Over the last five years I have devoted much of my writings to answering the challenges of skeptics. Today however I am going to break with tradition and issue a challenge of my own. This challenge is not meant to single out or attack any one person, but is a legitimate question that I feel deserves serious consideration. That said, my challenge to the skeptic is this: Why is it morally wrong to rape and murder?
According to many atheists and skeptics of Christianity, morality is simply an evolved social characteristic that allows our species to survive and reproduce. However, if the philosophies of Materialism, Naturalism, and Reductionisim are true, then out of all of the sins listed in the Bible and all of the evils committed by man, rape and murder should be the least concerning.
Most animals mate forcibly in the wild. Some species, like ducks, even form "rape gangs" with multiple males forcibly mating with a single female at one time. If humans really are just highly evolved animals, then why is it morally wrong to rape in order to reproduce? If morality exists to ensure the survival of the species, and free will is merely an illusion of our "selfish genes," then it should be perfectly acceptable for a man to spread as much of his genetic material as possible by any means possible. Including rape.
Another example found in nature is that of the African Lion. When a male lion takes over a pride, the first thing that he does after running off the previous male is kill all of the cubs to ensure that his own genes will be the only genes passed on to the next generation. If successful reproduction is the measure by which we judge what is good for a species, then what is to keep one man from killing another, murdering his children, and then forcibly impregnating the other man's wife in order to ensure the survival of his genes? If humans really are just "wet robots" at the mercy of DNA, then this sort of behavior should be perfectly acceptable.
Additionally, if the survival of a species is the ultimate goal of life, then would it not be in the best interest of society to kill off all of the weaker individuals with less desirable genes in order for individuals within that society to gain an evolutionary edge over their competition? Is it really genocide for the more advanced forms of a species to kill off and replace the more primitive forms? Or is it simply natural selection in motion?
My position on rape and murder is that both are morally evil. But unlike the skeptic, my position is built on the foundational presupposition that objective moral good exists and is found not in biology, but in God. God and His Word are the standard by which I judge what is good and what is evil. Since mankind is created in God's image (Genesis 1:27), it is morally evil to violate another person by raping them. Likewise, it is an act of moral evil to murder someone. This is why both rape and murder carried the death penalty in the Old Testament. (Exodus 21:12-14, Leviticus 24:17, Deuteronomy 22:25-27) Furthermore, since humans are spiritual creatures made in God's image, we are born with an innate sense of morality regardless of religious background, culture or ethnicity. (Romans 2:14-15)
Now, I hope it is clear to the reader that I am not claiming that all skeptics are immoral simply because they are skeptical of religion. There are plenty of moral people in the world who deny the existence of God. However I do not believe that the existence of objective morality can be explained in purely naturalistic terms. Individuals may be moral people while maintaining the belief that God does not exist. But they cannot justify their inborn sense of morality without forcing theistic principles into their otherwise naturalistic worldview.
That being said, the burden of proof now lies with the skeptic. If good and evil don't really exist, and morality really is just an evolved social trait that can be reduced down to simple bio-chemistry, then why should anyone view rape and murder as being morally evil?
No comments:
Post a Comment