God's Crime Scene预览

Do Transcendent Moral Truths Point to a Transparent Moral Truth Giver?

Even the most skeptical among us believe moral truth is more than simply a matter of cultural or personal opinion. In a recent poll of professional philosophers and philosophy students, most denied the existence of God—yet acknowledged (or were inclined to accept) the existence of objective moral truth. For many of us, the transcendent, objective nature of moral truth seems rather self-evident. To “supersize” the point, all of us would agree it’s never morally acceptable to torture babies for the fun of it. For that matter, it’s never morally acceptable to torture anyone for the fun of it. This is a transcendent, objective moral truth claim; it applies to all of us, regardless of who we are, where we are on the planet, or when we’ve lived in history.

…If we stay “inside the room” of the natural universe to explain the existence of objective moral truths, we’re going to have to deny their existence; argue they’re a brute fact of the universe; or attribute them to human individuals, culture, or biology. These attempts to explain objective moral truth from “inside the room” fail for a variety of reasons. Moral obligations exist between persons, but why do we think human persons are innately worthy of such obligation? Any attempt to explain objective moral truth from “inside the room” of the natural universe will also have to explain why humans are worthy of obligation.

…As David Baggett and Jerry Walls observed, “Persons with intrinsic value and dignity seem much less likely to emerge from valueless impersonal stuff than from the intentional hand of a personal Creator.”

If humans were created in the image of this Creator, our position “inside the room” would indeed be worthy of moral obligation, and a Creator such as this could also provide a proper explanation for moral truth. Moral obligations exist between persons; if moral laws are transcendent, it seems reasonable for us to look for the transcendent person to whom we are ultimately obligated.

Transcendent moral laws require a transcendent moral law source, and an all-powerful, nonmaterial, nonspatial, atemporal, purposeful, personal Creator would certainly qualify. If such a Being exists, moral truths would not simply be His creation or opinion; they would instead be a reflection of His nature as an all-powerful, perfect Being…

…Naturalism fails to explain two attributes of the universe related to objective moral truth. It cannot adequately explain the existence of objective moral truths, and it cannot explain objective, transcendent personal obligations.

…The benevolent author of these laws is the same first cause of the universe responsible for its beginning, the appearance of fine-tuning, the origin of life, the appearance of design in biology, the existence of mind, and the experience of free will. Our suspect description has grown. Examine the profile closely. Crime scenes tell us a lot about suspects, and the “crime scene” of the universe provides us with important details.

Our “suspect” is external to the universe, nonspatial, atemporal, nonmaterial, and uncaused. The “suspect” is powerful enough to create everything we see in the universe and purposeful enough to fine-tune the universe for life. The “suspect” is intelligent, communicative, creative, and resourceful. As a conscious Mind, our “suspect” is the personal source of moral truth and obligation. The evidence in the “crime scene” demonstrates the existence of an intelligent intruder outside of space, time, and matter; a Divine Intruder responsible for the evidence we cannot explain from “inside the room.”