Skip to main content

Richard Dawkin's Moral Relativism, can it work?


Frank Turek, the well known co-author of the book “I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist” says, “If there is no objective morality then love is no better than murder.” At first glance this statement appears to be quite extravagant to say the least. Any rational person knows that there is a stark contrast between love and murder, so isn’t it absurd to say that there is a world where these two things could be equal?

Surprisingly enough the world of moral relativism lays the groundwork for this kind of absurdity to exist in real-time. The fact that we all know innately that love and murder are opposite concepts on the moral spectrum is reason to believe that moral relativism is a bankrupt idealogy. In the world of relative morality we find that the definition of right and wrong is decided by popular opinion and human desire. This means, one society could consider murder as a grevious crime while at the same time a different society could consider murder as a utilitarian good, and neither could say the other is acting immorally.

The need for a transcendent and objective moral code is made obvious by the morally bankrupt nature of relativism. Unless absolute morality exists, morality itself is an illusion. Most people would see it as a self-evident truth that morality is much more than an illusion but rather something grasped innately by all rational people. To argue that morality is an illusion, is to argue against the fabric of human conscience itself. Moral relativism IS the argument that morality as an objective truth is nothing more than an illusion. Is this the kind of world we are meant to live in?

Even worse, if molecule to man evolution is true, our conception of morality is nothing more than a chemically constructed belief. Richard Dawkins said:

“The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

I must say that I appreciate the frankness of Dawkins in this statement as many atheists try very hard to avoid the logical conclusion of moral relativism. Dawkins faces this absurdity right in the face and admits it. One must ask, “Is this the kind of world we want to live in?” A world in which love and murder could be considered equally moral? A world in which there is no higher morality available to humankind so that we may live in a way that is truly honorable? Thankfully the world of relative morals is the imaginary one.

The world of relative morals is the the world brought into existence by secularists who are bent on ridding society of God. Is it the only alternative to the reality that murder is objectively wrong and love is objectively good as confirmed by a Transcendent Creator who has the proper qualifications to define good and evil absolutely. Many Atheists are terrified at the reality that the only way to truly justify morals is if they come from and All-Knowing, All-Loving, Omnipresent, All-Powerful, Eternal Being. Namely the God of the Bible.

If the source of morality is not omnipresent or eternal then He would not be capable of true omniscience as there may be a time in the past or a place that He doesn’t know about. If the source of morality is not Omniscient, then there may be a better version of morality that He hasn’t learned of. If the source of morality is not All-Loving, then morality is destined to produce standards which fall short of real love. And finally, if the source of morality is not All-Powerful then perfect morality would be useless and unable to be implemented in such a way that the greatest good would ultimately result.

Moral relativism can only be considered objectively good if moral relativism is false. This renders it a logically incoherent worldview worthy of rejection from all reasonable people. Unless objective morality is embraced by humankind once again, we are destined to cannibalize ourselves with opinionated morals that have no foundation in a transcendent truth.

Written by: Kyle Bailey, D.Min.

View the video version of this article here:

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Israel, Gaza, and the Church- How should we respond?

Daniel 12:1- "At that time shall arise Michael, the great prince who has charge of your people. And there shall be a time of trouble, such as never has been since there was a nation till that time. But at that time your people shall be delivered, everyone whose name shall be found written in the book." The only Nation in the Bible that has an Archangel from Heaven appointed for its protection is the Nation of Israel. This reality reminds us of the extent to which God has gone in order to ensure that His covenant promises to the Jewish people are fulfilled, and also that the conflicts we are seeing in the earthly realm originate in the spiritual realm. God’s unwavering commitment to preserve the Jewish people is not based upon their “deeds of righteousness” but rather upon His covenant promises given to their forefathers Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Therefore, we must understand that there is a war in the spiritual realm against the covenant promises of God that is manifesting in

The Storm on Your Phone: learning to fix our eyes on Jesus in the age of social media.

Matthew‬ ‭14:25‭-‬31‬ ‭NIV‬- “[25] Shortly before dawn Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake. [26] When the disciples saw him walking on the lake, they were terrified. “It’s a ghost,” they said, and cried out in fear. [27] But Jesus immediately said to them: “Take courage! It is I. Don’t be afraid.” [28] “Lord, if it’s you,” Peter replied, “tell me to come to you on the water.” [29] “Come,” he said. Then Peter got down out of the boat, walked on the water and came toward Jesus. [30] But when he saw the wind, he was afraid and, beginning to sink, cried out, “Lord, save me!” [31] Immediately Jesus reached out his hand and caught him. “You of little faith,” he said, “why did you doubt?” During one of the most climactic moments of Jesus' ministry, the Apostle Peter demonstrated a dazzling expression of faith and power. Moments after stepping on to the water, his courageous efforts fizzled in defeat. He found himself in a dangerous duel with the depths of the sea. What was it tha

A Review of: "Calvinism, Arminianism & The Word of God: A Calvary Chapel Perspective" By: Chuck Smith

Recently a Pastor friend of mine shared with me an article written by the founder of the Calvary Chapel Denomination Chuck Smith. It was written with the intention of addressing the Calvinism vs. Arminianism issue for all of the Calvary Chapel Churches. To see the article CLICK HERE . First of all I like the format of the paper in which he clearly set out to address both views and then clarify the Calvary Chapel stance. A couple of things that I noticed I want to point out below: Overall he did a fair job conveying the Arminian view, however I am not sure why he seemed to be confused on a couple of things he said. Over the year Arminius’ beliefs have been misrepresented and demonized by Calvinists so I can see why he made a few false assumptions regarding their beliefs. 1. He stated, “Arminius believed that the fall of man was not total, maintaining that there was enough good left in man for him to will to accept Jesus Christ unto salvation.” This is actually a descript