Morality is a form of Law and Moral Law Necessitates a Law Giver!
'He is a compulsive liar and compulsive thief, who has no sense of remorse whatsoever!'
A judgement poured out by the angry authoritiies on someone whose wayward ways had caused havoc in a particular organisation. And in many ways I could not disagree with their verdict and fully understood their anger.
But what if the ones giving this verdict had in an earlier discussion agreed that effectively all we are is a product of an accident of colliding molecules. How justified would their anger at this man be? How justified their judgement? How can a conglemerate of molecules lie? After all if I angrily shouted 'YOU LIAR!' at a chair that on the face of it looked quite stable and therefore promised to hold me but collapsed on my sitting upon it, then you could quite reasonably call me stupid. Things (a table, a chair, a set of atoms or molecules)can not lie!
For anyone to be convicted of a crime the presence of 'mens rea' (a guilty mind) has to be proven. It is the capability of knowing what is right and wrong. But if all we are is:
FAT enough for 7 bars of soap
IRON enough for one medium size nail
SUGAR enough for seven cups of tea
MAGNESIUM enough for one dose of salts
PHOSPHORUS enough to tip 2,200 matches
POTASH enough to explode one toy crane
SULPHUR enough to rid one dog of fleas
(Professor C Joad)
then no matter what terrible crime they have committed - everyone has an instant defense and can claim that 'mens rea' is not present - how can I be guilty of anything since I am merely a thing, an object.
However, we are more than an accident, more than the above. We are moral beings and are created in God's image. God (the moral law giver) has clothed us with a sense of morality. Morality (writes Edgar Andrews: 'Who Made God?') is a form of law and moral law necessitates a law giver.
To be completed
A judgement poured out by the angry authoritiies on someone whose wayward ways had caused havoc in a particular organisation. And in many ways I could not disagree with their verdict and fully understood their anger.
But what if the ones giving this verdict had in an earlier discussion agreed that effectively all we are is a product of an accident of colliding molecules. How justified would their anger at this man be? How justified their judgement? How can a conglemerate of molecules lie? After all if I angrily shouted 'YOU LIAR!' at a chair that on the face of it looked quite stable and therefore promised to hold me but collapsed on my sitting upon it, then you could quite reasonably call me stupid. Things (a table, a chair, a set of atoms or molecules)can not lie!
For anyone to be convicted of a crime the presence of 'mens rea' (a guilty mind) has to be proven. It is the capability of knowing what is right and wrong. But if all we are is:
FAT enough for 7 bars of soap
IRON enough for one medium size nail
SUGAR enough for seven cups of tea
MAGNESIUM enough for one dose of salts
PHOSPHORUS enough to tip 2,200 matches
POTASH enough to explode one toy crane
SULPHUR enough to rid one dog of fleas
(Professor C Joad)
then no matter what terrible crime they have committed - everyone has an instant defense and can claim that 'mens rea' is not present - how can I be guilty of anything since I am merely a thing, an object.
However, we are more than an accident, more than the above. We are moral beings and are created in God's image. God (the moral law giver) has clothed us with a sense of morality. Morality (writes Edgar Andrews: 'Who Made God?') is a form of law and moral law necessitates a law giver.
To be completed
Comments
I actually don't think you can comment on the books from which I quote since you don't appear to have read them.
The point that is made here goes further than mere survival or even the ‘sense of morality’ - it is a point about the right to judge. Whilst you might suggest that decisions made that appear to have ‘moral values’ may have a selfish (survival) motive and therefore could possibly be attributed to evolution, there can only be a judgement on those who make 'immoral actions' if there is an absolute moral law and therefore an ultimate law giver.
Darwinian Macro Evolution can not allow for absolute moral law since in the end we are merely only an accidental coming together of molecules. If this is correct no one has an ultimate right to judge anyone else's actions or indeed call them immoral. Morality itself, in the truest sense (what is right and just), can not exist without someone who has absolute authority to declare what is right and just.
Long time no read :)
I pray you are doing well my friend. Looks like you are still keeping the wolves at bay...lol.
I have two blogs I am trying to maintain in my busy (but God blessed) time. One is my evangelism blog (www.hfots.blogspot.com) and another one I made for fun called (www.thereformeddawg.blogspot.com).
I praise God you are still faithfully proclaiming the gospel and defending the faith.
Keep up the good work in the Lord my brother.
Dawg