I remember reading an article about a police officer who died in the line of duty while trying to rescue a small child from drowning. Unfortunately, tragedies such as these are not uncommon in law enforcement and firefighting.
We must ask ourselves: Why would these brave men and women risk their lives for total strangers? If evolutionary naturalism is true, these people should be doing the very opposite of sacrificing themselves. They should be looking for ways to preserve their own lives at all costs.
I wrote a two-part article on the moral argument (Part 1) and (Part 2) demonstrating that if God does not exist, then it is highly unlikely, and probably impossible, that objective (true independent of what we think or feel) moral values and duties exist.
But for the sake of argument, let’s suppose God does not exist,[1] but objective moral values and duties do exist. Even if that were true, morality would seem to be, in a sense, irrelevant and in many circumstances not worth pursuing because there would be no moral accountability.
Moral Accountability
What do I mean by moral accountability? If God doesn’t exist, then after you die, that is it. Your “self” no longer exists, and your body will decompose. Nothing more, nothing less. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter what you did or how you lived your life on this planet.
You could have been twice as bad as Adolf Hitler and caused 100 million deaths of the most sadistic kinds; but after you’re dead, you are off the hook. You are not going to be held accountable and punished for your behavior, thus, there is no accountability for what you did.
Respected philosopher and theologian William Lane Craig says, “In the absence of moral accountability, our choices become trivialized because they make no ultimate contribution to either the betterment of the universe or to the moral good in general because everyone ends up the same.”[2]
Now, we may not feel this way, but our feelings on this issue do not make it objectively true. Maybe we believe and feel that we are accountable for what we do, but that doesn’t mean that we really are accountable.
Evolutionary naturalists, who believe that nature is all that exists (nothing supernatural or spiritual), will say that our herd instinct is what drives us to act in sacrificial ways. This animalistic instinct has been conditioned through tribal pressure as we evolved over the years. We became self-sacrificial in order to perpetuate our species and not die out. We see animals doing this all the time. They will lay down their lives for the sake of their herd, colony, pack and so on.
Self-Sacrificial Acts Meaningless?
Was it our herd instinct that moved the police officer to sacrifice herself to save the drowning child? Was she merely reacting upon evolutionary conditioning and animalistic impulses to help perpetuate her species? It could certainly be argued that way. On naturalism, in the absence of God, it’s just one animal saving another, which happens all the time in the wild. There’s nothing special about it.
Let’s consider some more options for why she might have done this. Was it because her parents read her bedtime stories of superheroes when she was a kid, training her to believe that risking her life for others is worth doing? Maybe in combination with other societal pressures we’ve learned since our elementary school days which taught us to always “help others.”
Or maybe it was the oath she signed to serve and protect her community. Was that oath enough to inspire her to run directly into harm’s way and die for a stranger? Some would believe so–but that begs the question.
And what about those who are not public servants who have sacrificed their lives for complete strangers? Some of these people live in hostile environments and cultures with values antithetical to the ones that this fallen police officer had growing up.
There are atheistic communist societies and radical extremist-filled countries that indoctrinate children from the earliest age possible that they are nothing more than a highly evolved primate or that they were created for killing anyone who doesn’t convert to their religion. Nevertheless, many who have escaped this distorted and diabolical atmosphere will tell you that they eventually saw through their brainwashing dogma and knew deep inside that what they were doing was very wrong.
It appears there is something much more profound going on here. Unlike animals, we have the ability to contemplate decisions like this before reacting upon mere instincts. What about all of the animals that have survived through self-preservation instincts by running away from danger to save themselves? They aren’t cowards for doing so.
This happens regularly in the animal kingdom. One could argue, that although an oath was made, if the police officer ran away from the scene, she was merely reacting to her brain and animalistic impulses under the dangerous conditions for self-preservation purposes.
C. S. Lewis highlights the distinction between our herd and self-preservation instincts by giving an illustration similar to that of the police officer. He says to imagine hearing a cry for help from someone in danger. You will probably feel two desires–one to help (herd instinct) and the other to run away (self-preservation). Lewis notes,
“But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them.”[3]
Lewis is referencing the Moral Law.
So, we can confidently say that someone sacrificing themselves for another is done because of something deeper than mere instincts, and will have significance beyond the grave. If theism is true, then dying for that child wasn’t a pointless act like it would be on naturalism. Naturalism cannot provide us a good reason to think otherwise. Philosophers J. P. Moreland and Craig add,
“Good sense dictates that we should resist, if we can, the sociobiological pressures to such self-destructive activity and choose instead to act in our best self-interest….Thus the absence of moral accountability from the philosophy of naturalism makes an ethic of compassion and self-sacrifice a hollow abstraction.”[4]
In other words, if naturalism is true, then the police officer was foolish to end her life because that was the only one she had.
Selfishness Can’t Be Criticized on Naturalism
In the end, what does it matter? We all die and there is no ultimate purpose or meaning to our universe, so why should I sacrifice my self-interests for that of another? Especially someone I don’t even know. It doesn’t make very good sense. On naturalism, there is no personal incentive to act in ways that are going to bring us harm or negatively impact our self-interests.
Likewise, there is also no incentive to refrain from acting in ways that are not morally right. If I can cheat on an entrance exam in order to get into the college I want, then so be it. If I steal something that is going to help me, or I decide not to report all of my earnings on my taxes, so what? This is what is best for me and my family.
Some may boast and pride themselves in saying they don’t need to believe in God to live in a morally accountable way. Well, good for them! But I don’t care about them; I care about me. And a lot of others feel the same way as I do (I’m being facetious).
This is what I have evolved to believe and know that it is true and best for my self-interests, and therefore I will obtain those desires at my leisure without consideration for others. So, the arrogant naturalists who want to brag about their ethical conduct shouldn’t criticize those that act in strict accordance with their animal instincts that are less virtuous.
Our survival and well-being are of utmost importance and this is what has been engrained within me through the blind evolutionary process that gradually formed by cerebral matter (which is also causally determined by the laws of physics, so I have no choice in the matter anyway!).
Moral Accountability Argument Pointing to God’s Existence
Notable philosopher C. Stephen Layman provides a great moral argument by emphasizing moral accountability which points to God’s existence. He begins by explaining that moral reasons are overriding, which is the consensus among theistic and non-theistic moral theorists; and for his argument he refers to it as The Overriding Reasons Thesis (ORT) which states, “The overriding (strongest) reasons always favor doing what is morally required.”[5]
For example, if you could tell a small lie that wouldn’t cause harm in order to avoid discipline of some kind, then according to ORT, your moral reason to tell the truth overrides your self-interested desire to escape punishment. Layman states,
“ORT does not say that immoral behavior never occurs; it merely says that when people do something that is genuinely morally wrong, they always have a weightier or stronger reason to refrain.”[6]
He reminds his readers that ORT is a presupposition shared universally among serious moral thinkers and is deeply intuitive, noting, “If ORT is false, then the rational authority of morality is undermined.”[7]
In other words, because morality is thought to have an inescapable authority behind it which is universally experienced, we know that we have the strongest reasons to do what is morally right in certain circumstances.
Layman’s argument focuses on moral obligations/duties and not supererogatory acts. Supererogatory acts go above and beyond duty, such as the self-sacrificial acts that I mentioned earlier.
The forcefulness of ORT and its inescapability emerges in our responses to hypothetical ethical theories. For example, suppose there was a moral theory called Giving Ethics, and because giving is important, this theory says that you are required to give 25% of every paycheck (in addition to your standard state and government taxes), and volunteer 10 hours per week to a local non-profit organization.
Because it’s intuitively obvious that the strongest reasons do not favor me complying with all of those demands, these supposed moral requirements are not reinforced by the strongest reasons; therefore, Giving Ethics denies ORT and we should reject that moral theory.
In order to demonstrate how ORT argues for God’s existence, Layman introduces the The Conditional Thesis (CT) which states, “If there is no God and no life after death, then the ORT is not true.”[8]
Layman imagines the following illustration of an impoverished woman (Ms. Poore) to support the truth of CT. Ms. Poore lived several years in heavy poverty; she’s not starving or homeless, but only has the bare necessities to survive. She then has an opportunity to steal a large sum of money from a wealthy individual who wouldn’t be harmed in losing it, and as a result, Ms. Poore will live a radically different life–happy, healthy, educated, new vocational opportunities, and will never return to poverty again.[9]
Layman explains that “Ms. Poore has very strong reasons to steal, but not sufficient moral justification” (he doesn’t believe it is wrong to steal or lie in every possible scenario).[10] However, if we assume that God doesn’t exist and there’s no life after death, then it’s highly likely that Ms. Poore has overriding reasons to steal!
Because if there is no God or life after death, then her prudential value (well-being or human flourishing) concerning her current poverty condition are much more significant than the immoral behavior. “Thus, CT appears to be true. But so does ORT. And together they support the conclusion that either God exists or there is life after death (or both).”[11]
On naturalism, it seems Ms. Poore does not have overriding reasons for doing what is morally required, which is not to steal. Why should she do what is morally required (ORT)??? Why not just steal the money and live a much better life? No real harm is being done!
So, if God doesn’t exist, then it seems that ORT is false in this scenario. But hold on, recall that the wide consensus among theists and non-theists affirm that ORT is true. Anyone who denies ORT is affirming that it is not true that the strongest reasons always favor performing our moral duty, which means moral authority is being diminished; something which seems to be undiminishable.
Craig agrees with Layman that on atheism ORT is false, because one may have strong prudential reasons to not act morally, “and there seems to be no common scale in which to weigh moral against prudential considerations.”[12]
Objections to Layman’s Argument
Some object to the argument, claiming that you can’t establish CT (if there is no God and no life after death, then the ORT is not true) because even if God doesn’t exist, humans still have reasons to be moral. We want to avoid guilt and not ruin our virtuous character; so, even on atheism, Ms. Poore has strong reasons to refrain from stealing to avoid guilt and diminished character.
Layman says these aren’t strong enough considerations because many people don’t experience guilt associated with their actions and many don’t care about leading a virtuous life, and those who do, still fail morally on a regular basis.
Moreover, some wouldn’t mind being less virtuous for that kind of benefit (large sum of stolen money) if there is no God and no afterlife. Layman thinks if morally virtuous people are our guides, they would say Ms. Poore isn’t morally permitted to steal. He states,
“Ms. Poore is morally required not to steal. But the problem is that she has overriding reasons (of a nonmoral or prudential nature) to steal. In a nutshell, the problem is that the rational authority of morality is undermined if there is no God and no life after death.”[13]
So, it appears that on naturalism, we sometimes have overriding reasons to do something morally wrong; however, we know this is intuitively false and weakens the authority of morality, so theism (God exists) is much more likely to be true.
Theism allows us to hold to ORT (the overriding or strongest reasons always favor doing what is morally required) and CT (if there is no God and no life after death, then ORT is not true).
God Makes A Big Difference
On theism, you will be held morally accountable for how you live your life in the here and now. This gives us moral motivation to perform our moral duties and makes self-sacrificial acts meaningful. Theism entails that humans possess intrinsic value, have objective moral duties/obligations, and our universe and world have ultimate meaning and purpose.
This is why some atheist philosophers grant moral nihilism, claiming that in the absence of God there is no ultimate meaning or purpose; rather, we must pretend or deceive ourselves into thinking that there is in order to create social cohesion. Either way, even when considering prudential value (human flourishing), if God doesn’t exist, then there is no moral accountability.
Renowned philosopher Robert Adams also believes that atheism cannot provide moral accountability and explains that a person’s moral motivation can become deteriorated on such a view.[14]
So, if the universe is nothing but a cosmic accident with no ultimate purpose, and after we die, we are not met with rewards or punishments, then an atheist who holds this view will be more likely to ignore his overriding moral duties and make poor moral decisions in certain circumstances. Adams references such a person and notes,
“Having to regard it as very likely that the history of the universe will not be good on the whole, no matter what one does, seems apt to induce a cynical sense of futility about the moral life, undermining one’s moral resolve and one’s interest in moral considerations.”[15]
Personally, after I became a follower of Jesus Christ, I know that I am more motivated to do the right thing. Billions of others across the globe can also attest to feeling the same way. Everyone who believes in some kind of deity or after life will be more motivated to live morally.
Some people may say that is a poor reason to make the right decision, but I can’t think of a better way to live morally than to be guided by either eternal moral principles or divine commands, grounded in and prescribed by an all-wise, all-good and all-powerful being.
It is obvious that people are more likely to perform their moral duties when believing they will be held morally accountable for that performance after they die. And if God exists, then what you do truly matters, and sacrificing oneself for another is not pointless.
Blessings,
Andrew Drinkard
[1] It’s impossible for God not to exist since he is a necessary truth and a metaphysically necessary being who is the source and grounding for all of reality. It’s impossible for God not to exist. There has never been a time where he hasn’t existed, nor will there be when a time when he ceases to exist. If God didn’t exist, then our universe wouldn’t exist. However, to put forth this argument, I must say it is at least possible that he does not.
[2] William Lane Craig, The Kurtz/Craig Debate: Is Goodness without God Good Enough?, in Robert K. Garcia, and Nathan L. King, Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009), 38.
[3] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, (New York: HarperCollins Publishers, 1952), 10.
[4] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations For A Christian Worldview, (Downers Grove, IL: Intervarsity Press, 2003), 494.
[5] C. Stephen Layman, A Moral Argument for the Existence of God, in Robert K. Garcia, and Nathan L. King, Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009), 52.
[6] Layman, A Moral Argument for the Existence of God, 52.
[7] Layman, A Moral Argument for the Existence of God, 54.
[8] Layman, A Moral Argument for the Existence of God, 54.
[9] Layman, A Moral Argument for the Existence of God, 55.
[10] Layman, A Moral Argument for the Existence of God, 55.
[11] Layman, A Moral Argument for the Existence of God, 55.
[12] William Lane Craig, The Most Gruesome of Guests, in Robert K. Garcia, and Nathan L. King, Is Goodness without God Good Enough?: A Debate on Faith, Secularism, and Ethics (Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, 2009), 183.
[13] Layman, A Moral Argument for the Existence of God, 62.
[14] Robert Merrihew Adams, The Virtue of Faith: and Other Essays in Philosophical Theology (Cary: Oxford University Press, 1987), 150-154.
[15] Adams, The Virtue of Faith, 152.