For those of you who’ve been reading WCSK for a while, you know I write for another website/host another podcast called TruthFinder. TruthFinder is not intended for Christians specifically but is meant for those who have critical questions about the universe and reality. Examples of such critical questions are “How do we know what is true?” and “Why is there something rather than nothing?”
What you’re about to read is the transcript for sixth episode of TruthFinder on morality. Here, we’ll explore what morality is, where it comes from, what makes it meaningful, and what it tells us about God. You can find a link to the TruthFinder website and podcast feed at the end of the post. I would encourage everyone to visit the site and download a free eBook. Enjoy.
TruthFinder, as the title suggests, has as its primary aim to find truth. And what is truth? Truth is defined as how things actually are; truth is that which conforms to reality. To put it simply, that which is true is that which is real. In our information age, we have amassed many different facts from many different fields. And when we assimilate these facts together, what begins to emerge is a coherent truth that makes sense of reality. This coherent truth defines a person’s worldview, which has been described as the pair of glasses a person uses to view the world. Accordingly, what cannot be missed is that a worldview provides not only meaning to reality but also a way of interpreting reality.
And so, in each episode of TruthFinder, we ask a question, then search for meaningful answers. This search reasons from the ground up, weighs the evidence, and analyzes the explanations provided by both a godless and a theistic worldview. Then, reasonable conclusions are drawn.
In episode one, we asked, “How do we know what is really true?” In episode two, “What are the consequences of ideas?” Episode three, “Why is there something rather than nothing?” Episode four, “Why is there life instead of things?”
In the last episode, number five, we asked, “Was Darwin wrong?” There, we took a good hard look at the theory of evolution by natural selection and concluded that it rested on an unsteady foundation; that is, the facts that presumably support it are rare, isolated, and unimpressive. Evolution by natural selection attempts to explain the diversity of life, but it is only concerned with survival—it is silent when it comes to truth and morality. In fact, truth and morality are un-Darwinian ideas.
Science will thus not be the final arbiter of moral truth because impersonal, indifferent forces cannot inform interpersonal morality. We’ll have to look to logic, philosophy, and a healthy dose of common sense.
This is what brings us to this post, in which we will ask, “What’s right about right and wrong?” One of the basic foundations of human behavior is the ability to discern between right and wrong, between good and evil. Without this fundamental distinction, society would degenerate into chaos. So, in this episode, we will answer a few questions: What is morality? What must be true for morality to be meaningful now? What is the origin of morality: is it transcendent, or the product of human culture? And finally, do right and wrong tell us anything about either the existence or non-existence of God?
- What Is Morality?
According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, morality can be used either:
- descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
- normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational people.
According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, morality refers either to “rules of conduct” or “conformity to ideals of right human conduct.”
The problem that I have with these definitions is that they miss out on a crucial concept: oughtness. Yes, morality deals with what is right as opposed to wrong, but it also refers to an obligation for which a person is accountable. In the West, the idea of moral obligation can be traced back to Immanuel Kant, who argued for a “categorical imperative,” or a universal oughtness that is integral to human experience. Right is right because you should do it. Wrong is wrong because you should not do it. The majority merely producing rules denies the fact that consensus can exist in the absence of truth. After all, everyone could agree and put forward a code of conduct that says if you’re late for anything, you should be locked in a cage for a week. Oughtness transcends preference.
Morality is therefore both descriptive (is) as well as prescriptive (ought). A moral obligation communicates a person’s duty to do something that is good in itself (an end, not just a means). It therefore makes perfect sense that we ought to do that which is good in itself.
- What Must Be True for Morality to Be Meaningful Now?
There are two main schools of thought as to where morality comes from: either within (subjective morality) or without (objective morality). In subjective morality, what is right or wrong is contingent upon personal preferences and/or the fancies of society. Subjective morality is therefore relative because right and wrong can change relative to different contexts. The moral relativist, then, could assert that slavery is not wrong all the time but permissible in certain contexts. In contrast, in objective morality, what is right and wrong holds true regardless of opinion because morals exist independent of a person. Here, personal opinion and/or societal norms are irrelevant because some actions and beliefs are inherently good and others bad, regardless of the context. Objective morality informs absolute moral obligations. Moral absolutism is the ethical view that certain actions are absolutely right or wrong regardless of other contexts, such as their consequences or the intentions behind them. Simply put, then, moral absolutes inform that which is a duty for all people, at all times and in all places. For example, moral absolutism would assert that rape is always wrong for everyone, everywhere, all the time.
It must be mentioned that some would assert that every act is amoral, neither moral nor immoral. Yet this is nothing more than sophisticated savagery. In an amoral world, social interaction would be impossible and there would be no peace. And let us not forget that morality is not only a phenomenon being discussed but is also experienced by every human being through conscience. Morality informs conscience, which is our internal barometer that responds to right and wrong. And regardless of custom or culture, conscience cannot be eradicated. This speaks directly against the idea—which the nihilists would argue—that our sense of oughtness is a “glitch” in the human composition that must be ignored because it is meaningless. But if it were meaningless, then why does it carry so much meaning? If it should be ignored, then why is a guilty conscience such a powerful force? The reality is, once you begin to use terms that denote value—such as right, truth, or evil—you are making a judgment of something based on a standard. To say something is meaningless means you are comparing it to something that is meaningful, an objective standard.
So, morality is experienced through conscience. Accordingly, conscience compels us to act, is liberated when we do the right thing, and is burdened with guilt when we do the wrong thing. Guilt is one of those common traits of humankind that every person seems to have and is one thing that many people have not resolved. Guilt results when we don’t do that which we ought, and it only increases if we try to ignore oughtness. Without some objective standard of behavior, the only law would be “do as you wish,” and people would be reduced to soulless blobs to be stepped over by the one who has the most might.
Subjective Morality
In Western thought, one of the earliest individuals to argue that morality is subjective was Protagoras. Protagoras was an ancient Greek who is considered the father of ancient humanism. His famous maxim, “Homo mensura,” meant that “man is the measure of all things.” Consequently, Protagoras argued that ethics are merely a matter of personal opinion. As a result, moral rules merely express customs or conventions, which are never really right or wrong. Homo mensura so neatly captures the spirit of moral relativism because the final arbiter of right and wrong is the individual. Typically, subjective morality is associated with an atheistic worldview in that ethics are developed from the ground up, not the top down.
Subjective morality may superficially appear attractive because it in essence gives people and societies the liberty to do as they please, without the burden of guilty feelings or a seared conscience. But if we are asking, “What must be true for subjective morality to be meaningful now?” what quickly becomes evident is that a person must accept meaningless morality. You see, the way a man knows a stick is short of a foot is if he compares it to a ruler, which is an objective standard of measurement (an absolute). If no such standard exists, then how can anyone discern if the stick is too short, too long, or just right? How can we know a stick is crooked unless we know what straight is? Measurement is impossible without an absolute, and everything is relative to an absolute. Thus, without an objective, absolute moral standard, no one can discern what is right or wrong, good or evil: in fact, right and wrong cease to mean anything. If something is relative, it has to be relative to something. If that something is itself relative, then everything means nothing.
For example, if I were to say, “Nazis are bad,” but a Nazi says, “Nazis are good,” who will arbitrate the dispute? My evil is as valid as his virtue when the source of our respective moralities is within. No one has the right to point the finger at the other because “man is the measure of all things.” All choices reduce to a battle over preferences, and my own individual “rights” take precedence over my neighbor’s.
Practically speaking, subjective morality can be useful to sanction expected behavior among members of the same group who all assent to a particular moral code. That is, of course, as long as the group understands that what they label “right” or “wrong” has no objective basis without an absolute standard. For example, a handful of people on a deserted island may reason to themselves that cannibalism is “right.” Yet what may be practically useful to them still remains evil and immoral.
An intriguing irony is that any moral relativist—who upholds this idea in theory—will still tend to hold to a form of objective morality in practice. And so, to any relativist, I would simply ask, “Do you lock your doors at night?” Or, “What would you do if someone walked up to you and punched you in the face?” What no one would say is, “Well, since it’s all relative, I’d be okay with being punched in the face if that person’s morals say it’s okay.” The point I am trying to make is that to discern what type of morality a person really believes in, simply inquire as to what their expectations are. Because even the staunchest zealot of moral relativism still expects to be treated as a dignified person: that is, as a person who has some objective, absolute value. They will not be happy if you treat them like a soulless blob, steal their things, or harm them. Why? Because they would know all those things are absolutely wrong. This basic fact of human nature is tremendously helpful in affirming objective, absolute morality because it makes it undeniable.
Moral relativism is characterized by the absence of absolute values. But another intriguing irony of this worldview is that in order to deny an absolute, you have to make an absolute denial: that is, in order to deny absolutes, one must imply that there are absolutes in the process of denial. It’s like saying, “Never say never.” How can you deny absolutism and then absolutely deny all moral absolutes?
Finally, in order for relative morality to be meaningful now, there has to be a means of justice (this idea originates from Immanuel Kant in his Critique of Practical Reason). In other words, there has to be a system that rewards good behavior and punishes bad behavior. After all, if crime ultimately pays, then what is the point of virtue? What is therefore necessary is a judge who can execute justice here and now; that judge would himself be just, know all the pertinent facts about a person’s behavior, and have the power to make a ruling. If such a system of justice does not exist, then living a life of either virtue or vice would be meaningful only as it serves the individual. For example, if I live in a village in the middle of the jungle and one day decide to murder everyone else, of what value are right and wrong if there is no judge? Yes, an external observer may label my actions as “bad,” but what does that mean if my bad behavior is without consequence? I will discuss the issue of evil later on, but for now, I will say that a society that asserts subjective morality possesses the greater evil compared to one that upholds objective morality. The reason why is simple: the former society is the most unjust because many people can practice evil and get away with it. If they escape judgment in this life and there is no judge to render a final, ultimate verdict, then bad is as valuable as good. Yet, just demonstrating that relative morality is bunk does not prove true objective morality.
We will now explore what needs to be true for objective morality to be meaningful now.
Objective Morality
As mentioned, objective morality upholds absolute moral obligations. They are eternal (not temporal) obligations that are also universal (not local), so certain things are definitively right or wrong regardless of context. In order for morality to be meaningful now, objective morality would thus argue there must be an objective standard by which moral judgments can be measured; that standard is the final arbiter of right and wrong. Indeed, then, man is not the measure of all things, and moral rules transcend customs or conventions. Moral absolutes are thus necessary because without them, everything is relative. Typically, objective morality is associated with a theistic worldview in that a moral deity gives a moral code to people. This is a top-down approach as opposed to a bottom-up one. The universal standard of objective morality is built upon the reality that goodness is the only basis for moral duties.
In the West, one of the classic arguments for the necessity of objective morality comes from Immanuel Kant, as mentioned. Kant reasoned that in order for ethics to actually be meaningful now, there had to be justice. But justice is often denied, and when it is executed in this world, it is not dispensed perfectly (e.g., corrupt judges, ignorance of all the facts, or improper judgments). And so, according to Kant, since justice does not work itself out perfectly in this world, there must be a future state in which justice will prevail. But for that to happen, there must be a perfect Judge who is morally blameless. This Judge must also be omniscient and omnipotent, cognizant of all the facts or extenuating circumstances, and possessing the ability to ensure that proper justice is dispensed. Kant essentially argued that for objective morality to be meaningful now, perfect justice must exist in the hereafter. Kant made this argument for a moral Judge in Critique of Practical Reason, and thus, Kant argued transcendentally. That is, rather than give us empirical evidence that moral absolutes exist, he has given us what is necessary in order for there to be moral absolutes. Thus, what empirical evidence proves that moral absolutes do exist? We will get to that in the next section.
- What Is the Origin of Morality?
Subjective Origins
We spoke at length in the last episode about how the modern scientific explanation for the diversity of life—evolution by natural selection—is silent when it comes to morality. That theory is not concerned with truth, right, or wrong. It is primarily concerned with survival. We can also deduce that morality does not come from nature because nature is material and descriptive. You can literally hold nature in your hands, and examination can expound what it is, but it cannot tell you what you ought to do. Morality is both immaterial and prescriptive.
One explanation for the origin of morality is the “herd instinct,” which refers to the simple idea that people tend to react to what their peers are doing and follow their lead. Like an animal herd, the group tends to act without centralized direction. Herd instinct suggests that moral impulses are inward nudges that arise from various psychological influences like the desire for conformity and to be viewed as a good person. Yet, the problem with this explanation is that if true morals stemmed from impulse, then the stronger impulse would always win. That is, if we always acted from instinct as opposed to for a higher moral value, then instinct would always be right, but it’s not. If herd instinct led to one set of ethics then but favors a different set of ethics now, how do we know which is actually right? Reality teaches us that the herd can often get it wrong and what was “right” in the past is now “wrong” (and vice versa). What happens when two different herds have different instincts?
It naturally follows that morality is not a social convention because not everything that is learned through society is based on social convention (for example, math and logic). What also argues against the social development of moral obligations is that throughout human history, the same basic moral laws can be found in virtually every society. Furthermore, judgments about social progress would not be possible if society were the basis of the judgments. For example, we would have no right to look back on the public orgies in ancient Rome and cast a moral judgment based on our modern society. The only basis for their moral obligations would be their ancient society.
It must be mentioned here that when a moral relativist argues from social convention, they are confusing facts and values. Facts describe what people are doing. Values prescribe what people ought to do. There will always be a distinction between fact and value, and while what people are doing will always vary, what they ought to do always remains the same. Even more, while values do not change, there can be changing attitudes—in a society at large—regarding whether a given action violates that value. Hence, a person’s factual understanding of a moral situation can be relative, while the moral values involved in the situation are not. Sociology is not morality.
Ultimately, in searching for the origin of morality naturally, explanations come down to either the individual or the group. However, if morality is a human fancy, then it is meaningless; it also cannot be trusted to possess genuine worth because if the source of moral values rests in an imperfect person who lacks full knowledge, the inevitable result is flawed.
Objective Origins
One of the best-known Christian apologists, C. S. Lewis, provided both what was necessary for moral absolutes and empirical evidence that moral absolutes do exist. Accordingly, in Mere Christianity, he explained the most popular modern form of the argument for objective morality. In said argument, he also makes a plausible case for a good, moral God. Lewis’s reasoning can be summarized as follows (from The Big Book of Christian Apologetics):
A. There must be a universal moral law, or else:
- Moral disagreements would make no sense, as we all assume they do.
- All moral criticisms would be meaningless (e.g., “The Nazis were wrong”).
- It would be unnecessary to keep promises or treaties, as we all assume that it is.
- We would not make excuses for breaking the moral law, as we all do.
B. A universal moral law requires a universal Lawgiver, since the source of it:
- Gives moral commands (as lawgivers do).
- Is interested in our behavior (as moral persons are).
C. This universal moral Lawgiver must be absolutely good:
- Otherwise, all moral effort would be futile in the long run, since we could be sacrificing our lives for what is not ultimately right.
- The source of all good must be absolutely good, since the standard of all good must be completely good.
D. Therefore, there must be an absolutely good moral Lawgiver.
In other words, morality directs us back to a moral God who gives us transcendent, universal morality.
- Do Right and Wrong Tell Us Anything about the Existence of God?
Immanuel Kant posited that we simply ought to live moral lives so that civilization could continue. Yet, if people just lived as if something were true, how could they know they were not living a lie? Consequently, in Lewis’s moral argument, he concludes that objective morality is not only real but true and must originate in a good God, or else morality is meaningless. As the author Fyodor Dostoyevsky once wrote, “If there is no God, all things are permissible.”
Furthermore, there is empirical evidence that a universal moral law resides in every person because—as Lewis mentioned—we all make excuses for breaking said law. It is human nature to regard oneself as good and decent; consequently, we tend to blame externals for our transgressions. And as mentioned, human guilt is a universal phenomenon. That guilt results from either commission or omission, and people will resort to many different methods of atonement to assuage guilty feelings. If one were to argue against objective morality, they would have to offer an alternate explanation for these realities of human nature. People live as if a universal moral law exists whether they admit it or not. Of course, they live as if it exists because it does and is a force powerful enough to persuade the will. Just as gravity (a natural universal law) keeps everyone on the ground, objective morality guides people as to what they ought to do.
Lewis also mentioned that objective morality originates in a transcendent, absolutely good moral Lawgiver (God). It logically follows that people are moral. That is, any being that is caused to be will be similar to the being that caused it to be. This Being could not share with us what it didn’t already possess in its nature.
Right and wrong therefore lead us not only to a God but an absolutely good, moral God. We must now consider how the reality of evil fits in with a good God.
Good and the “Problem” of Evil
I will repeat what was said before:
The universal standard of objective morality is built upon the reality that goodness is the only basis for moral duties.
And so what is good? Good can be defined as something positive or desirable in an object. Something good serves its designed purpose and meets a high standard of worth or merit. There is no sense of deficiency in good because the desired qualities are already present. People don’t have a problem with goodness because, well, it’s good. When talking about the existence of a moral God, however, many cannot reconcile present evil with a good God. That is, the main objection to the existence of an absolutely perfect moral Lawgiver sounds something like, “If God is good, then why is there evil?”
However, there is a problem with this question. It assumes the greatest good occurs in the absence of evil. This is an incorrect assumption. It is plausible to say that the greatest good exists not despite evil but rather because of it, by good triumphing over evil. For example, consider wherein lies the greater good: If I treat with love someone who is kind to me, or if I treat with love someone who commits evil against me? Is there a greater good if I do not repay evil for evil but instead repay good for evil? These thought experiments help the discerning person to ease the burden of how a good God and evil can exist at the same time.
Yet, this still does not fully address how the presence of evil can exist in a world governed by a good God. So, before any solution to the problem of evil can be found, we must deal with the question of the nature of evil. So what is evil, and how are we to describe it?
According to R. C. Sproul in his book, Reason to Believe:
Classically, evil is defined in terms of the Latin words negatio and privatio. That is, negation and privation are pivotal to the definition of evil. Negation refers to the negative ways in which evil is defined. When we talk about evil we tend to do it in negative terms. We speak of unrighteousness, ungodliness, unethical, irreligious disobedience and even anti-Christ. Their meaning depends upon a prior understanding of the positive root themselves …. Our language betrays the fact that to think about and conceptualize evil, we must do it against the background of the good. Evil is understood over against the good. Thus evil is dependent, contingent, and derived from our understanding of good. Evil is spoke of as a negation of the good. It is dependent upon good for its definition.
Along the same lines, evil is described in terms of privation. It refers to a lack or a want of the positive good.
It must also be said that yes, evil is the absence of something, but that does not mean evil is nothing, or not real. Although evil is defined by what it lacks, it is nevertheless real and powerful. Still, evil cannot exist in and of itself. It depends on the corruption of that which is good for its existence and power. It is possible to live in a reality with only good, but it is impossible to live in a reality with only evil. For evil to exist, it is first necessary for good to exist: evil is a turning away from good and a resultant lack of something virtuous. (And, as an aside, what therefore becomes readily evident is that because evil exists in the world, then morality is not natural, cognizant that the source of morality must be perfectly good. Once a moral relativist therefore makes a value judgment or admits that good is real, they also tacitly admit that the source of morality cannot be explained naturally.)
Consequently, evil makes sense only if there is a perfect standard of good by which something is known to be evil. Another way of phrasing that is to say that injustice is possible only if there is an absolute standard of justice. As a result, evil does not disprove but in fact proves the existence of a perfect moral Lawgiver. A negation is only possible in the presence of an absolute. Therefore, the reality of evil ironically gives evidence of the existence of God, the objective standard of good. I will again quote C. S. Lewis as he recalls the thoughts he had as an atheist (from Mere Christianity):
Just how did I get this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? … Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too—for the argument depended on saying that the world really was unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist—in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless—I found I was forced to assume that one part of reality—namely my idea of justice—was full of sense.
To summarize what I have argued thus far: in order for morality to be meaningful, there must be an objective, universal standard. If not, then every side of all moral arguments is right. It is thus clear, then, that moral absolutes are unavoidable because without them, “ought” or value statements can never be used. Furthermore, cognizant that moral absolutes are unavoidable, they are also valid insofar as they originate supernaturally in a perfectly good moral Lawgiver. This good moral Lawgiver is the only valid source of morality, as He is the only One who is absolutely good. (For of what value would morality be to us if the lawgiver were corrupted by evil?) Right and wrong therefore point us in God’s direction.
When it comes to virtue and vice, a theistic view of morality explains both its origin and its validity. The theist, therefore, has only one major problem to wrestle with: how to reconcile evil in a world governed by a good God. The atheist, however, has two big problems: how to reconcile where objective good comes from, and then how to reconcile evil without a perfect, objective standard of goodness. Finally, it must be said that in a world ruled by a good God, all evil will ultimately and finally be judged. In a world without a final authority, the world is a circus.
When Absolutes Collide
Besides the reality of evil, there is one other major apparent difficulty when talking about a system of objective morality that contains moral absolutes. That difficulty refers to what happens when there is a conflict of absolutes and a person must decide between two mutually exclusive choices. For some, this difficulty is an objection to absolutism. However, biblical ethics has developed a resolution, the idea of graded absolutism.
Graded absolutism explains that objective criteria exist that establish a hierarchy where some absolutes serve a superior good when compared to others. Although which absolutes are in conflict depends on the situation, the absolutes themselves remain unchanged independent of the context; they should thus be obeyed absolutely when there is no conflict with a higher moral principle. This distinguishes graded absolutism from situational ethics. So no, graded absolutism is not relativism in disguise because the hierarchy of values is itself absolute. Normally, there is no question that we are obligated to do what the moral law requires. Only when there is an unavoidable conflict between absolutes is the hierarchy used to decide what takes precedence. Consequently, graded absolutism begets the idea that some commands are greater than others.
Here is what Norman Geisler writes in When Skeptics Ask:
[Graded absolutism] says that when a conflict arises, the person is only obligated to obey the higher command. The duty is to follow the higher command given by God, which is the greatest good. But what about the lower command? It is temporarily suspended as long as one obeys the higher. Each absolute command in the Bible is absolute, and there are no exceptions as such; but when a conflict occurs, the greater duty is to fulfill the higher law. By doing the greater good, one is exempted from doing the lesser good. The lower is trumped by the higher.
Now, a question arises: how do we know what is the greater good? According to the Bible, graded absolutism upholds the duty to God as the supreme good. Second is the duty to other people, and third is the duty to things.
To illustrate, suppose for a moment that you are standing just outside city limits at the exact spot where a railroad track splits. Only you have access to a switch that can divert the train either left or right. If the train goes left, it will crash into infrastructure that causes billions in damages, loss of power, and the destruction of the main road through town, but no one will die. If the train goes right, it will kill four people living in a single-family home and cause a few hundred thousand dollars in damages. Failure to act will mean out-of-control railway cars will go down both tracks. What do you do? In the absence of any conflicts, it is absolutely good to act to preserve life and property. But biblical ethics say that a person’s duty to other people is greater than a person’s duty to things. So, the greater good is to flip the switch so that the train goes left and doesn’t cause any loss of life.
Another example: let’s say you lived in Nazi Germany and you are hiding Jews in your attic when a police officer bangs on your door and asks, “Are you hiding any Jews?” You know full well that if you tell the officers the truth, ten people will die. In general, in and of itself, telling the truth and obeying civil authorities are good things. But your respective primary and secondary duties to love God and your neighbor (the people made in His image) persuade you to value the sanctity of life over and above telling the truth to authority figures who will commit evil. And so in this case, by doing the greater good (“There are no Jews here”), one is exempted from doing the lesser good (telling the truth). It is evident that in this case, the Nazi officers do not deserve the truth.
An Absolutely Good Moral Lawgiver Revealed
Like Immanuel Kant and C. S. Lewis, if we reason from the ground up, we see that morality must be objective for it to have any value. What is also necessary is the existence of an absolutely good moral Lawgiver who validates said morality. The question now becomes, from the top down, is there any theistic system of belief that speaks of a God who is a perfectly good moral Lawgiver? The answer is yes, the God of the Bible (cf. Exodus 20:1–17; Psalms 34:8, 100:5, 107:1, 119:68; Nahum 1:7; Mark 10:17–22; Luke 18:19). The Old and New Testaments also reveal a robust ethical code as in all the “Thou shalts” and “Thou shalt nots.” Even more, the God of the Bible (Yahweh) is described by one unique characteristic that both distinguishes Him from other so-called deities and transcends goodness: that attribute is holiness (cf. Leviticus 11:45; Isaiah 6:3; I Peter 1:15–16). Properly defined, holiness means that Yahweh is separate or other; God is thus “one of a kind” in a category without competition or comparison. Consequently, to say that God is holy is to say that He is superior to good; He is eternally separate and distinct from all impurity. There is neither any evil in God’s nature, nor it is possible for God to commit evil, for He is perfectly good (cf. Matthew 5:48; I Corinthians 6:9; I John 2:15–17; Revelation 21:8). The holiness of God therefore demonstrates the perfect goodness of God.
In many ways, the holiness of God serves as an apologetic for Him because divine holiness is traumatic to creatures who are not holy. Throughout the Bible, when people come face to face with God, the inevitable result is dread. Of course, holiness exposes our unholiness and the resultant guilt, shame, and fear. Figuratively speaking, the typical human response is to try and cover up their nakedness with fig leaves, which is as comical as it is inadequate. This, of course, begs the question: if the God of the Bible was “made up,” then what reason would people have to “create” an attribute as soul-crushing as holiness? People fabricate false gods who are like them. Holiness irrevocably separates the divine from the created.
Objective morality that is universal and unchanging is thus ultimately based on the absolute nature of an unchanging, holy God. What God thus reveals as being right will always be right. Hence, morality cannot change insofar as God cannot change. The Bible also describes Yahweh as an all-knowing, all-powerful Judge who will bring every work (both good and evil) into judgment. Morality therefore means something because what a person chooses to do right now counts forever. Yes, a person may escape the eyes of men or the law, but they cannot escape God. When God is sovereign, the world is not a circus, and right and wrong mean something.
A Good God Reveals Himself in The Bible, Which Also Explains Human Nature
It is one thing to assert that God is perfectly good. It is another to embrace the reality that experientially, every human being possesses a basic sense of right and wrong. As was stated before, morality informs conscience, which is our internal barometer that responds to right and wrong. Consequently, our conscience is our in-house judge that can either condemn or excuse us if we do wrong or right, respectively. The Bible goes on to explain that God—because He is good—has gifted us with a conscience that responds to the universal moral code He has revealed (Romans 1:19). The biblical explanation of conscience thus makes sense both of liberty in virtue and of the universal phenomenon of human guilt.
People are not bothered by good. They are troubled by the mere existence of evil. Why? Because God has placed a spy in the hearts of all people (a conscience) that comprehends that good is right and evil is wrong. We are comfortable with good because that is the way we were created; that is the way things are supposed to be. Evil is abnormal, and it is particularly deviant in a world governed by a holy God. Accordingly, when people challenge God with the reality of evil, they make an assumption: that God is good. Why do they do this? Because their transcendent, universal sense of good comes from God Himself.
Does the Bible then offer an explanation for evil? Yes, to an extent. The Scriptures do not explain how evil originally came to be. The Scriptures do explain at least one reason why evil persists in the world: because of sin. And what is sin? Sin is any lack of conformity to the moral law of God. Sin is “missing the mark” and deviates from goodness in being, acts, or thoughts. In other words, human evil exists because of sin. In Ethics and the Christian, R. C. Sproul writes:
In the least [sin] I set myself above the authority of God, doing insult to His majesty, His holiness, and His sovereign right to govern me. Sin is a revolutionary act in which the sinner seeks to depose God from His throne. Sin is a presumption of supreme arrogance in that the creature vaunts his own wisdom above that of the Creator, challenges divine omnipotence with human impotence, and seeks to usurp the rightful authority of the cosmic Lord.
According to the Bible, evil exists in the world not because of a lack of knowledge. People sincerely know what they ought to do. But what do they do? Because of sin, they suppress the truth (Romans 1:18) and fight against conscience to silence its warnings and stuff it deep down to muffle it. With perpetual truth suppression, a person’s conscience becomes seared, and they subsequently become numb to greater and greater evil, of both commission and omission. As a result, the things that used to cause a visceral reaction now have a minimal effect. Evil is not an external, impersonal force that people stumble into. Evil is internal and personal; it exists in the world because moral agents actively choose to perform it.
You see, the Bible never makes the mistake of proclaiming that people are born “okay” and then become “bad people” as a function of externalities. Rather, the Bible explains that we sin because we are sinners; evil thus comes out of us because of who we are. Sin warps our minds, our desires, and our actions: we thus long to sin even though our conscience nudges us not to. This helps to explain why human beings have been committing the same sins over and over again since the beginning of time. We haven’t “evolved” or been “cultured” out of sinning because of who we are. Indeed, people may make relative comparisons to each other and tell themselves, “I’m not so bad … just look at that guy.” Yes, everyone may seem good compared to Hitler, but that would be a relative assessment. Everyone is a saint if their baseline standard of measurement is the late German Führer. However, compared to an objective standard of divine holiness, everyone falls short. No one is good except God alone. The Bible even explains where relative morality comes from: sin carries with it a hatred of absolute moral values. The result is—despite knowing the truth—to approve of others who practice sin (Romans 1:32). Consequently, having refused to acknowledge God’s goodness, the moral relativist rejects what they ought to do and just does what they want to do. People, then, don’t promote relative morality for the sake of relative morality. What they are really doing is rebelling against God and seeking an external justification for their own sin.
The Greatest Evil of All Time & the Greater Hope
At this point, some may think that the Bible paints a bleak picture of humanity and that there is no hope, only despair. Well, the Bible does paint an honest and accurate picture of humanity, as it offers no resolution for an inherently sinful person who wishes to reform themselves. Evil is a moral deficiency; someone thus cannot gain something positive and become a “good person” when they start with corrupt raw material. After all, how can a leopard change its spots or an Ethiopian change his or her skin?
You see, it is one thing to squabble over what morality is, what it means, and where it comes from. But, at the end of the day, we live in a world in which good and evil are real. This begs the question: what is the ultimate end of right and wrong? According to the Bible, all those who do not have their sins forgiven pay the penalty for their own sins in hell forever. All those who do have their sins forgiven will dwell in Paradise with God forever.
So, how does a person have their sins forgiven? It is based on nothing they do, because—according to biblical logic—it is impossible for a sinful creature to satisfy the holiness of God. But forgiveness is possible if justice is satisfied.
What has perplexed minds for centuries is, “If God is good, then how can He forgive you?” You see, a good God cannot deny His justice, which demands that the penalty for sin is death. If sin were left unpunished, that would make God evil. That is, if God simply said, “Never mind,” to sin, that would make Him unjust in the same way as if an earthly judge passed over the crimes of a murderer. In order for a judge to do what is right, they have to punish the guilty. Thus, in His figurative courtroom, what God does is punish the guilty by substitution—through His Son on the Cross—so that His justice is satisfied. Jesus voluntarily sacrifices Himself and thus offers an atonement of infinite value. Now, once all guilt is atoned for, God is free to demonstrate a supreme good—unmerited favor or grace—toward the undeserving. Accordingly, the problem of evil can only be properly reconciled if your forgiveness is just.
The great despair is that by God’s perfect standard, no human being ever stands a chance. That is why they need a Mediator who can stand between God’s holiness and man’s sinfulness. That is why the God-in-the-flesh (Jesus) lived a perfect life and then paid the penalty for your sin on the Cross. The greater hope is that what Jesus accomplished is now appropriated by faith. Faith is the means that holds on to Christ and says, “I have done so much that is wrong, and I know that my tarnished record makes me not right with God. And so, I trust in what a good God has done and not in myself.” Only God (Jesus) can turn away the wrath of God, and only God can satisfy God’s holiness.
In a biblical worldview, then, all evil will finally be dealt with and judged. And it is through the death of Christ on the Cross that—biblically speaking—we can begin to make sense of evil in the world. The greatest evil that was ever committed was the Crucifixion of Jesus. God in the flesh was sinless and innocent, but He was murdered nonetheless. God sent His Son to save humankind, but it was those same people who said, “We don’t want you … crucify Him.” Yet, despite that evil, God, out of love, still acted for humankind’s long-term spiritual benefit. So, what happened three days later after the Crucifixion? The Resurrection of Jesus Christ, which declared Him to be the Son of God with power. There is no Resurrection without a Crucifixion, and for Christians, the Resurrection is the basis of our faith.
The point is that the greatest evil in history was the route by which the greatest triumph over evil happened. Thus, for the Christian, our great hope lies in the One who triumphed over evil, sin, and death. We now may live in the gap between evil committed and final judgment, which is why evil seems hard to reconcile. But what the Crucifixion and Resurrection teach us is that, in the end, good triumphs over evil, and good is the greatest because it conquers its antithesis. The great hope of the Bible and for those who have faith in Christ is that when history ends, a new heaven and a new earth will exist in which sin and evil will be no more. In eternal Paradise, all people will know only good, and reality will return to the way it was predestined to be: free of evil and all its consequences (e.g., pain, suffering, and heartache). The Christian’s hope never rests in themselves but in an alien, divine goodness. In Psalm 25:8, the text says:
The Lord is good and upright; therefore He instructs sinners in the way.
A good God instructs not because we are good but because He is; not because we please Him but because mercy does. Because God is good, He instructs sinners in the way. If He did not, He would just be fair. Biblically speaking then, goodness is related to instructing those who are evil and on the crooked path toward righteousness and the straight and narrow path.
The Bible therefore provides us with not only a revelation of objective morality but also a valid source; it also explains to us how evil will ultimately be dealt with. This, then, becomes the ultimate litmus test when talking about right and wrong: will it count forever? In the absence of eternity, do as you wish and prepare to accept the consequences because once this life ends, none of it will matter. With the presence of eternity, fear the Lord. Why? Because right will always be right and wrong will always be wrong because the One who defines right and wrong for us will reign forever.
Dr. C. H. E. Sadaphal