Morality, Meaning and the Human Person

What you'll learn

State the moral argument in a simple valid form and defend each premise
Answer the Euthyphro dilemma by grounding goodness in God's nature
Explain how Christianity uniquely grounds human dignity and rights, drawing on Tom Holland's Dominion

The moral argument

Almost everyone believes some things are really wrong, not just unpopular. Torturing children for fun is wrong whether or not a culture approves. Philosophers call this objective morality: moral truths that hold regardless of human opinion.

You met the moral argument briefly in Foundations of Defence, Lesson 3. William Lane Craig gives a simple form of it. (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. (2) Objective moral values and duties do exist. (3) Therefore, God exists. The logic is valid, so the question is whether the premises are true.

Premise 2 is usually granted in practice: the secular person who protests injustice is assuming it. Premise 1 is where the debate happens. Without God, what makes something truly wrong? Evolution can explain why we have moral feelings, but feelings that helped our ancestors survive are not the same as moral truths binding on everyone. If morality is only herd instinct or social agreement, then the Holocaust was not wrong in itself; it was merely disapproved of by the winning side. Few people can live with that conclusion.

State Craig's moral argument and explain which premise is usually debated and why.Show answer

If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist; objective moral values and duties do exist; therefore God exists. The second premise is usually granted in practice, since people who protest injustice assume it. The debate is over the first: without God, what makes something truly wrong, since evolved feelings that helped survival are not the same as binding moral truths?

Three steps, valid logic
Premise 2 granted in practice
Premise 1 is the debate
Feelings are not moral truths

Good without God? Epistemology vs ontology

A common reply is: 'I don't need God to be good. I know atheists who are kinder than Christians.' The Christian should agree. Romans 2:14-15 says God's law is written on every heart, so atheists can know right from wrong and do good.

The issue is not epistemology (how we know what is right) but ontology (what makes something right in the first place). The question is not 'Can you be good without believing in God?' but 'Can there be such a thing as good without God existing?' Keep that distinction clear and much confusion disappears. You can say: 'Of course you can be a good person. I'm asking what makes good really good in your worldview.'

This distinction also protects you from sounding arrogant. You are not claiming Christians are morally superior; Scripture says we are all sinners (Romans 3:23). You are claiming that moral truth is real, and that its reality requires a moral Lawgiver. Once a friend sees that, the conversation naturally moves from 'Is God necessary for morality?' to 'If God is the standard, how do I measure up?'

Sam Harris, in The Moral Landscape, argues that science can ground morality in the well-being of conscious creatures. Represent this fairly: he is right that well-being matters. But ask why well-being ought to be pursued, and why my well-being should be sacrificed for yours. Science can tell us what promotes flourishing; it cannot tell us that we are obliged to promote it. That 'ought' is exactly what needs grounding.

What is the difference between epistemology and ontology in the moral argument, and how does it answer 'I can be good without God'?Show answer

Epistemology is how we know what is right; ontology is what makes something right in the first place. Christians agree atheists can know right from wrong and do good, because God's law is written on every heart (Romans 2:14-15). The real question is not whether you can be good without believing in God, but whether there can be such a thing as good without God existing.

Epistemology: how we know
Ontology: what makes it right
Romans 2:14-15: law on hearts
Can good exist without God?

How would you respond fairly to Sam Harris's claim that science can ground morality in well-being?Show answer

Harris is right that well-being matters, and you should say so. But ask why well-being ought to be pursued, and why my well-being should be sacrificed for yours. Science can tell us what promotes flourishing, but it cannot tell us we are obliged to promote it, and that 'ought' is exactly what needs grounding.

Agree well-being matters
Why ought we pursue it?
Science describes, cannot oblige

The Euthyphro dilemma answered

In Plato's dialogue Euthyphro, Socrates asks whether the pious is loved by the gods because it is pious, or pious because it is loved by the gods. Modern atheists recast it: is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it is good? If the first, morality seems arbitrary (God could have commanded cruelty). If the second, goodness is a standard above God, and God is not needed.

The Christian answer is that this is a false dilemma. There is a third option: God commands what is good because he himself is good. Goodness is not an external standard God consults, nor an arbitrary choice; it is rooted in God's unchanging nature (Psalm 100:5; James 1:17). His commands flow from his character, and his character could not be otherwise. So morality is neither arbitrary nor independent of God.

The atheist may press: 'Then is God's nature good arbitrarily?' At some point every worldview reaches an ultimate standard. The question is which ultimate is a fitting place for goodness to stop: an eternal, personal, loving God, or impersonal particles. Christian theology adds that God is Trinity (Know Your Faith, Lesson 3), so love and relationship are eternal within God himself (John 17:24), which grounds the personal and relational nature of morality.

Explain the Christian answer to the Euthyphro dilemma in a way you could say to a friend.Show answer

The dilemma offers two options: good because God commands it (arbitrary) or commanded because it is good (a standard above God). It is a false dilemma, because there is a third option: God commands what is good because he himself is good. Goodness flows from his unchanging nature (Psalm 100:5; James 1:17), so morality is neither arbitrary nor independent of God.

False dilemma
God commands good because he is good
Rooted in his unchanging nature
Neither arbitrary nor independent

Human rights and the Christian revolution

Historian Tom Holland, not writing as a committed Christian, argues in Dominion that Western values most secular people take for granted (that the weak deserve protection, that every human has equal dignity, that the victim has moral claims on the powerful) come from Christianity. Ancient Rome did not share these instincts: exposing unwanted infants was common, and the strong were expected to rule the weak. The idea that a crucified slave-like figure could be God turned those values upside down.

Holland's thesis helps in conversation. Secular people often criticise Christianity using moral standards that Christianity itself gave them. You can say: 'I share your concern for the vulnerable. Where do you think that concern comes from?' The doctrine of the image of God (Genesis 1:27) is the root: every human, regardless of age, ability, ethnicity or usefulness, bears God's image and therefore has dignity. Naturalism struggles to say why a human has more worth than any other arrangement of atoms.

Be ready for the reply that the Bible itself endorses slavery or demeans women. That is a serious question, and Hard Questions (the next module) gives it a full lesson.

How can Tom Holland's argument in Dominion help you in a conversation with a secular critic of Christianity?Show answer

Holland argues that values secular people take for granted, such as protecting the weak, equal human dignity and the moral claims of victims, come from Christianity, while ancient Rome did not share them. So secular people often criticise Christianity with standards Christianity gave them. You can say, 'I share your concern for the vulnerable. Where do you think it comes from?', pointing to the image of God (Genesis 1:27).

Western values come from Christianity
Rome did not share them
Critics use Christian standards
Image of God is the root

Meaning and hope

Morality connects to meaning. If we are accidents in an indifferent universe, ultimate meaning is an illusion. Atheist writers who are honest about this, from Bertrand Russell to Dawkins, admit that the universe offers no purpose and that meaning must be made up. Christianity says we were made by God, for God, and that history is going somewhere: to a new creation where justice is done and tears are wiped away (Revelation 21:4).

This is where apologetics becomes gospel. The moral argument shows we are guilty before a holy God; the longing for meaning shows we were made for him. Jesus meets both: he bore our guilt on the cross and gives us a future that does not end in heat death. Do not stop at 'therefore God exists'. Go on to 'and he has come to find you'.

Why does the section say 'do not stop at therefore God exists'? Where should the conversation go?Show answer

Apologetics should become gospel. The moral argument shows we are guilty before a holy God, and the longing for meaning shows we were made for him. Jesus meets both, bearing our guilt on the cross and giving a future that does not end in heat death, so we go on to say that God has come to find us.

Apologetics becomes gospel
Guilt and longing for meaning
Jesus bore guilt, gives hope
He has come to find you

In their own words

“Morality is a product of evolution and culture. We are social animals who evolved empathy and cooperation because they helped our ancestors survive.” (Common evolutionary ethics; compare Michael Shermer, The Science of Good and Evil (2004))

“Science can tell us what is good, because morality is about the well-being of conscious creatures, which is a scientific question.” (Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape (2010))

“If God commands something because it is good, goodness is independent of God; if it is good because God commands it, morality is arbitrary.” (The Euthyphro dilemma, adapted from Plato, Euthyphro 10a)

“I don't need a book or a god to tell me not to murder. I'm good because I care about people, not because I fear hell.” (Common humanist claim; compare Christopher Hitchens' 'moral challenge' (posed in his debates and in his introduction to The Portable Atheist, 2007) and God Is Not Great (2007), ch. 13)

Key texts

Genesis 1:26-27: Humanity made in God's image is the foundation for universal human dignity and rights.
Romans 2:14-15: God's law is written on every heart, which explains why atheists can know and do good. Use it to affirm them while asking about foundations.
Psalm 100:5: 'The LORD is good.' Goodness is rooted in God's nature, the answer to Euthyphro.
James 1:17: Every good gift comes from the Father 'with whom there is no variation'. Goodness is anchored in an unchanging God.
Micah 6:8: Do justice, love kindness, walk humbly with God. Shows biblical morality is relational, not arbitrary rule-keeping.
Revelation 21:4-5: God will wipe away every tear and make all things new. The Christian answer to the question of ultimate meaning and hope.

Objections and answers

Try answering each one yourself before you open the response.

“I'm a better person than most Christians I know, and I don't believe in God.”Show a response

That may well be true, and I'm not going to argue with it. The Bible itself says God's law is written on every human heart, so I fully expect atheists to know right from wrong and often to live it well. My point is different. I'm not asking whether you can be good without believing in God, but whether there is any such thing as 'good' if God doesn't exist. If we're just evolved animals, then 'good' only means 'what helped our ancestors survive' or 'what my culture approves'. But you clearly think some things are really wrong, everywhere, always. I think you're right, and I think that points to a moral Lawgiver.

“Is something good because God commands it, or does God command it because it's good? Either way you lose.”Show a response

It's a classic question, but it presents only two options when there is a third. Christians say God commands what is good because God himself is good. Goodness is not a rule outside God that he has to check, and it is not an arbitrary decision he could have made differently. It flows from his unchanging character: love, justice, truth, faithfulness. So God's commands are not arbitrary, and goodness is not independent of him. Every view has to stop somewhere. You might stop with human well-being; I stop with the eternal, personal God who is love. I'd suggest a personal God is a far better candidate for the source of moral obligation than impersonal particles.

“Morality evolved. Cooperation helped our ancestors survive, so we feel things are right or wrong.”Show a response

I agree evolution might explain why we have moral feelings. But explaining where a feeling came from does not tell us whether it is true. If our moral sense is just a survival tool, then it would have been equally 'right' for us to evolve to value cruelty if that had helped us survive. Yet you don't believe slavery was only wrong because it became unfashionable. You think it was really wrong even when most people accepted it. Evolution can describe behaviour; it cannot make anything obligatory. Duties need a source with authority over us, and impersonal processes are not that. So I'd ask: on your view, why ought I to care about anyone besides myself?

“Christianity gave us crusades, inquisitions and slavery. You're in no position to lecture anyone on morality.”Show a response

Christians have committed terrible sins, and I won't defend them. But notice how we judge them: as betrayals of Jesus' teaching to love enemies and treat every person as made in God's image. That is exactly why abolitionists like William Wilberforce opposed slavery on Christian grounds. Historian Tom Holland, who did not write it as a committed Christian, argues in Dominion that the very moral standard you are using, that the weak and the victim deserve justice, comes largely from Christianity. Rome had no problem with the strong crushing the weak. So I agree with your outrage. I just think your outrage makes more sense in a Christian world than an atheist one.

“Morality is relative. Different cultures have different values, so who are you to say your morality is the right one?”Show a response

It's true that cultures differ on many customs, and I want to be humble about that. But let me ask: is the statement 'morality is relative' true for everyone, or only for you? And do you really think torturing children for fun is only wrong in some cultures? Most of us, when we're honest, believe some things are really wrong whether or not a culture approves. If morality were only social agreement, then the Holocaust wasn't wrong in itself; it was merely disapproved of by the winning side. Few people can live with that. I'm not claiming Christians are morally better; the Bible says we've all sinned (Romans 3:23). I'm saying real moral truth exists, and that points to a moral Lawgiver who is himself good.

“Science can tell us what's right. Whatever increases human well-being is good. We don't need God to work that out.”Show a response

I agree well-being matters a great deal, and science can teach us a lot about what helps people flourish. My question is a step further back. Why ought I to pursue well-being at all, and why should my well-being be sacrificed for yours when the two clash? Science can describe what promotes flourishing, but it cannot tell us we are obliged to promote it. That 'ought' is the very thing that needs explaining. Christianity grounds it in a personal God who is good and who made every human in his image (Genesis 1:27). That gives every person real worth and gives us real duties to one another. On a purely natural view, I'm not sure why an arrangement of atoms has any claim on me at all.

Written task

Write a 300-400 word dialogue between yourself and a colleague who says, 'You don't need God to be good.' Your dialogue should affirm what is true in their claim, introduce the epistemology/ontology distinction in plain words, handle a Euthyphro-style follow-up, and end by connecting the moral argument to the gospel.

Hand this in to Mr Scott. He will look for:

Genuinely affirms that non-Christians can know and do good (Romans 2:14-15)
Explains the difference between knowing morality and grounding morality in everyday language
Answers the Euthyphro dilemma accurately by appeal to God's nature
Connects moral guilt or longing for justice to Christ and the cross
Dialogue sounds natural, not like a lecture