Articles

Morality: Who Needs God? – Faulty Origins of Morality

Secular moral philosophy is the idea that morals come from your environment. In other words, they suggest that we receive our moral understanding from the society that surrounds us. This, coupled with the idea of the conscience encoded into all of us in our DNA, brings us morality. This ideology does not propose an objective standard. Therefore, every culture would have a unique moral standard. This is true simply because in every culture man and humanism would be held up as the standard objective for morality.

It is not in man to set moral standards because of the varying nature of individuals. Rather, it is God that sets the standard for His creation. The Creator is the one who is the author of morality for what He has created, not any man, men, village, culture, or environment. Paul says in (1 Cor 15:33), “Do not be deceived: “Bad company ruins good morals” (ESV). With this statement Paul shows us that there is indeed a moral standard.

Solomon says that there is a way of understanding. “Forsake foolishness and live, and go in the way of understanding” (Pro 9:6). Solomon is boldly proclaiming that God is the way of understanding. This means that Solomon understands and teaches us that God is the great Creator from which all wisdom comes from. With God’s wisdom comes all the information that is needed for life and godliness. “As His divine power has given to us all things that pertain to life and godliness, through the knowledge of Him who called us by glory and virtue,” (2 Pet 1:3).

You see, it is God that calls us to virtue and godliness, not by chance or an idea, but through knowledge. Thus Solomon would come to the conclusion “Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God and keep His commandments, for this is man’s all” (Eccl 12:13). Within God’s commandments sits the root of man’s understanding of right and wrong, and man’s guide for morality.

Another problem with the secular moral philosophy idea is that it is based on human emotion. A key component to this theory is that humans are bliss-driven. Your moral compass is effected by your society, and your society then reacts to what is positive and what is negative. In other words, what causes bliss and happiness is good and accepted as part of the moral standard.

To the contrary, things that cause sadness, anger, and depression etc. are considered bad or not up to the moral standard. One of the problems with this idea is that what makes one person happy might not make another person happy. Some people achieve happiness when they commit murder and rape while others do not. According to secular morality, if the amount of people who become happy when they murder and rape outnumber the ones who don’t, then murder and rape become the standard of morality. When man is lifted up as the standard of morality, then man will fall because of his standards.

To be continued next week…


Morality: Who Needs God? – Authors Of Their Own Holy Text

The New Atheist group and movement have certain men at the core. These men are the authors of the books that inspire this irrational movement. Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins have become the authors of disobedience. They lead people down the blind path of unsurety, and in the process their writings have become holy text for their followers.

Jesus said “Can the blind lead the blind? Will they not both fall into the ditch?” (Lk. 6:39b). They all claim to be free thinkers, yet when someone challenges their logic they refuse to think. Rather, they revert back to their original defense that they are more evolved and more intelligent than you are. So with this mentality that their intelligence is the standard for all to reason with, this is their claim: that we humans don’t need God or a holy text to tell us, and/or teach us, what morality is. Yet they write their own text which tells people what to think.

How hypocritical can any author of a book that promotes atheism be? Can you see that they say “don’t go to the Bible, it’s not truth”, but they want you to go to their book to see goodness? The New Atheist movement rejects the God of the Bible, and has declared war upon God. Richard Dawkins rejects the idea that morality comes from God, and claims that you should discount the book of Leviticus and others because all “enlightened moderns” have done so.

So to his point, if you do not reject the God of the Bible and/or His inspired books, you’re unintelligent and less evolved. To claim that morality does not come from God, you have to have more than assumptions. Dawkins said “If you want to believe in god, don’t look to arguments from biologists and scientists. You won’t find answers to god in science”.

If these men want to argue that morality does not come from God, then their field of study should be theology and not science or biology. If answers to God and/or morality cannot be found in their respective fields of study, then why listen to them? They have no authority on this matter, nor are they an authority on the matter.

Dawkins has also said “We are the 21st century moralists and atheists. We don’t need to get morals from our religions. We are getting morals from secular moral philosophy, secular jurisprudence, and dinner table conversation”. By religions, he means any persons who follow a holy text such as Christians, Jews, etc. Dawkins claims that 21st century moralists and atheists get their morals from secular moral philosophy. What is secular moral philosophy, and is it capable of giving man morals?


Morality: Who Needs God? – All Men Have Free Will

Before we discuss the idea of the New Atheist in that men don’t need God for morality, let us point out the underlying problem with this movement. The majority of Atheists want you to believe that we evolved from the big bang after which life was created from non-life. They say that life in the world was set in motion to make itself better and more advanced with every passing year. This is how they come up with the conclusion that we are just robots or machines that are doing what our DNA is telling us to do, even against our own will, because survival is the number one priority for any gene.

Here’s the problem with that. If, indeed, men’s DNA was set in motion to better itself in the survival of the fittest, then your DNA would never have you waste time on non-physical things such as assumptions, theories, and fantasies. Your DNA would only let you focus on the empirical things of this world, and not something that is non-existent. Therefore, the very idea of a human that has evolved wasting his or her time on debating the existence of God or the origin of morality shows that those of this ideology have free will to contradict their DNA.

You see, if their philosophical scientific assumption was right in stating that evolution is more than a theory, then by the very basis of their belief, their DNA would have prohibited them from arguing their point. Instead, they would just let the lesser evolved people fall behind, as they themselves would be set on the improvement and advancement of their own DNA. On this point alone it is clear to see that the Atheist and Antitheist who fight against the God of heaven have contradicted themselves. For they indeed have free will as the Bible proclaims: “A man’s heart plans his way, But the Lord directs his steps” (Prov 16:9). “If anyone wills to do His will” (Jn 7:17a).

The point to be made here is this: no one should take this New Atheist movement seriously because it is founded on assumptions, theories, changing terms, self-righteousness, and false truths. When a man’s truths are built from assumptions, they contradict the law of rationality. When a man’s theories contradict themselves, they have proven themselves as fallacies. The people who live by this ideology have no standard but their own, thus they have no objective standard. This would make them unable to determine morality because, by their standards, there is no standard; there would only be the moral compass of the individual.

This being the case, it is every man for himself and to every man whatever feels right. To live and think like this would bring chaos to any society. Consider this: if man is the only standard for right and wrong, then anything goes because all men are equal and one man’s ethic is just as good as another. In order to have a standard of right and wrong, there must be something higher than man to establish that standard. God is that higher authority. The fact is that the proponents of this movement have free will, and with it they attack the God who has given it to them.

To be continued next week.


Morality: Who Needs God? – Man Cannot Direct His Own Steps?

Richard Dawkins said, “the very idea that we get a moral compass from religion is horrible. Not only should we not get our moral compass from religion, as a matter of fact we don’t”. Consider the thought process of Richard Dawkins. He says himself that “the very idea that we get a moral compass from religion is horrible”. We can see clearly that he, as well as many others with this mindset, are truly closed minded to teachings and guidance that does not come from self and/or does not live up to his own standards.

Look also at the claim that it is fact that we do not obtain our moral compass from religion. Friends, the fact is that he cannot prove this claim as fact. Look to what the Word of God says concerning man’s standards: “O Lord, I know the way of man is not in himself; It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps” (Jer 10:23). The Psalmist says “The steps of a good man are ordered by the Lord, And He delights in his way” (Ps 37:23). You see, it is the God of the Bible that gives humanity morality, for man cannot direct his own paths. “A man’s steps are of the Lord; How then can a man understand his own way?” (Prov 20:24).

Atheism and Antitheism is foolish and absent, void of any substance. Allow me to explain. Modern evolutionists such as Dawkins say that we have selfish genes that are set in motion to do what they must do. To quote him: “We are survival machines—robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes. This is a truth which still fills me with astonishment.” To him and many others, we are just a product of evolution and we are just dancing to our DNA.

We must understand that this type of reasoning works against itself because it lacks substance and truth. Even the author of these quotes works against himself by showing us that his perception of the truth is only a theory. He says himself, “evolution is a theory in a special philosophical sense of science, but in terms of ordinary laymen’s use of language, it’s a fact,”. Notice how he redefines terms to suit his own desires and his own cause. For instance, science has to change for his theory to work. He states that evolution is a “special philosophical sense of science”. This is like me telling you that red is really black in a special philosophical way. What is science? Science is “knowledge about or study of the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation”. Science is verifiable facts, thus because they are verifiable they become truths. Notice that the very definition of science excludes the idea of theories.

We are not robots or machines. We are human beings who were and are created by God and are known by Him. For the Lord our God has spoken, “Before I formed you in the womb I knew you; before you were born I sanctified you; I ordained you a prophet to the nations” (Jer 1:5). The inspired Psalmist said it like this: “For You formed my inward parts; You covered me in my mother’s womb. I will praise You, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Marvelous are Your works, and that my soul knows very well” (Ps 139:13). Yes, only “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God” (Ps 14:1a).

What is “philosophy of science”? Philosophy of Science is “the study of the assumptions, foundations, and implications of science, including such questions as what distinguishes science from non-science, what are the aims of science, or what is a successful scientific explanation of a phenomenon”. So you can see that philosophy of science is based on assumptions and not truths. Friends, when Richard Dawkins and those of his belief say “it’s a fact” or “this is a truth which still fills me with astonishment”, understand that their facts, truth, and astonishments come from assumptions that have been conceived by the minds of men and not of God.

To be continued next week.


Morality: Who Needs God? – Atheist or Antitheist?

The Word of God is so powerful and so convicting with its truths that one would think no man could resist its compass. Sadly, however, there are those who don’t believe in “The God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, the God of our fathers” (Acts 3:13a). These are the men and women who claim from their own knowledge and/or their own findings that there is no God.

The New Atheists say that man does not need God for morality, and some push this agenda as if they are trying to make disciples. The first thing that must be pointed out about the people with this mindset is this: they are not Atheist. They are Antitheist. They are Anti God of the Bible.

You see, real Atheists will say they don’t believe in any gods— plural. People who truly practice Atheism don’t care if we believe in the God of the Bible or Buddha; they are happy in their ignorance and do not want it disrupted. Therefore they stay out of arguments concerning God or gods.

Make no mistake about it: the pioneers of Antitheism are out to steal souls away from the God of the Bible, and it is Him that they attack. Let’s bring to attention a very basic fallacy of their ideology. Why would the Antitheist spend so much energy to convince you that you have believed a fantasy? To be true to their atheism, it would be a horrible waste of time on their part. If it is truly fantasy to them, then why bother to argue for something that they perceive does not exist?

I think it was said best in this statement: “Who is more irrational? A man who believes in a God he doesn’t see, or a man who’s offended by a God he doesn’t believe in?” The fact is that man does indeed need God to show us the standard of morality. Otherwise we would be wondering to the lust of our own desires no matter what the outcome or who we hurt.

To be continued next week.





Recent Sermons