From Where do Morals Come?

Reading Time: 6 minutes

@Nickdrumr2  asks; “Given a choice of life or death, which do you choose? At the expense of an innocent child; I'd choose death. How about you and your God given morals?”

Context of the Conversation

Nickdrumr2 and I were tweeting about morals and I asked him, “Given a choice of life or death, which do you choose?” and I said that, “I choose life.” To which Nickdrumer2 replied, “Given a choice of life or death, which do you choose? At the expense of an innocent child; I'd choose death. How about you and your God given morals?”

Now I could take what Nickdrumr2 said out of context as the way he stated it could be interpreted to say that he’s choose death of an innocent child to save his life however I do not think this is what Nickdrumr2 is stating. Giving Nicdrumr2 the benefit of doubt, I am assuming that he is saying that he’d give his life up for an innocent child. This is what I would expect of someone who has not fully suppressed the God given knowledge of right from wrong and the knowledge of what is good as opposed to what is evil.

Nickdrumer2 however seems to make the opposite assumption about my statement of my choosing life over death. Nikdrumer2 seems to imply that I would choose “my live” over that of an “innocent child’s life” in his reply of; “Given a choice of life or death, which do you choose? At the expense of an innocent child; I'd choose death. How about you and your God given morals?”

From Where do Morals Come?

From a debate between two evolutionists: Lanier is a computer scientist; Dawkins is a professor at Oxford and an ardent atheist.

Jaron Lanier: ‘There’s a large group of people who simply are uncomfortable with accepting evolution because it leads to what they perceive as a moral vacuum, in which their best impulses have no basis in nature.’

Richard Dawkins: ‘All I can say is, That’s just tough. We have to face up to the truth.’

‘Evolution: The dissent of Darwin,’ Psychology Today, January/February 1997, p. 62.

If man is just some sort of animal who evolved, and if there’s no absolute authority, then morals is whatever you want to define it to be—if you can get away with it in the culture you live in. Is it a comfort to imagine one lives in a world with no clearly defined morals equated to everyone which do not and have not ever changed over time; no afterlife or resurrection; no inherent right, wrong, or truth; no meaning whatsoever as Richard Dawkins implies? Does it confer much enjoyment for one to believe that death is the one inevitable fact of life, that everyone’s worldly pleasures will be forgotten? Removing the fear of God and replacing it with a “do what you want” attitude only sounds good before one thinks about it (again, in contravention with what Dawkins believes about thinking and religion).

The evolutionist has no basis for moral judgments. If man is just the result of millions of years of evolution, our behavior is based on random chemical reactions. There is no ultimate moral code. All morality is relative. So if a person needs money, why is it wrong to rob someone? According to evolution, the stronger person should succeed. Might makes right. So, in the evolutionary view, such violence is a natural, and necessary, part of the world. Why would someone place their life at risk for someone else if all morality is relative? According to evolution, the life at risk needs culled so that it doesn’t continue to procreate.

The idea of loving one's neighbor as oneself – or do unto others as you would have them do unto you – self-sacrifice – is sacred. More accurately, it is Christian.  The basis for morality comes from the Bible. Such morals as ‘do not murder,’ ‘do not steal,’ ‘do not commit adultery,’ come from the Bible, which teaches an absolute authority based on the existence of God. Christ Jesus sacrificed His life for us so that through His resurrection we can live with Him in Heaven.

Those who have a worldview based on the Bible have a consistent basis for acts of kindness, charity, or caring. We are commanded in Scripture to love our neighbors as ourselves, to perform acts of mercy, and to care for the widows and orphans. If we take evolution to its logical conclusion, we will conclude that these widows and orphans should die because they are a drain on the resources of nature.

If you don’t start moral sets on God then where do they come from? They would come from men. But no two people believe the same thing. So who would be right—the rapist, the murderer, the thief, or one who doesn’t do all these things? They are all right in their own eyes. Without God, there is no way you could ever tell someone they are right or wrong. Ultimately, in the system of beliefs by man, there is no right or wrong, it’s just opinions. Only God can determine right and wrong as He created us and only He knows what is best.

Life or Death, Which do You Choose?

Nickdrumr2, I’m sure you would indeed give your physical life up to save a child and maybe even an adult because I can tell that you have not fully suppressed the God given knowledge of right from wrong and the knowledge of what is good as opposed to what is evil. What you are exhibiting is your rebellion against God’s ultimate authority and ownership over us all and as such you are at this time like you tweeted to me, choosing an eternal death over eternal life.

Each of us make a choice of repenting of our sin and accepting Christ Jesus as our savior or not. Accepting, Heaven, not Hell. You will exist for an eternity and the choice you make now decides where you exist in eternity; w/God (Heaven) or w/o God (Hell). Your family will exist for an eternity and the choice they make now decides where they exist in eternity; w/God (Heaven) or w/o God (Hell). Choosing not to repent and accept Christ Jesus as your savior is to choose eternal death. Choosing to repent and accepting Christ Jesus as your savior is to choose eternal life.

My choice of life means that I am dead to the world in that I have placed my trust into Christ Jesus. If the world requires me to physically die to save anyone from dying so be it if it is for a child, older person, younger person, or even the people who murdered my dad; especially if the person my physical death has yet to accept Christ Jesus as his or her savior. As I stated earlier, Christ Jesus sacrificed His life for us so that through His resurrection we can live with Him in Heaven. Christ Jesus set the ultimate example of giving of one’s self to save others.

Answer

To answer the question Nickdrumer2 ask me; given a choice of life or death, which do you choose with my God given morals? Like I stated in my Tweet to you Nickdrumer2, I choose life just like you chose with your God given morals. You and I would both give up our physical life to save a child and I’d even give my physical live up to save you Nickdrumer2.

Thank you Nickdrumr2 for the question; God bless you and your family!

 

Resources

www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/you-cant-teach-ethics-without-referring-to-christianity-20100409-rxai.html

www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/09/can-science-rep/

www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-does-creation-include-suffering

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.