Man’s Moral Compass & the Absolute Standard (PART 2)

MORALITY. In my PREVIOUS ARTICLE, I wrote on whether one must subscribe to theism if there is a desire to claim a sense of morality. Ultimately, I concluded that a rejection of theism automatically disqualifies one of having any sense of justification behind their moral code. It becomes a meaningless standard with no authority to declare something to be right or wrong. While this is true, it begs a certain question: what is required of theism in order to be able to have a valid moral compass? Is it merely a belief in a deity that qualifies man to possess a moral compass, or is it a subscription to a deity who first possesses certain attributes? That is what I hope to adequately address in this article.

What exactly is morality? If we take the dictionary approach, it can be defined as an overall set of principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong. But in order to have a distinction between right and wrong, there must first be the existence of right and wrong. We’re not just talking about relative concepts but absolute standards. Otherwise, it ceases to be a distinction between right and wrong and begins to be a distinction between how one views right from wrong. This is where many atheists attempt to find their exit strategy. When pressed, they claim there is no absolute morality. This is because they secretly know any absolute standard must come from an absolute standard bearer, of which no man possesses such authority. Instead, they claim to know right from wrong but only in the sense that society currently sees it. Of course, there are many problems with this view. If held consistently, it would mean American slavery was once good and proper and has only been made wrong within the last couple centuries. And, of course, it opens the door to say it may once again be good and proper should it ever rise its ugly head again in the future. Such a standard is no standard at all. It’s postmodern drivel.

If morality must have absolute existence with an absolute standard, and no man can ever possess such an authoritative standard that he declares the entire world must follow, it stands to reason that the very concept of morality requires the existence of theism. It requires an authoritative deity. This deity alone is the one who can make such a positive declaration to mankind, distinguishing right from wrong. But who might this deity be? Well, that’s an answer for a future article. For now, I would like us to stay focused on what is required of this deity in order to be qualified to decree such a standard that all men are bound to. This certainly won’t be an exhaustive list, but I would like to touch on at least some of the important attributes that would be required.

1) MONOTHEISTIC. If there is a plurality of gods, it means there can be no absolute standard. It really doesn’t matter what form of polytheism we’re talking about either. If we wanted to go the route of Greek mythology, there would be a different god over each facet of life. In such a worldview, it all boiled down to making the gods happy over anything else. But that is a far cry from one absolute standard. Or we could go the route of Mormonism, which claims the Father was once a man who was turned into a god due to following his god’s standard to such a high degree. In that particular cult, his god also had a god, and his god also had a god, ad nauseum. It means the standard of the one they call Father isn’t even his own standard. It’s the standard of another. And much like Xerox copies, each successive copy would necessarily becomes that much less. Even if we wanted to say he held it to perfection, it’s still the standard of another. That means the one they worship possesses no real authority of his own and instead relies on the authority of some god who came before him. No, monotheism is the one way we can ever hope to find an absolute standard, as the authority must come from within this singular deity.

2) WISE. I don’t think it’s a stretch at all to say the standard bearer of right and wrong must be wise. After all, it is in this wisdom where such concepts can even be birthed. If a deity were to say murder was good and just, it would be the epitome of unwise, as it would result in immeasurable amounts of death and damage toward others. Such a system would never function in a cohesive or peaceful manner. The fact that what is largely considered to be good and upright do tend to lead to peace (at least among those who practice them) should be all we need to see to attest to the wisdom required in order to implement such a system and to declare it as the standard that all men should follow.

3) IMMUTABLE. This one is important. After all, if the deity is able to change, it means the standard of right and wrong are also subject to change. If the standard of right and wrong are subject to change, we’re left with the same predicament as the atheist. It would mean God could declare something to be just, while later declaring it to be unjust. This insinuates a deity who is learning, or, at best, changing his mind about the goodness of something. But this also means the deity is now subject to error. Even if one wanted to argue that this deity is able to change the standard by the very fact that it is the god of standards, it still leaves the problem of a fickle nature that lacks any consistency, certainty, or intent. Sadly, there are a great many who believe their deity’s mind can be changed. In fact, I’d argue that’s the vast majority of religions. In the end, it just doesn’t work, and it leaves the question of objective morality unanswered. Such a belief has more in common with atheism than any other form of religion.

4) ABSOLUTE. This trait piggybacks off the previous one. With immutability comes an absoluteness. There is no indecisiveness or inexplicable change. Within such a form of theism, God is over all and is perfect. God simply is. Nothing is set above God, for that would mean God ceases being God, and anything that is below God just doesn’t matter when it comes to the standard of morality. We don’t appeal to the lesser when the greater has already declared what is. Without being absolute, no deity would be qualified to declare anything, let alone set a standard that all men are to follow as actuality.

5) SOLE AUTHORITY. In point #1, we covered why polytheism fails when it comes to establishing a standard. It’s because an objective and absolute standard must come from a wise, immutable, absolute, and singular source of authority. There can be no other god to appeal to. There can be no other god to make such declarations. In order for right and wrong to have actual existence in the objective sense, it must be declared from a sole authority who can not only make the declaration, but who can also enforce it upon all of creation.

As I said earlier, this is certainly not an exhaustive list, but it should be enough to firmly demonstrate why morality cannot exist void of theism, and it also serves to show why a multitude of religions will also fall short in their defense of morality. If you find yourself in a discussion with either an atheist or another world religion, I encourage you to reflect on these attributes. May they guide you in your flow of conversation as you challenge the shortcomings of their worldview. More importantly, may it set the stage for why there is only one true and living God who can possibly meet the above traits. In my next article within this series, I would like to conclude with why the God of the Bible is the only deity who meets the standards required in order for morality to exist.