Argument From Morality

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2734053/the_moral_argument_for_god_c_s_lewis.html?cat=9

The article is making an argument for the existence of God based on the Argument From Morality. The article is lengthy but here are the main points of the article.

“The "Moral Argument" for C. S. Lewis is as follows:
1. If God does not exist, objective moral values & duties do not exist.
2.) Objective moral values & duties do exist.
3.) Therefore, God exists.”

Keep that argument in mind. Before I go any further with this argument I want to focus on another point that the author makes in the article, it should give you an idea of the type of mind we are dealing with.

“If you ask evolutionists about the origins of life, they simply don't know what to say except that maybe life emerged on planet earth as a result of extraterrestrials, or life-ingredients came to earth from space. But this just pushes the question back to, "Then where did that life come from"? You have to keep going back to the origination of life, sometime.”

Evolutionists say they don’t know what to say because evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. I’ll repeat that, since it seems to be unable to get through the skulls of nitwits like this author, evolution has nothing to do with the origins of life. Evolutionists are being honest when they say they don’t know. Any answer they give to the origin of life is based simply on assumptions. Also the author misses out on the irony of asking “then where did that life come from?” Well sir, where did God come from?

Now back to the argument from morality. If we assume that all humans get their morality from one single creator, then would we not all have the same views on morality throughout our various cultures?

“It is not true, however, that all humans have a moral conscience — some are diagnosed without it and are labeled sociopaths or psychopaths. If we ignore them as an aberration, though, we still have vast differences in morality between different societies. C.S. Lewis claimed that different cultures had “only slightly different moralities,” but anthropologists and sociologists can only regard such a claim with derision. As a student of Greek and Roman history, Lewis himself surely knew that his claim was false.” (http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/argumentmorals.htm).

Why would an all powerful and moral God create a different set of guidelines for different people and cultures? Does it believe that some cultures are more deserving of morality than others? What about the sociopaths and psychopaths? You’d have to argue that God got it wrong when it came to these people but, that’s not good for an all knowing and all powerful God. Perhaps it’s the result of a flaw in our evolutionary nature.

“It can be argued, for example, that our moral conscience was evolutionarily selected for, especially in light of animal behavior which is suggestive of a rudimentary “moral conscience.” Chimpanzees exhibit what appears to be fear and shame when they do something that violates the rules of their group. Should we conclude that chimpanzees fear God? Or is it more likely that such feelings are natural in social animals?” (http://atheism.about.com/od/cslewisnarnia/a/argumentmorals.htm)

The Bible speaks of mans need to dominate animals. The authors likely felt that animals didn’t have a sense of morality and that we humans, through supposedly God given rights, had to pass on our own moralities. Here we see evidence though, that animals have a sense of morality, and as suggested previously, it’s unlikely those animals are contemplating the existence of God. It doesn’t make sense that animals would be worrying about pleasing God if there’s no place for them in the afterlife.

Morality is not absolute it does not exist in the same way through cultures or individuals. If the argument is that God exists because there is morality in all of us, then God does not exist, because morality does not exist within all of us.