Morality and the existence of God

Does morality imply God?

Some well known apologists and philosophers have made the claim that morality implies the existence of God.  There are variations on the theme, but the essential thinking is that humankind observes an objective morality, and it cannot be objective if it does not come from God.  Morality would have no meaning if it were not objective and absolute, and anyone who does not believe in God and yet speaks of morality in those terms is holding a contradictory position.  Naturally, Christians making this argument hold God to be the God of the Bible.  This is all described in more detail here.

The above ideas cannot be true without a couple other ideas also being true.  The first is that humanity does indeed exhibit some form of common morality, consistent over geography and time.  If there is no commonality, there is no objective source.  If everyone had a 12 inch ruler but no two of them were actually the same length, then clearly there would be no common standard that they were based on, objective or not.  The second idea is that the Bible describes a morality that is consistent with that of most modern societies.  If they do not line up, then one cannot be the objective standard for the other.  And if the Bible is not the objective standard, then the God of the Bible is not a source of an objective standard, unless one is arguing that God communicated that standard some other way.

Now if the premise were true, one could use that as a starting point for other ideas.  Indeed, some thinkers have built elaborate and compelling philosophies and arguments upon this base.  But like any mathematical or logical proof, if any step is flawed, the rest of the proof is invalid.  If I start an argument like so, “given that we know people always act in the best interests of others…”, it doesn’t matter what I say next; it will not be a valid argument, because the premise I am building on is flawed.

We will try to determine the validity of the opening claim by examining the other stated ideas that would also have to be true.  If they are not, neither is the claim.

Tribe vs tribe

As far back as we can see, people have been organizing themselves into groups of “us” versus “them”.  Be it tribes, cities, nations, the scale they operate on may be different, but the essential idea is the same.  Everyone outside of “us” is different and we can treat them accordingly.

We can look back over our collective history and see all the ways that groups have mistreated each other.  At least from our modern view.  From their view, it was all quite reasonable.  Taking slaves and looting resources are just the natural prerogatives of the victors.  Torture, rape, and execution are just effective tools of conquest.  Sabotage and destruction are just what it takes sometimes to establish dominance.  Any tribe has the right to take whatever another tribe is not strong enough to hold.

History simply does not bear out any notion of a self-evident or objective morality that we would today call good.  If there is any common code at all, it is the dominance of the strongest as described above.  Even today, some nations will take whatever they can get away with, even if their methods are not as overly violent as in earlier centuries.  And some groups have barely moved on, if at all, with behavior just as barbaric as any group in history.  There is no support for our premise to be found here.

Fellow citizens

If we consider how the members of a tribe treat each other instead of other tribes, the picture doesn’t get a lot better.  People routinely treat other members of their tribes terribly.  Not to say that everyone does this, but it happens a lot, in different forms.  Murder, rape, theft, all sorts of ugliness are still a part of every society as far as I know.  Dictators rise up to dominate their fellow citizens.  People with power and money continue to squeeze even more power and money from everyone else.  Pretty much any Internet discussion reveals just how ugly people will act when they think they are anonymous.  Racism and bigotry are alive and well.

Even if you judge nations by their aspirations rather than their aberrations, there is little commonality to be found.  Some nations believe that the needs of the state come before all else.  There are widely differing philosophies on how wealth is handled and the role of the state in helping its citizens.  Some have caste systems, some have royalty, and it wasn’t that long ago that slavery was a common practice.  Justice varies greatly too: prisons like college dorms, prisons like slave pens, authorities that will cut off your hand.

From any angle, there is no evidence for any sort of consistent morality that humanity believes in, much less acts on.  This alone is sufficient to show that the claim is not true.  If there is no consistent morality, then the idea of God being the source of a consistent morality is meaningless.  It means little to say that God gave us the divine standards of measurement if no two rulers are the same length.

Full circle

Now some people will say that I’ve missed the point.  All of the ruthless and immoral behavior that has been listed is not what intends for us and just underlines our need for an objective moral guide.  The problem is that we have come full circle in the argument.

• Humanity observes an objective moral code.

• Such a code can only come from God (presumably of the Bible)

• The behavior of humans indicates there is no actual consistent moral code they are following.

• But they are supposed to be following one, the one outlined in the Bible, because it comes from God.

The claim we were trying to prove is now being used as the proof of that claim.  The morality of the Bible is proof of God, because we are supposed to be following the morality of the Bible, because it comes from God.  It proves God because of God.

The claim is done for at this point.  Nonetheless, we will look at what the morality of the Bible actually looks like on a few topics, to see how it compares with modern thinking.

Biblical perspectives

Modern Western cultures have indeed more or less reached a consensus on these topics, but note the two qualifiers there: these views are not always held outside of the West, and certainly not in the past.  The question is if the Bible reflects the same prevailing attitudes of the past or represents a more transcendent view of things.

A good number of the verses I will quote come from the law in the OT.  Some people will immediately try to raise disclaimers about the law no longer being relevant, but Jesus was clear that the law was not obsolete.  It was the codified system of morality given to the Jewish people, and if the overall claim that this article is exploring is true, then God is the source of objective morality and He gave them the same rules He would give anyone today.  Under grace, Jesus bears all the punishment, but the precepts that bring about the punishment are still the same.

““Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “For I say to you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will not enter the kingdom of heaven.” (Matthew 5:17–20, NASB95)

Slavery

Many Christians try to portray slavery in the Bible as more or less like the boss/employer relationship today.  Indeed there was a notion of becoming a slave for the sake of working off a debt, which made it time-limited, and if you squint hard enough, it can be compared to employment.  This is as opposed to slaves that were permanent, and that is the real problematic scenario.  An incorrect association has been made about the NT use of the word “bondservant” to mean something different from a slave, with the former being voluntary.  The word being translated is just the word for “slave” though, as is described here.

Regardless, the OT has some distinct rules regarding slaves.  This one precludes any notion of being voluntary.  Their own people may have had choice in the matter, but not foreigners:

“‘As for your male and female slaves whom you may have—you may acquire male and female slaves from the pagan nations that are around you. ‘Then, too, it is out of the sons of the sojourners who live as aliens among you that you may gain acquisition, and out of their families who are with you, whom they will have produced in your land; they also may become your possession. ‘You may even bequeath them to your sons after you, to receive as a possession; you can use them as permanent slaves. But in respect to your countrymen, the sons of Israel, you shall not rule with severity over one another.” (Leviticus 25:44–46, NASB95)

Slaves can be beaten up to the point of death (and no foreigner distinction is made here):

““If a man strikes his male or female slave with a rod and he dies at his hand, he shall be punished. “If, however, he survives a day or two, no vengeance shall be taken; for he is his property.” (Exodus 21:20–21, NASB95)

Almost everything about this rule is problematic:

“‘Now if a man lies carnally with a woman who is a slave acquired for another man, but who has in no way been redeemed nor given her freedom, there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free. ‘He shall bring his guilt offering to the LORD to the doorway of the tent of meeting, a ram for a guilt offering.” (Leviticus 19:20–21, NASB95)

People certainly do try to defend the idea that slavery is not condoned in the Bible, but there is no getting around what it plainly says.

Women

In both the OT and NT, there is a clear double standard for men and women in many things.  Even that is an understatement; women are repeatedly described and designated as inferior to men throughout.

Property

This commandment is so familiar that the implications can perhaps be missed.  The law was given to the men.  They are told not to covet anything that belongs to other men, which is another way of saying their property.  This one covers both slaves and women:

““You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife or his male servant or his female servant or his ox or his donkey or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”” (Exodus 20:17, NASB95)

Women are a prize that can be claimed as the spoils of war:

““When you go out to battle against your enemies, and the LORD your God delivers them into your hands and you take them away captive, and see among the captives a beautiful woman, and have a desire for her and would take her as a wife for yourself, then you shall bring her home to your house, and she shall shave her head and trim her nails. “She shall also remove the clothes of her captivity and shall remain in your house, and mourn her father and mother a full month; and after that you may go in to her and be her husband and she shall be your wife. “It shall be, if you are not pleased with her, then you shall let her go wherever she wishes; but you shall certainly not sell her for money, you shall not mistreat her, because you have humbled her.” (Deuteronomy 21:10–14, NASB95)

Even in slavery, they are not equal to men.  The part about “go free” refers to the freedom that is granted in the seventh year to Hebrew slaves.  And note that a father has the authority to sell his daughter.

““If a man sells his daughter as a female slave, she is not to go free as the male slaves do. “If she is displeasing in the eyes of her master who designated her for himself, then he shall let her be redeemed. He does not have authority to sell her to a foreign people because of his unfairness to her. “If he designates her for his son, he shall deal with her according to the custom of daughters. “If he takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights. “If he will not do these three things for her, then she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.” (Exodus 21:7–11, NASB95)

Marriage

People try to defend the idea that the Bible does not endorse polygamy.  (Though to be clear, men can have multiple wives, but the reverse is not true.)  Setting aside the fact that many of the leaders, including David and Solomon, had many wives, the law has rules for handling certain situations dealing with multiple wives.  Such as this one, which puts limits on how closely related one’s multiple wives can be:

“‘You shall not uncover the nakedness of a woman and of her daughter, nor shall you take her son’s daughter or her daughter’s daughter, to uncover her nakedness; they are blood relatives. It is lewdness. ‘You shall not marry a woman in addition to her sister as a rival while she is alive, to uncover her nakedness.” (Leviticus 18:17–18, NASB95)

One cannot favor the children of one over the other:

““If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other unloved, and both the loved and the unloved have borne him sons, if the firstborn son belongs to the unloved, then it shall be in the day he wills what he has to his sons, he cannot make the son of the loved the firstborn before the son of the unloved, who is the firstborn.” (Deuteronomy 21:15–16, NASB95)

If a man seduces or even rapes a woman, he has to buy her as a wife (she doesn’t get a say):

““If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for her to be his wife. “If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.” (Exodus 22:16–17, NASB95)

““If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered, then the man who lay with her shall give to the girl’s father fifty shekels of silver, and she shall become his wife because he has violated her; he cannot divorce her all his days.” (Deuteronomy 22:28–29, NASB95)

A man can accuse his wife of infidelity without any proof other than being jealous and force her to submit to a test administered by a priest.  And it’s quite a consequence, resulting in physical sickness and the inability to have children apparently.  It goes without saying that nothing is mentioned about a wife accusing her husband.

““Speak to the sons of Israel and say to them, ‘If any man’s wife goes astray and is unfaithful to him, and a man has intercourse with her and it is hidden from the eyes of her husband and she is undetected, although she has defiled herself, and there is no witness against her and she has not been caught in the act, if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has defiled herself, or if a spirit of jealousy comes over him and he is jealous of his wife when she has not defiled herself, the man shall then bring his wife to the priest...” (Numbers 5:12–15, NASB95)

“‘The priest shall have her take an oath and shall say to the woman, “If no man has lain with you and if you have not gone astray into uncleanness, being under the authority of your husband, be immune to this water of bitterness that brings a curse; if you, however, have gone astray, being under the authority of your husband, and if you have defiled yourself and a man other than your husband has had intercourse with you” (then the priest shall have the woman swear with the oath of the curse, and the priest shall say to the woman), “the LORD make you a curse and an oath among your people by the LORD’S making your thigh waste away and your abdomen swell;” (Numbers 5:19–21, NASB95)

“‘When he has made her drink the water, then it shall come about, if she has defiled herself and has been unfaithful to her husband, that the water which brings a curse will go into her and cause bitterness, and her abdomen will swell and her thigh will waste away, and the woman will become a curse among her people. ‘But if the woman has not defiled herself and is clean, she will then be free and conceive children. ‘This is the law of jealousy: when a wife, being under the authority of her husband, goes astray and defiles herself, or when a spirit of jealousy comes over a man and he is jealous of his wife, he shall then make the woman stand before the LORD, and the priest shall apply all this law to her. ‘Moreover, the man will be free from guilt, but that woman shall bear her guilt.’ ”” (Numbers 5:27–31, NASB95)

Divorce

Given the terms on which marriage operates, it should be no surprise that divorce is also up to the man.  All it really takes is the husband not being pleased with his wife.

““When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another man’s wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance.” (Deuteronomy 24:1–4, NASB95)

The NT does try to moderate this a bit, but divorce is still up to the husband:

“Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE, and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’? “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”” (Matthew 19:3–9, NASB95)

Relation to God

Women’s relationship to God is mediated through men in both the OT and NT.  In this long passage, the gist is that where a man is responsible for what he promises to God, a woman is only to the extent that the man in authority over her allows it, be it her father or husband.

““If a man makes a vow to the LORD, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth. “Also if a woman makes a vow to the LORD, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand. “But if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the LORD will forgive her because her father had forbidden her. “However, if she should marry while under her vows or the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself, and her husband hears of it and says nothing to her on the day he hears it, then her vows shall stand and her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand. “But if on the day her husband hears of it, he forbids her, then he shall annul her vow which she is under and the rash statement of her lips by which she has bound herself; and the LORD will forgive her. “But the vow of a widow or of a divorced woman, everything by which she has bound herself, shall stand against her. “However, if she vowed in her husband’s house, or bound herself by an obligation with an oath, and her husband heard it, but said nothing to her and did not forbid her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she bound herself shall stand. “But if her husband indeed annuls them on the day he hears them, then whatever proceeds out of her lips concerning her vows or concerning the obligation of herself shall not stand; her husband has annulled them, and the LORD will forgive her. “Every vow and every binding oath to humble herself, her husband may confirm it or her husband may annul it.” (Numbers 30:2–13, NASB95)

This passage is certainly one that has caused a lot of discussion, trying to balance the idea that it is reflecting the culture of its times versus being the inerrant word of God.  But as we see in the numerous verses above, this is not an anomaly.

“But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman, and God is the head of Christ. Every man who has something on his head while praying or prophesying disgraces his head. But every woman who has her head uncovered while praying or prophesying disgraces her head, for she is one and the same as the woman whose head is shaved. For if a woman does not cover her head, let her also have her hair cut off; but if it is disgraceful for a woman to have her hair cut off or her head shaved, let her cover her head. For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. For man does not originate from woman, but woman from man; for indeed man was not created for the woman’s sake, but woman for the man’s sake. Therefore the woman ought to have a symbol of authority on her head, because of the angels.” (1 Corinthians 11:3–10, NASB95)

This continues the OT view of subordination:

“The women are to keep silent in the churches; for they are not permitted to speak, but are to subject themselves, just as the Law also says. If they desire to learn anything, let them ask their own husbands at home; for it is improper for a woman to speak in church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34–35, NASB95)

This does too, but adds in a new wrinkle of trying to justify some of this by blaming “the woman” for being deceived, but not Adam:

“A woman must quietly receive instruction with entire submissiveness. But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.” (1 Timothy 2:11–15, NASB95)

Genocide and children

We get into a tricky situation when we try to compare modern thoughts on genocide to what the Bible says.  Most Western thought would agree that we should not be killing large groups of people based on their nationality.  (Most Western thought would agree we should not be killing one person, too.)  But given the premise that God created the Earth and everything on it, one can certainly make the case that it is His to do with as He will, and that He is not subject to our moral standards.  The Bible does state in no uncertain terms that the wages of sin is death.  But it also generally implies that children are innocent and should not be harmed, and it is hard to reconcile the slaughter of children with the other conceptions of God the Bible presents.  One of the big arguments against abortion is that a baby should not be punished for the sins of its mother or father.  Nonetheless, you may well feel this is all God’s divine right, but let’s look at some verses anyway.

Clearly whatever children were in the world were wiped out when only Noah and family was spared:

“Then the LORD saw that the wickedness of man was great on the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. The LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart. The LORD said, “I will blot out man whom I have created from the face of the land, from man to animals to creeping things and to birds of the sky; for I am sorry that I have made them.”” (Genesis 6:5–7, NASB95)

Here “only” the male children are wiped out:

“And Moses said to them, “Have you spared all the women? “Behold, these caused the sons of Israel, through the counsel of Balaam, to trespass against the LORD in the matter of Peor, so the plague was among the congregation of the LORD. “Now therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman who has known man intimately. “But all the girls who have not known man intimately, spare for yourselves.” (Numbers 31:15–18, NASB95)

No restrictions here:

““Only in the cities of these peoples that the LORD your God is giving you as an inheritance, you shall not leave alive anything that breathes. “But you shall utterly destroy them, the Hittite and the Amorite, the Canaanite and the Perizzite, the Hivite and the Jebusite, as the LORD your God has commanded you,” (Deuteronomy 20:16–17, NASB95)

This one is regarding a conflict within the tribes of Israel, not even an enemy nation:

“And the congregation sent 12,000 of the valiant warriors there, and commanded them, saying, “Go and strike the inhabitants of Jabesh-gilead with the edge of the sword, with the women and the little ones. “This is the thing that you shall do: you shall utterly destroy every man and every woman who has lain with a man.”” (Judges 21:10–11, NASB95)

This one is an enemy:

““Thus says the LORD of hosts, ‘I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. ‘Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.’ ”” (1 Samuel 15:2–3, NASB95)

This general wish for vengeance was seen fit to include in the Bible:

“Your hand will find out all your enemies; Your right hand will find out those who hate you. You will make them as a fiery oven in the time of your anger; The LORD will swallow them up in His wrath, And fire will devour them. Their offspring You will destroy from the earth, And their descendants from among the sons of men.” (Psalm 21:8–10, NASB95)

And this one:

“Remember, O LORD, against the sons of Edom The day of Jerusalem, Who said, “Raze it, raze it To its very foundation.” O daughter of Babylon, you devastated one, How blessed will be the one who repays you With the recompense with which you have repaid us. How blessed will be the one who seizes and dashes your little ones Against the rock.” (Psalm 137:7–9, NASB95)

A prophecy of judgment from Isaiah:

“Anyone who is found will be thrust through, And anyone who is captured will fall by the sword. Their little ones also will be dashed to pieces Before their eyes; Their houses will be plundered And their wives ravished.” (Isaiah 13:15–16, NASB95)

Another prophecy:

“Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.” (Hosea 13:16, NASB95)

Summary

Looking at these various perspectives expressed in the Bible, it is hard to make the claim that this represents some objective morality that could only have come from God.  These views actually look a lot like what everyone else was doing throughout history.  Coming from the view that the Bible is inerrant, this is all problematic.  With the view that the Bible is not inerrant, as I explored in the previous article, then it makes more sense that everything that was written at that time reflects the practices of that time.  Nonetheless, if the people of that time did their best to record an accurate history, we are left with many precepts that are set down in the law that do not comport at all with what we typically believe to be good today in our Western societies.

Some people try to explain this as God working within the context of the culture of the people at that time.  But why would God do this?  If He is the absolute authority over everything, why would He shape the law to accommodate a barbaric culture instead of telling them the proper way to live?  There is little indication in the OT that God was bending to practical realities, given that people were dying left and right whenever they transgressed boundaries, including just trying to keep the Ark of the Covenant from falling over (1 Chronicles 13:6-12).  Indeed, it would have been compelling to see a moral code that was radically different from everyone else at the time; for example, treating women with equality and rejecting slavery.

But as it is, there is no evidence that any transcendent power was at work guiding the people of that time or the text that was written.  This is all explained equally or better by the text  having no divine guidance at all but rather being a fabrication of men.

Next article: Gardens and floods