diaphragm to control the amount of light entering, and it does optical corrections for spherical and chromatic aberration. The evolutionists Darwin and Jastrow have independently confess and are troubled about the design of the eye. If the eye is always compared to the camera as it is, then considering the number of images the eye takes in a second and its movement, then no right thinking person will deny its design hence a designer.
Another strong evidence of design within the human body is the ear which is made up of the outer, middle and inner ear. Sound waves enter the outer ear and passes along a tube to the middle ear to the thin membrane; the eardrum. This membrane is moved by the sound wave. The vibration is transmitted to the inner ear where it is amplified by vibrating three thin bones operated by muscles. These bones (hammer, anvil and stirrup) are designed to transmit faint sounds. These vibrations are transmitted to the spiral cochlea which is filled with fluid. Here the 25000 auditory receptors transfer the vibration through electrical impulses to the brain where the sound is interpreted to either thunder, voice, music etc. The ear is described as being far beyond the achievement of any microphone. The fluid in the cochlea is also used for balance in cooperation with the nerves in the three semi-circular canals. This system has been compared to inertial system used in missiles and submarines. If the hearing and balancing ability of the ear shows a remarkable achievement in biological engineering then can this be blind nature? No, it should speak of a grand designer. The psalmist affirms that God is the designer as seen in Psalm 94:9 and proverbs 20:12.
The skeletal system is made up of 206 bones in an average adult and 250 in infants. Some fuse as the child grows. The bones are rigid support for organs and tissues of the body. They are protective devices of some softer parts of the anatomy such as the brain, the heart and lungs, the spinal cord etc. They also serve as levers in body movement and they have metabolic functions as they constantly rebuilt the mineral contents in them and production of red blood cells, certain white blood cells and platelets. The bones are very strong, elastic and are light in order for the system to be effective. The bones of the feet make up 26 in number and they help in support working like hydraulic jacks and levers as well as catapult when one jumps and cushion for the legs showing that there most be a brilliant designer behind this design.
The heart is a muscle used to pump blood. It is the strongest muscle in the body regulating its beating with the requirement of the body. It is an involuntary muscle which generates an enormous amount of energy beating 100000times a day and pumping 1800 gallons of blood a day. It is the sinus node which produces electric current to the nerve fibres which stimulate the muscular contractions that send the blood through the body; from heart to tissues, to lungs and from tissues to lungs carrying oxygen from the lungs through out the body. Medical authorities have observed that the hearts efficiency is about twice that of a steam engine. If intelligence was required to invent the steam engine, then what more about the human heart?
Moses declared fifteen centuries before Christ was born, and 3000 years before the English physician William Harvey (1628) discovered the circulatory system that “the life of the flesh is in the blood”. Blood is classified as a tissue consisting of plasma (maintains chemical and temperature balance), salts, the protein fibrinogen, antibodies (which fight disease), enzymes, and hormones. It has solid materials such as red cells which transport oxygen to the body and carbon dioxide to the lungs, white cells (five kinds) which attack bacteria and other germs, and platelets (15 millions in a drop of blood) which help the blood to clot when the body is wounded. The liver and spleen removes bacteria and worn-out cells from the body just as the kidney also removes waste products from the blood system. Because the temperature is very vital for the functioning of the blood the brain thermostatically controls the temperature by slowing down heart beats and constricting blood vessels at low temperature, so that the liquid flow deeper within the body to get warm. At warm weather or during exercise, the arterioles open and blood dispersed within the skin functioning like a radiator. The blood system constitute a networking of arteries (elastic) and arterioles, veins (with one way valves) and venules, and capillaries (with porous walls) which are links between arterioles and veins. If the pipelines were connected end-to-end it would cover between 60000-100000 miles as estimated and circulation takes only a total of 20 seconds (Avraham, 1989, p.41)
Medical scientists, in the interest of extending human longevity have developed artificial organs which are simplistic substitutes for the sophisticated natural counterparts. Hence no synthetic spare part-however well engineered can match the capacity of the organ a normal human being is born with. Miller and Goode admitted that “no engineering genius has invented a pump like the human heart” (1960,P.6)
The nervous system which is the communication centre of the body is made up of the brain, spinal cord and nerves. It regulates the actions of organs, monitors the senses and controls our thinking, learning and memory capabilities. Specialized nerve receptors pick information relating to touch, temperature, sight, taste, etc and send to the brain via nerve fibres at 30 miles/hr. the brain analyses this data and determines the appropriate action to be taken. The brain is the most developed and complex system known to science and it’s made up of the cerebrum which is the thinking/learning centre, the cerebellum for maintenance of equilibrium and muscle coordination, and the brain stem which controls the involuntary muscles.
The brain is said to have a capacity of about 1014 bits using 20 to 25 watts compared to 10KW used by our large computers. Cray-2 supercomputer has a storage capacity about 1000 times less than the human brain which is also very flexible. If the information in the brain were to be written in English it will fill 20 million volumes which will take a bookshelf 500 miles long to house the information. If the computer was designed as no rational man will refuse, then what more of the human brain?
To pick up a pen and a paper from a desk, the brain will send signals to the hands, wrists, arms and shoulders to direct the manipulation of 60 different joints and more than 100 muscles. At the same time, you can smell food cooking and know which hear a dog barking and determine if it is yours or the neighbours; feel a breeze upon the face and sense that rain is near, etc. Even with all these, the brain is regulating millions of internal bodily activities that the person never “thinks” about. The brain surgeon, Robert White, wrote: “I am left with no choice but to acknowledge he existence of a superior intellect, responsible for the design and development of the incredible brain-mind relationship-something far beyond man’s capacity to understand”(1978,p.99). Jastrow also admitted that “It is not so easy to accept that theory (Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection –BT/WJ) as the explanation of an extraordinary organ like the brain”(1981, P.96). He went on to say “Among the organs of the human body, none is more difficult than the brain to explain by evolution” (1981, P.104).
It is not just the brain but also numerous other body systems (eg. Digestive, reproductive, etc), each of which provides clear and compelling evidence of design. Atheistic philosopher Paul Ricci suggested that “Although many have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity of functions of human body (the eye, for example), there is no obvious designer” (1986, p.191, emp.added). The only people who “have difficulty understanding the tremendous order and complexity” found in the universe are those who have “refused to have God in their knowledge” (Romans 1:28)
The Unbeliever’s response to the argument from Design
Those who do not believe in God claim there’s no design in nature; that’s why Richard Dawkins wrote The Blind Watchmaker – to argue that there’s no design apparent in the Universe. There are many examples of design in nature; from the macrocosm to the microcosm, and in their lucid moments even unbelievers are struck by it just like the evolutionist Douglas Futuyma. Still yet they have not admitted defeat but have developed other approaches. They say apparent design is just that-apparent, not actual; so features that appear to have been designed can, in actuality, be explained on the basis of adaptation, random chance over eons of time, etc. The second argument is that of drawing attention to alleged examples of “non-design” or poor design-which they feel, should not be present if an intelligent Designer created the magnificent universe in which we live.
In the book, science on Trial, Futuyma used almost a whole chapter for examples of non-design in nature; just as the Harvard scientist Stephen Jay Gould. They used the argument from suboptimality which suggests that if all design were considered perfect, everything would be optimal; and since there are items in nature that allegedly are imperfect, there is suboptimality in nature. This is wrong for these reasons:
1- In arguing the case for design, creationists are not obligated to show obvious design in every single feature of the Universe but to produce only a reasonable number of sufficient evidences in order to establish design. So a production of an example of which to the evolutionist shows no design to negate the evidences of design is a flawed argument.
2- An object might possess purposeful design, but it is not recognized by the observer. An example is the illustration provided by Davis in his book A Case of Creation.
My daughter was playing with her pet rat one day when a question occurred to her. “Daddy,” she said, “why does a rat have scales on its tail?” “You know perfectly well,” I replied. “The reptiles that were ancestral to rats and all other mammals had scales on their tails as well as on the rest of their bodies. Because there was no particular disadvantage to having them, they persisted in rats to this day.” “Quit putting me on, Daddy. I know you don’t believe that!” You cannot win, it seems. But it is true that one is hard put to discern the reason for the manifold adaptations that organisms possess. What I should have said to my daughter (and eventually did say) was that God had put the scales there for reasons He knew to be perfectly good ones but which may take us a lot of research to discover, since He has not told us what they are. Still, the fact was that I could not explain the presence of those scales... (Frair and Davis, 1983, pp. 30-31).
Davis has raised the point that we may not know presently why an organism is designed the way it is; and that with further research, the heretofore-unrecognizable design eventually may be discovered. This is what happened with the Panda’s thumb which Dr. Gould used in his book, The Panda’s Thumb, for an example of non-design. As he was writing about the non-design, Dr. Davis suggested the same kind of research to elucidate the purpose of design in certain structures. Dr. Gould claimed that the Panda’s “thumb” is “a somewhat clumsy, but quite workable” appendage that “wins no prize in an engineer’s derby”. For him it was an evidence for suboptimality, but Davis in his research found that the Panda’s thumb now has been found to exhibit design for very special functions:
a) The san Diego Zoo’ Giant Panda Zoo book states: “In fact, the giant panda is one of the few large animals that can grab things as tightly as a human can”(undated, p.6).
b) In 1985 schaller and co-authors released The Giant Pandas of Wolong, in which they wrote that “the panda can handle bamboo stems with great precision by holding them as if with forceps in the hairless groove connecting the pad of the first digit and pseudo thumb” (p.4). Does these seem to convey non-design or that the Panda’s thumb is a “jury-rigged” device? No, but that Dr. Gould could not immediately observe the design (for whatever reason), but such design is present.
3- The third reason has to do with theology and not science as S.R. Scally of Guelph University in Canada commented (1981,p.174). Those who claim that something is “suboptimal” must, by definition, set themselves up as the sole judge of what is, and what is not, “optimal.” Ie, they must know with certainty that the item shows no design and what the absolute standard is in the first place in order to claim that something has become “suboptimal.” This means that the unbeliever sets himself up as the creator, presupposes to know the mind of the creator, and then presumes to say what the creator did, or did not, do. This we can see in one evolutionists statement where he notes “that the natural world does not conform to our expectation of what an omnipotent, omniscient, truthful creator would have created” (Futuyma, 1983, p.198). They see that creation does not fit what they would do if they were the creator, and then suggests that a creator does not exist on that basis. That is an empty argument.
4- Another flaw with the suboptimality argument which has to do with theology again is that the unbeliever sets himself up as the creator, and proceeds to note that since things weren’t done as he would do them, there must not be a creator. Secondly, when the real creator tries to explain why things are as they are, the unbeliever refuses to listen.
The unbeliever might be witnessing simply degeneration and he believes they are evidences of “suboptimality”. An object that showed design might have this erased or clouded as a result of a process of degeneration. This does not mean that it was not designed. Imagine a gardener who digs up a book from a pile of rubbish. This book has a weathered cover with pages stuck together and the text illegible. Does the current condition show that the book was not communicative or not design? Of course not. This is exactly what the creator has stated that when man sinned, and evil was introduced to this planet, a state of progressive degeneration commenced (Romans 8:20-22). The same is seen when the Hebrew writer quotes the psalmist observing that “the earth, like a garment, is wearing out” (Hebrews 1:10-11). The degeneration in humans due to their rebellion will eventually lead to death (Romans 5:12). The fact that we have eye problems, heart failure, diseases etc does not cancel the fact that the human body is “fearfully and wonderfully made” (Psalm 139:14). We will not assume that because the unbeliever’s reasoning ability is flawed, his brain was not designed. The creator liked this original creation, so much so He pronounced it “very good” (Genesis 1:31); but because of man’s fault because the first man wanted to be like God, just like so many today, that degeneration came into place.
For the unbeliever God gets the blame for man’s mistakes. They have once again set up themselves as the creator to convince people that no creator exists. One does not get a poem without a poet, or a law without a lawgiver. One does not get a painting without a painter, or a musical score without a composer. Surely one does not get purposeful design without a designer. The inherent design in the universe is sufficient evidence, in keeping with the law of rationality that God does exist.
Morality and Ethics-The Anthropological Argument
All rational people are concerned about human moral and ethical conduct. A person may become so insensitive that he abandons his personal ethical obligations, but he will never be willing to ignore the lack of such ethical obligations in those who would abuse him. Morality is uniquely a human trait. Animals do not operate according to any ethical code. What is therefore the origin of morals and ethics?
1- They are either theocentric (centered in an external source of eternal goodness, namely, God); or
2- Anthropocentric (imbedded in the mind of man as a creature that evolved naturally as a result of inanimate forces operating over eons of cosmic and geologic time).
Atheists think that raw, eternal, inorganic matter was able, by means of extended evolutionary process, to concoct, promote, and maintain morality. This is wrong because it assumes that man somehow is capable of discovering “moral truth” with the evolved mass of cerebral tissue. Charles Darwin declared that “there is no fundamental difference between man and the higher mammals in their mental faculties” (as quoted in Francis Darwin, 1889, 1:64). Darwin also opined that “can the mind of man, which has, as I fully believe, been developed from a mind as low as that possessed by the lowest animals, be trusted when it draws such grand conclusions?” (as quoted in Francis Darwin, 1889 , 1:282). The second reason for the flaw in this opinion is that “raw matter” is impotent to evolve any sense of moral consciousness. Unbelief contends that morality and ethics are, at best, relative and situational. If that were so, then billions of ethical systems would exist, each at variance with many of the others, yet, oddly, each equally valid. Who could say someone else’s conduct was “wrong”, or that a man “ought” or “ought not” to do thus and so? Infact infidelity cannot reasonably explain the origin of morality and ethics but only by appealing to the existence of an omnipotent, omniscient God.
Morality is the character of being in accord with the principles or standards of right conduct. Morality and ethics assert that there exists a differentiation between right and wrong, and between good and evil. This implies an appeal to some ultimate standard by which these character traits can be distinguished. If there’s no purpose in the universe, then there’s no purpose to morality or ethics.
Hedonism argues that the aim of moral conduct is the attainment of the greatest possible pleasure with the greatest possible avoidance of pain. How can this be considered “moral” when the man is doing what he cannot help doing since the moral criterion is the preponderance of pleasure over pain? In pursuing pleasure and avoiding pain, if one must inflict pain upon others in order to achieve the goal or what if one must act immorally in order to practice his “morality”? There’s nothing in this philosophy that would motivate one to forego his own pleasure in the interest of others. The atheistic philosopher Ayn Rand authored a book, The virtue of selfishness-A new concept of Egoism, defending the concept of hedonistic selfishness. Who would want to live in such a society?
Utilitarianism build upon hedonism argues that “good” is that which gives pleasure to the greatest number of people. This is wrong because it cannot answer the query if pleasure to the many prevents a man from achieving his own personal pleasure. What motivates him towards the pleasure of the many? Secondly, there’s no guideline to determine what the “pleasure” (genuine happiness) of the many actually is. Thirdly, it is consistent with numerous atrocities perpetrated in the alleged interest of humanity. Finally, there’s no reason why it would be wrong to forgo the interest of many and pursue one’s personal pleasure.
Moral/Ethics and the Existence of God
Though proof of God’s existence is abundant in the designed Universe, His character is only exposed in His verbal communications available to us in the biblical documents. The Bible declares that God is eternal (Psalm 90:2; 1 Timothy 1:17), and that He is morally perfect. Not only is He holy (Isaiah 6:3; Revelation 4:8), just and righteous (Psalm 89:14), and good (Psalms 100:6; 106:1), but in the ultimate sense, only God is good (Mark 10:18). Since the God of the Bible is perfect (Matthew 5:48), it is to be expected that all that proceeds from Him is good initially. Accordingly, that which He created was good (Genesis 1:31), and all that He does, commands, and approves is likewise good (Psalm 119:39,68).
The “good,” therefore, is what God is; what He has commanded results from Who He is, and thus is likewise good. The prophet Micah declared of God that “He showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth Jehovah require of thee, but to do justly, and to love kindness, and walk humbly with thy God” (Micah 6:8). In the New Testament Peter admonished: “...as he who called you is holy, be ye yourselves also holy in all manner of living; because it is written, Ye shall be holy: for I am holy” (1 Peter 1:15). Moral sensitivity has been implanted in man by his creation in the image of God who is eternally good; but the failure in man due to the free will power moved man from this state for which God seeks to restore by divine revelation through a process requiring religious and moral obligations.
Biblical morality is designed to develop within man right attitudes, to help humanity translate spiritual attitudes into actions helpful to others, and to guide man back into accord with the divine ideal, ensuring the present and eternal happiness of man to the glory of God. This also give a motive for moral conduct. Those who have not foolishly thrust God from their minds (Psalm 14:1) acknowledge that the creation testifies of Jehovah’s existence (Romans 1:20-21), and that His orderly Universe is evidence of His good and loving nature (Acts 14:17; James 1:17; 1 John 4:8). The love of God in providing Christ (John 3:16) for sinful man, and the love of Jesus in offering Himself to redeem us (Revelation 1:5; Philippians 2:5ff.), are motive plenteous for leading a moral life. We love, hence, obey Him (John 14:15) because He first loved us (1 John 4:10-11,19). The Scriptures therefore provide both purpose and motive for their ethical base, not found in unbelief.
Other criteria for establishing ethics
Nihilism says since there’s no God, there can be no rational justification for ethical norms; so everything is permitted. The French philosopher Jean Paul Sartre says: “Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself.... Nor, on the other hand, if God does not exist, are we provided with any values or commands that could legitimize our behaviour (1961, p. 485).” This is also admitted by Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky in his work, The Brothers Karamazov (1880); that if there is no God, “anything goes”. But those who propagate this idea mean that everything is permitted for them alone. They don’t mean that the theft of their property, the rape of their wives etc is permitted.
Relativism says there’s no universal criterion for determining values and so no moral system can be said to be true or false since they depend on culture, and condition. Those believing in the Bible say it is absolute, will they yield to that? Infanticide in some cultures is used to control population is that right? Who will declare the morality of this practices?
Situationism also refuses an absolute system of values. The atheistic situationist says the rightness or wrongness depends upon the situation. So it will be wrong to lie if the falsehood is hurtful to others; but if it is helpful, it would be right. Morality is autonomous, so it’s a self law; then could there ever be a situation in which a person could do wrong? Theistic situationists stand midway between antinomianism (no ethical rules exist) and legalism (moral decisions maybe made by appealing to a rule book eg, the Bible). For them love is the only factor in making moral judgements. This love is subjective to the context. The situation ethics say there are only the rules of love, yet they would define love. Secondly, they enthrone man on the throne as the moral sovereign of the universe with his subjective sense of “love”. Thirdly they assume omniscience application of “love” principle. Since they claim that lying, adultery, murder, etc could be “moral” depending on the context of love, then who is able to predict the consequences of such acts and determine in advance what the “loving” thing to do is? Fourthly, they assume that “love” is an ambiguous, no-rule essence that is a cure-all for moral problems and in addition they presupposes some standard for determining what love is even though they take it as the criterion for ethical decisions.
Determinism removes man of personal responsibility for his conduct. Behaviourism claims man is the product of environment and so to speak of human responsibility is nonsense. Socio-biology also sees man as a machine, which has been programmed by its genetic make up. The flaws in this idea are:
1- If this is true, then there’s no human responsibility.
2- If man is not responsible for his actions, terms such as “good” and “evil” are meaningless.
3- If man is not accountable, no one should ever be punished for robbery, rape, child abuse, murder, etc.
4- How can we be persuaded by the doctrine of determinists since they were programmed to teach their ideas even if they are not true at all.
5- They will not abide by their own doctrine. If Edward Wilson’s book, socio-biology was recopied and published in our names, we would find if Wilson thought we were responsible for the action or our genetic backgrounds were.
Is there Ultimate Moral Responsibility?
We have seen that morality is unique to humans and so it has much to say about our nature.
1- Human moral responsibility is based upon the fact that God is our Creator (Psalm 100:3), and that we have been made in His spiritual image (Genesis 1:26). Just as a potter has a right over the clay he is fashioning, so our Maker has the right to obligate us morally and spiritually to right living (see Romans 9:21).
2- Since morality is grounded in the unchanging nature of God (Malachi 3:6; 1 Peter 1:15), it is absolute—not cultural, not relative, not situational.
3- God’s will is not subjective speculation, but He has spoken (Hebrews 1:1) and His mind is made known in Biblical revelation (1Corinthians 2:11ff.; 2Timothy 3:16-17)
4- God has an unchanging nature but His revelatory process was progressive as He dealt with man as he was in that infantile state (Matthew 19:8; Acts 14:16, 17:30-31). Today the New Testament is the Lord’s final and ultimate standard of morality.
5- The New Testament being the “law of Christ” (Romans 8:2; Galatians 6:2) it is not a “legal” system as the aspects of human conduct are proscribed with a “thou shalt” or “thou shalt not.”
6- New testament ethics also deal with motives of the actions e.g. If one accidentally kills a careless pedestrian with an automobile, he is not accountable before God because it was unintentional but adultery and murder makes him guilty (cf Matthew 5:28 and John 3:15)
7- Ethical activity is not man’s entire obligation before God (Acts 10).
8- Though God has called humans to high moral level, He is aware that we are frail, dusty flesh (Psalms 78:39; 103:14), hence His grace is given us through His son (Hebrews 5:8-9) for pardon of our moral blunders (Acts 22:16); so challenged to live godly lives in this world (Titus 2:11-14).
