Bulletin Articles
Standards
Standards are common. The term can refer to a commonly accepted value, a recognized authoritative model, or something acceptable though not top quality (dictionary). In all these cases there is a recognition that expectations of some kind are to be met and accepted by more than just an individual who might arbitrarily do whatever. The concept of having standards means that we have lines that should not be crossed, good goals for which we strive, and expectations to do better based on some measure or rule that ought to be understood by all.
There are standards for food, driving, housing, athletics, pets, governments, and the list can continue. We might not always agree with the particulars, but we understand why standards are there. Rules are given for the common good (another term requiring a standard). Anarchy devolves quickly into chaos, and no one is benefitted save the selfish oppressors who run roughshod over those who have little power to stop them. “Might makes right,” some think, but it is hardly right, and it is certainly not godly. “Are not the rich the ones who oppress you, and the ones who drag you into court?” (James 2:6, see the context).
People live by moral standards, and I know of no exceptions to this historically or contemporarily. Everyone has a line that is not to be crossed. The question is, what is the ultimate source of standards? When boiled down, there are not many options available. From the foundation up, the concept of standards come from 1) an intelligent source (i.e., a Creator) or 2) a non-intelligent process (i.e., mindless, purposeless chance with no mind behind it). This is not delving into the nature of the Creator or the specific process, but just recognizing that there is either intelligence or not lying foundationally under moral reality. While humans are intelligent, they arose either from a mind or through mindlessness. What is the source of human intelligence? Why do we have a moral nature at all?
Moving a step further, if moral standards come from an intelligent source, then these standards would be what we might expect: universal, objective, and authoritative (the biblical position). However, if moral standards arose by chance, then they would be non-universal and subjective. Morality apart from God means that they are 1) self-made, whatever I decide for myself, 2) society-made, whatever society decides or practices, or 3) imposed by those in power. Perhaps it’s a combination. In whatever case, a godless morality means that either the individual or the culture gets to decide right or wrong, and the implications of this are enormous.
If morality is neither universal nor objective, then individuals and cultures are free to reject them with no moral culpability. If one society rejected the morals of another, they are free to put into power a Hitler with all attendant implications. What right would another society have to pronounce judgment or bring charges and enact penalties? If there is no “law above the law,” no God-given morals above rules created by people, then the majority get to decide and the powerful get to enforce. If they decided that murder, racism, and oppression are okay, then who is say they are wrong? As outspoken atheist Richard Dawkins admitted honestly in an interview, “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question.” (http://byfaithonline.com/richard-dawkins-the-atheist-evangelist/) Is that a genuinely difficult question for you? Why or why not?
Anecdotally, I have had atheists argue with me that morality is non-universal and subjective (personal preference). Then I was called immoral for a certain belief. Anyone should be able to see the irony of that. If something outside of you or your chosen culture is immoral, then it can only be so based upon a standard that is universal, applying equally to all, and objective, standing outside our personal preferences. If you think that we should have any sense of justice, accountability, or the right to moral outrage, then think deeply about where you believe moral standards find their ultimate foundations. Can brute materialism explain it?
One of the many reasons I believe in God is because I find it irrational to think that morality is the result of mindless, accidental processes based on chance. Raw material cannot account for universal, objective moral standards. These require minds to understand, and at least a grand Authority at its foundation, which makes moral behavior universally expected and to which we are finally accountable. What makes sense of this is what Scripture has told us all along: humans are made in God’s image. We are free-will beings who are morally responsible. Sin is our effort to dethrone God and decide for ourselves what is right and wrong (morality without the moral lawgiver, see Gen 3:5; Rom 1). Though we are all guilty, God has reached out to rectify the problem in grace through Christ.
If you want to talk morality, about what is “better,” or hold people morally accountable for anything, then consider your foundations. Is your ultimate foundation Mind or mindless chance? Is it universal and objective, or is it your personal or societal preference? How we answer these questions will speak volumes about our ultimate commitments and how we should think about one another.
