Truth and the Devil

I wrote a letter to the editor in the Lawrence Journal-World regarding morals with and without God. Unfortunately, it had to be under 250 words in length, so it I had to cut some stuff out.

First, the letter I responded to:

In a recent letter, Bruce Springsteen said that in morality people make “two stupid mistakes.” First, that of “an absolute cosmic force” (God). Second, thinking morality is “purely personal preference.” His alternative is his personal preference of social constructs.

Where is the logical position between robust theism and utter nihilism? Not all who have held those views are stupid. Rather than a social construct being self-evident, social constructs for morality turn out to be a majority view of self-relativists. Taking his position to its logical end, there is nothing that Hitler did that was wrong. Societal standards do not lead us to morality, but legal immorality. This is so clear in America’s fall today.

The only position that can answer the cry of the human heart and mind is that of theism. No other position tells us what morality is and provides an oughtness to them. Individual and societal relativism are the same thing and cannot provide any real standard or oughtness for morality. This is why the dogma of evolution will never satisfy the human soul. In terms of meaning and morality, it is logical nihilism.

All that reason can design against design will never convince a thinking human being against design. If our rationality had not been designed, then all we think and do is irrational. Morality cannot be designed by a nondesigned humanity. Professor Krishtalka teaches evolution and the morality of environmentalism at the same time. What teaches him what is immoral? It shows that God created him.

Richard Smith,

Lawrence

My response:

Like far too many theists, Richard Smith, in a recent letter to the editor argues that morality must come from God or else all morality is subjective. However, he fails to see the subjectivity of his own position.

If everything God does is moral, then even the most heinous of acts, if performed by God, are perfectly moral and good. Is the ancient slaughter of men, women and children in the Old Testament to be considered moral and good just because it was willed by God?

Some, like Richard Smith, might think so, but most of us can agree that it is a disgusting and vile thing for God to command. We have a moral compass of our own, separate from God. This morality comes from empathy we all share toward our fellow humans, especially those close to us. We know what causes discomfort and suffering, and we wish to prevent the same suffering to befall those we care about.

As an alternative to God-driven morality, we can use our own reason to observe and determine which acts will cause suffering, and which will relieve suffering. No, we may not be designed by God, but does that make the interactions we have between us any less meaningful? The harm we can choose to inflict on each other any less painful? I think not. We have the same hopes, fears and dreams.

I think that this should be the basis for our morality. Not the subjective whims of some angry, invisible deity.

Kyle Batson,

Lawrence