What You Believe Doesn't Matter If It Isn't True?

Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot's running-mate in 1992, offered his famous introduction at the Vice Presidential debate saying, “Who am I? Why am I here?” Now, this probably wasn’t the best setting to bring up those questions. But, perhaps unknowingly to him, they’re the core of the most crucial questions one could ever ask. In breaking these two questions down, there are four that everyone must address in life. Those of: origin, meaning, morality, and hope. What's right and wrong? Why am I here? What brings me meaning and purpose? What will happen to me when I pass? When you find the answer to those four questions, you have discovered truth.

Before we go any further and talk about how we know there is truth, let's take a minute discuss its definition. To do so, we must use a term that philosophers use called the Correspondence Theory of Truth. This term may sound fancy, but once you process it you’ll see that it's actually common sense. The term simply states that, "A statement or belief is true if it matches up, or corresponds, with reality." So, truth is when you describe the world as it actually is. You may be thinking, “I came to this blog post to hear about this? This is obvious!” As an introduction to the rest of this post, it is absolutely crucial to understand truth. In today’s culture it is our first duty to state the obvious, and people are denying that there is such a thing as truth in the world. Unless we rebuild the foundations of truth, they will be "tossed here and there by waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by the trickery of men" (Ephesians 4:14). Here is an illustration of this term:

If I make the claim that there’s a burgundy 1968 Chevy Camaro in my driveway, this statement is either true or false. If you come over and see this exact car parked here, then my statement was true. If you see a green Camaro, or if there’s not one here at all, then my statement was false. This is how truth works. We make a statement, or hold a belief, and then we see if the world is the way we have described it.

Think for a moment that you are in a crowd of one-hundred people. You all are told to close your eyes and point in the direction you believe is north. Then, while keeping your finger pointed, you all are told to open your eyes. You'll see people pointing in every possible direction! Now, if you're going on a journey and you don't know where north is, you're going to have to face the consequences of not going the right way. But what could you have that would help you know for certain which way is north? A compass! Truth is like a compass that shows us how life really is, steering us clear of the consequences we would ultimately have to face if we did not follow its path.

In fact, there are actually two different kinds of truth that we must learn to better understand and follow. A subjective truth (sometimes referred to as relative truth) is a statement or held belief that is based on personal opinion and can easily change. This term is called "subjective" because it relies on the opinion of the "subject" (person) that makes a statement true or false for him or her. In contrast, an objective truth (sometimes referred to as absolute truth) is a fact that is true for all persons, at all times, and in all places. In short, you can choose subjective truths but cannot choose objective truths. You create subjective truth; you discover objective truth. To get a better grasp on these two kinds of truth, let's take a minute and examine some analogies.

First. This is an analogy that I learned from (McDowell). Imagine you’re a teacher with a classroom of, say, fifty students. One day you bring in a big jar of Starburst candy. You ask your students to personally write down on paper the number of candy pieces they believe are in the jar. You pass the jar around, letting each take one piece of their favorite flavor out, and set it back down at your desk. You then ask, "Before I tell you all how many pieces of candy were in there, can we all agree that there was an actual right answer?" The students all say “yes, of course,” and agree that whoever wrote down that exact number was right and whoever wrote down a different number was not right. With that concept agreed upon by the class, you then ask, "What is the best flavor of Starburst candy?" The students are obviously puzzled by your question and reply back that, ‘”There’s not a “best flavor.” The flavor we each took from the jar was just our personal preference."’ The activity demonstrated two different kinds of truth. First, there was an objective truth about the actual right number of Starburst candy pieces in the jar. Secondly, the flavor each student preferred was a subjective truth.

Second. For an elementary show-and-tell this young girl brought in a puppy for the class to enjoy. The classmates began to wonder about the gender of the puppy, but none of them knew how to ascertain it. The young girl raised her hand, “I know how we can tell,” she explained. “We can vote.” With that story in mind, and back tracking just for a moment, instead of you asking the class if there was a best flavor of candy, what if instead you asked the class to cast a vote? If a show of hands gave cherry the most votes for the preferred flavor of the class, would that make it the “best”? What if cherry received the majority vote? Finally, what if cherry got every single vote? Would a show of hands make cherry the best? No of course not. In the same way, no matter what the subjective votes say about the gender of the young girls’ puppy, that doesn’t change the objective fact about its actual gender.

Third. There’s a true story that will hit my point home. I am color-blind (well, technically color deficient). I don’t see colors like the majority of people. And so, for instance, what seems green for me may be brown for you and what seems blue for me may be grey for you. It doesn’t matter what I think a color is, because there is an objective truth that matches reality and that does not rely on my opinion. One time I bought a pink shirt. I was told, “I never thought you would wear a pink shirt!” In a slightly taken aback tone of voice, I replied, “I wouldn’t.” It may have been subjectively true for me that my shirt was red, but the shirt was pink. And it being pink did (yes, did, because I threw it away) not rely on, say, a majority vote, because in reality, away from anyone’s opinion, it objectively (and regrettably) really was pink. Now, let’s practice on some short illustrations below to see if the difference between these two kinds of truth has sunk in. It is absolutely crucial that we completely understand these concepts.

In your mind I want to you to answer the following statements, and then we will discuss them below one by one. Keep in mind, though, that I am not asking if the statements are true or false, instead I am only interested in your answer of it they are subjective or objective truths:

Coke tastes better than Pepsi. Subjective truth. This statement could be true for you and false for someone else; there’s not a “best flavor” of soda.

Diet Coke has fewer calories than regular Coke. Objective truth. Even if that statement wasn’t true, it’s still a statement about reality that we can discover the objective answer about.

George Washington was the first president of the United States of America. Objective truth. History can factually tell us whether he was or wasn’t.

Hawaii is the most beautiful vacation destination. Subjective truth. You might prefer Alaska. Someone else might prefer Montana. And that’s fine, because just like there’s not a "best flavor" of candy or soda, there’s not a “best vacation destination”, even if there was a vote.

I can bench press 235 pounds. Objective truth. Is this a preference statement? No. Do you know for certain whether or not I can actually lift 235 pounds? No. Your not knowing if I can or not doesn't change the concept of the statement; it's still an objective statement. It's like me asking if L.A. or NYC has more people. I don't know the answer, but my not knowing the answer doesn't change that there is an actual objective truth.

Now, how about this one: Abortion is wrong. Now, track with me on this statement. This is not a historical statement, and this is not a scientific statement (even though science can and will continue to help us form arguments); this is a statement about morality. It's secondary right now in me debating on whether or not abortion is wrong. Right now I am just concerned with the question of if this is a subjective preference statement or an objective statement. You may hear someone say, specifically speaking about abortion while we're on the topic, "If you don't like abortion then just don't have one." Following that faulty logic, you could then state back to this person, "Well, if you don't like slavery then don't own a slave." Now, why would you say that about slavery? They are acting towards abortion that morality is subjective, like a candy flavor preference, but when it comes to slavery they are a big believer in slavery being objectively wrong. This person doesn't say they're against slavery because they simply don't like it. They are against slavery because they know that it is objectively wrong to degrade, abuse, and potentially take the life of another human being. What's different between slavery and abortion? Nothing!

I’m guessing that those of you reading this post were split pretty evenly on your answers of if the statement “abortion is wrong” was a subjective statement or an objective statement. I say that because, in the minds of so many people, when the topic changes to that of religion or morality, their perception of truth changes to believe that all moral claims are internally subjective. This view is called “moral relativism.” And whether you believe in God or not, to follow this view about morality is to follow the view of atheism.

According to a 2002 study from the Barna Group, 60% of people ages 36 and older, 75% of those between the ages of 18 to 35, and 93% of teens alone embrace what is termed “moral relativism,” the belief that all morality is subjective. Thus, it appears that this belief is gaining ground. And fast. Just think about how these numbers would look now in 2013! These statistics are alarming. But when I read them, I don't really believe it. When I talk to someone, and they say that objective morality doesn't exist, I know that they might think that they believe that, but I know that they actually do not. You want to know how you can know what someone else believes about morality? It’s not by what they say. It’s not by what they do. It’s by how they want to be treated. Everyone wants to be treated as if morality is objective. Or as apologist Frank Turek puts it, we know what people believe not by their actions but by their reactions. I am persuaded that, although some individuals give lip service to moral relativism, in fact, nobody can live that way. Very often you can find out what a person really believes, as opposed to what they say, by how they react when people treated them in a certain way.

Professor J.P Moreland, in his book Love Your God with All Your Mind, tells a story about sharing the Gospel with a student one afternoon at the University of Vermont. The student began to espouse moral relativism by stating, “Whatever is true for you is true for you, and whatever is true for me is true for me. If something works for you because you believe it, that’s great. But no one should force his or her views on other people since everything is relative.” J.P. thanked the student for taking the time to listen to his words, and began to leave the room. But on the way out J.P. picked up the student’s stereo and began to walk out with it. “Hey, what are you doing?!” the student shouted down the hallway. “What’s wrong with you?” replied J.P. “Are you having problems with your eyes? I am leaving your room with your stereo.” “You can’t do that” the student called out. “I happen to think that it is permissible to steal stereos” J.P. replied.” Now I would never try to force you to accept my moral beliefs in this regard because, as you said, everything is relative and we shouldn’t force our ideas on others. But surely you aren’t going to force on me your belief that it is wrong to steal your stereo, are you?” The student quickly realized the inconsistency in his own thinking. He realized that if morality was relative, he had no basis to stop anyone from stealing his stereo. This story illustrates an undeniable truth: Moral relativism is unlivable. The student was willing to be a moral relativist when it was convenient for him, but he quickly believed morality was objective as soon as someone tried to steal his stereo.

Philosopher William Lane Craig has discussed a story about a friend who was a philosophy professor at a university. A student gave to the professor a paper in which they argued in favor of moral relativism. After reading the paper, the professor put an "F" on the first page and handed it back to the student. The student angrily said, "How can you give me this grade? This was a good piece of research!" The professor said, even though I agree that it was a good piece of work, it was handed to me in a blue folder, and I don't like blue folders. Then, the student said "That's not fair! You can't do that!" The professor replied "It's not what? Isn't this the paper that argued that there are no such things as moral fairness and rightness and wrongness?” The student got the point the professor was getting at. The professor changed the grade to an "A" and handed it back to the student.

As C.S. Lewis says in Mere Christianity, '"Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real right and wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair."' A moral relativist maintains that everyone should be able to believe and do whatever they want. Of course, this view is emotionally satisfying, until that person comes home to find their house has been robbed, or someone seeks to hurt him, or someone cuts in front of him in line. No moral relativist will come home to find their house robbed and say, "Oh, how wonderful that the burglar was able to fulfill their view of reality by robbing my house. Who am I to impose my view of right and wrong on this burglar?" Quite the contrary, the moral relativist will feel violated just like anyone else.

The moral relativist claims that there is no such thing as objective morality, yet, ironically, at the same time they believe all humans should have universal rights (gays being able to marry, women earning the same pay as men, no one being enslaved, etc.). Richard Dawkins, arguably the most famous atheist today, has condemned as morally wrong the abuse and harassment of homosexuals, religious indoctrination of children, Incan practice of human sacrifice, and has even given his own revised version of the 10 commandments for guiding moral behavior, yet believes there is no such thing as objective moral truth! See the contradiction? Those are all morally objective statements. If morality is not objective and instead is just the product of personal subjective choice, how can there be any universal human rights at all? This is precisely why to the person who says "If you don't like abortion then just don't have one" you can reply "If you don't like slavery then don't own a slave."

People constantly have to go back on their word that they don’t believe in objective morality, and therefore are contradicting themselves. You might be surprised how often people are prone to saying something that is contradictory, but there are number of common statements that you and I hear or use every day that fall into this category. For example:

“Don’t bother me, I am asleep”

“I’m not going to respond to that”

“I can’t talk to you right now.”

“Never say never.”

“Be quiet!”

To refute claims of objectivity, some can be so easily defeated that all one has to do is apply their claims to themselves. For example, if someone comes up to you can says, "I can't speak a word in English." What would you say? "Didn't you just say that in English?" Their statement of not being able to speak a word in English was self-refuting, meaning that their entire argument collapsed on itself.

A college professor of mine once said, "Words have no meaning." Well, didn’t you just use words to say that words have no meaning? There are philosophers who actually spend countless hours toiling over thick volumes of books written on the "meaninglessness" of everything. We can assume, though, they think the text is meaningful! Then there are those who teach their students, "No one's opinion is superior to anyone else's. Anyone's viewpoint is just as valid as anyone else's viewpoint. We all have our own truth; our own answers." Then they turn around and grade papers! You know on Winnie the Pooh when someone would knock on Piglets door and he would say that no one was home? You can only say "no one is home" if someone is home. See the obvious contradictions in their faulty logic? These statements are what we call “self-defeating” (or self-refuting). A self-defeating statement is one that cannot live up to its own criteria. Imagine if I were to say, “I cannot speak a word in English.” You intuitively see a problem here. I told you in English that I cannot speak a word in English. This self-refuting statement self-destructs. The important thing to remember with self-defeating statements is that they are necessarily false. In other words, there is no possible way for them to be true. This is because they violate a very fundamental law of logic; the “law of non-contradiction.” This law states that two opposing claims can both be false at the same time, but they cannot both be true at the same time. For example, it is not possible for God to exist and not exist at the same time and in the same sense. So if I were to say, "God told me He doesn't exist" you would see the obvious self-refuting nature of this statement. With that said, let’s discuss the most common objections to objective moral truth you will hear today; many of which can be dismissed simply by understanding their contradictory nature.

“There is no such thing as truth.” The first problem with this objection is that it is self-refuting. If someone states that “there is no such thing as truth” there is a very obvious question you should ask them back: “Is that true?” By stating that there is no truth, you’ve claimed that your statement is true. Secondly, as we have stated and will continue to state throughout this whole post, of course there is truth!

This is precisely why to the person who says "If you don't like abortion then just don't have one" you can reply "If you don't like slavery then don't own a slave." If there is no such thing as moral truth, then you couldn’t say owing a slave was morally wrong.

“Truth changes over time.”  If truth is forever changing then is your statement true? In college, I had a professor who tried to convince me of this objection by saying: “People used to believe that the earth was flat, but now they believe that it is round. See, truth changes.” What this professor failed to understand is the distinction between belief and truth. While people may once have believed that the earth was flat, common sense truthfully tells us that the earth has always been round. It doesn’t matter if every person on earth right now believes that it is flat because, while beliefs may vary, objective truth is constant. We do not make truth; we discover it. By the way, after that short back and forth, I’ve never witnessed a professor, or anyone for that matter, change the subject so quickly!

This is precisely why to the person who says "If you don't like abortion then just don't have one" you can reply "If you don't like slavery then don't own a slave." If truth changes over time then slavery could become a subjective preference tomorrow, and then you can simply decide to have one or not!

“Truth depends on the culture.” Most people in America subscribe to a view of morality called “cultural relativism.” In other words, they believe that whatever is acceptable in a given culture is moral; if the majority of people in a culture say a thing is right then it’s right. That’s why many Americans will say that abortion is OK, because it’s the “hip view” – and Congress and the Supreme Court – have accepted it. If the majority thinks it’s OK, it must be OK, right? Well, there’s a gigantic problem with that mindset. If cultural relativism is true, then how can we say, for instance, that the murdering of over six million Jews in the Holocaust was wrong? In fact, the Nazis offered that very argument as their defense at the Nuremburg Trials in the German city of Bavaria. Dr. John Warwick Montgomery states: "The most telling defense by the accused was that they had simply made decisions within the framework of their (cultures) own legal system. And that they, therefore, could not rightly be condemned because they had deviated from the alien value system of their conquerors (the United States and allied forces)." In other words, they argued: “How can you come from another culture and condemn what we did, when our culture said it was acceptable?” Chief Council of the U.S. at the time, Robert Jackson, presented the counter argument. He stated that, in condemning them by the standard of a “law above the law,” the world said that there is something beyond and above culture that determines right and wrong; that a universal, objective, and constant moral law really exist.

There was an instance where (another) college professor of mine tried to convince me of moral relativism; this time in the form of an argument for cultural relativism. I stated the professor, ‘"Let’s say you were in a court room trying to have a man convicted for killing a member of your family. And after all of the evidence was presented, the judge replied, "Thank you all for taking the time and showing up for court, but all of this evidence means nothing to me. In some cultures murder can be seen as an acceptable practice, and perhaps the culture in which he was brought up in would say this act of murder was OK. Therefore, I cannot convict this man of any wrongdoing."’ The professor said that I was correct and that he could not be angered at that ruling by the judge. I then pressed him further with this analogy: "So a man could come to America, murder someone, and it would be justified due to his cultural upbringing?” The professor replied “Yes”.  Now, ladies and gentlemen, that is scary; that is cultural relativism. If you don't think something like this is evil, then as philosopher William Lane Craig once said, "You don't need an argument, you need therapy." You might say, “Well that’s just plain crazy. No one believes like that. That’s exactly my point. Do you see what extreme someone has to go to trying to convince someone that cultural relativism is actually livable?! I used this true story because it illustrates well how moral relativism plays out in its true form. And so to those who think they believe in this, clearly you do not.

This is precisely why to the person who says "If you don't like abortion then just don't have one" you can reply "If you don't like slavery then don't own a slave." With the mindset of moral relativism, since cultures have found and still do find what they claim to be justified reasons for slavery, you cannot condemn anyone for owning a slave.

"That may be true for you but not for me." By saying this you’re claiming that truth is subjective to the individual, yet at the same time are implying that it is objectively true for everybody that something can be true for you but not for someone else. Therefore, this is a contradictory statement.

If someone thinks this objection is a legitimate claim, then tell them to go try it out with a bank teller. Tell them to ask for an unreal amount of money to be drawn out of their account. And when the bank teller says that they do not have that amount of money in their account, for them to simply reply, "Well that may be true for you but not for me.” That bank teller is going to let them know real quickly whether their “truth” matches reality or not. You don’t want an airplane pilot who says ‘"My instruments say we're at 10,000 feet. But I’m a relativist, so I’ll just go by what is “true” for me.”’ We have no power to create truth any more than we can decide the gender of a puppy by voting on it. The late senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once said, "You're entitled to your opinions. But you are not entitled to your own facts." Well said. What you believe doesn’t matter if it isn’t true.

If someone says that may be true for you but not for me, think of this statement. They are saying that you can be sincere about something and make it right. But, it's obvious that you can be sincerely wrong. The Nazis were sincere in what they did in World War II. Even those who crucified Jesus Christ were behaving sincerely.

In regard to moral choices, their very rightness or wrongness does not depend at all on our individual choice. Moral choices are like taking a test. There is a right answer and a wrong answer to each question. You may get it right, or you may get it wrong, but your mere choosing does not make your answer right; the correct answer exists independently of your choosing it. This is why the question of, say, abortion is not one of preference, like choosing a flavor of candy. Rather, it is an objective question about reality.

Just imagine what type of world we would live in if morality was subjective rather than objective. How could we condemn a rapist or a murderer if those actions were the result of what the person believed to be “true” for them? If morality was subjective, there would be no real difference between a father who nurtures and cares for his children and a father who molests his children; each father made a personal choice, and that choice was “true” for them. Atheist Richard Dawkins believes that a religious upbringing is worse than child abuse. Once asked about the Catholic priest sex-abuse scandal, Dawkins actually said that the damage from rape among these children “was arguably less than the long-term psychological damage inflicted by bringing the child up Catholic in the first place.” Did you catch that?! The most famous atheist today says that it is worse to teach children about Christianity than it is to rape them! If this belief is “true” for him, and we’re to simply be tolerant of that, don’t you see the horrific consequences?

Some years ago serial killer Ted Bundy, who confessed to over thirty murders, was interviewed about his gruesome activities:

“’All value judgments are subjective, and that none can be proved to be either “right” or “wrong.” And I quickly discovered that the greatest obstacle to my freedom, the greatest block and limitation to it, consists in the insupportable “value judgment” that I was bound to respect the rights of others. I asked myself, who were these “others”? Why is it more wrong to kill a human animal than any other animal, a pig or a sheep or a steer? Is your life more to you than a hog’s life to a hog? Why should I be willing to sacrifice my pleasure more for the one than for the other? Surely, you would not, in this age of scientific enlightenment, declare some pleasures as “moral” or “good” and others as “immoral” or “bad”? There is absolutely no comparison between the pleasure I might take in eating ham and the pleasure I anticipate in raping and murdering you. That is the honest conclusion to which my education has led me—after the most conscientious examination of my spontaneous and uninhibited self.”’

While I am in no way accusing moral relativists in general of being Ted Bundy-like ((or Richard Dawkins-like)), I do have a question to pose to you. The moral relativist says that morality is an individual matter; you decide for yourself what is morally right and wrong. But on this view, what could one say to Bundy or Dawkins? Not much, other than “I don’t like what you believe.”

This is precisely why to the person who says "If you don't like abortion then just don't have one" you can reply "If you don't like slavery then don't own a slave." With the mindset of moral relativism, it’s simply “true” for you to say abortion and slavery are acceptable.

"You ought not judge." Isn't that a judgment? Why are you judging me for judging? Can anyone say “contradiction”? You will almost always hear this last objection. This is the biggie. This objection says that we have no right to make moral judgments because all views are equal. If Hugh Hefner's hedonistic motto, "If it feels good, do it," characterized the 1960s, the rallying cry of moral relativism characterizes today's culture: "If it works for you, it's fine." As we saw in the growing statistic of people who embrace moral relativism, our culture is becoming more and more of one that prides itself on accepting “many truths.” We are being taught that relativism is necessary for promoting tolerance of all beliefs, non-judgmentalism, and inclusiveness, for if a person is convinced his or her moral position is right, then that person is closed-minded and intolerant. But in reality, by its own standard, relativism is itself a closed-minded and intolerant position. Ironically, those who preach tolerance are often the most intolerant.  After all, the relativist asserts without compromise that there is no moral truth, and therefore is stating that their moral position is right! Because moral relativism has become so ingrained in the media and the educational system, most of you don’t realize just how much this false worldview has infiltrated your thinking. Professor Allen Bloom, author of The Closing of the American Mind, put it this way: “There is one thing a professor can be absolutely certain of: almost every student entering the university . . . says (they believe) that truth is relative. The students, of course, cannot defend their opinion. It is something with which they have been indoctrinated.”

Arguably the most popular verse used in our culture today is no longer John 3:16. It’s Matthew 7:1. You will often hear with a snarky tone of voice, “Don’t you know what Jesus said? You can’t judge me!” If you simply take the time to read the context, Jesus says in Matthew 7:5, "You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." What He was rebuking was hypocritical judgment where we judge others with a standard we refuse to apply to ourselves. This is precisely why Jesus said, “Do not judge according to outward appearance, but judge with righteous judgment.” So, we have no right to consider ourselves better than others. Such an attitude would be inconsistent with the biblical command to love one another. In God’s eyes we all fall short. If we were all perfect there wouldn’t have been a reason for Christ to die for us. So, moral judgments should always be made with genuine love.

Those who hold the objection that we cannot make moral judgments fails to fully grasp the scope of their denial, and they give up more ground than they ever imagined. This objection is really every other objection we’ve discussed wrapped into one. Let's assume the moral relativist is correct in stating there is no such thing as truth, and therefore we cannot judge one another. What happens to a society that really embraces that and carries it to its logical conclusion? You'd find yourself unable to condemn the crimes of Hitler, Stalin, Chairman Mao, Pol Pot, Al-Qaeda, etc. We could no longer say that torturing, or committing rape or murder for fun is either right or wrong. We could no longer distinguish between good and evil at all; it would simply be our subjective opinion against others.

This is precisely why to the person who says "If you don't like abortion then just don't have one" you can reply "If you don't like slavery then don't own a slave." If we cannot judge one another, then this is a whatever-goes world; no action is either good or evil!

To reiterate what I said during the objection having to do with culture, I know at the moment you are thinking: “Well that’s just plain crazy. No one believes like that.” In ending my discussion on the objections to objective moral truth, that’s exactly my point. These are the extreme views on life that you have to hold if you are to be a moral relativist. Again, whether you believe in God or not, to follow the moral relativistic view about morality is to follow the view of atheism. And so, to those of you who think that you believe in this worldview, isn’t it reasonable to say that clearly you do not?

Chad Meister, Ph.D., professor of philosophy at Bethel College states that, though the vast majority of people (think that they) believe in moral relativism, the majority of leading nonbelievers who have greatly looked into this issue are opposed to moral relativism, given its obvious and horrific ramifications. This is why arguably the most famous atheist of the 20^th century, Jean-Paul Sartre admitted, literally on his death bed, that his worldview was unlivable. His mistress standing along his bedside said he had lost his mind. Perhaps for the first time, though, he really found it. Atheist Bertrand Russell stated, “I cannot live as though ethical values are simply a matter of my personal taste, and therefore, I have found my own views actually quite incredible.” Believers and leading nonbelievers alike agree that morality is objective. But, as French philosopher Jacques Maritain once said, “(It’s) with the why the dispute begins.” By arguing for knowledge of morality without providing a justification for morality, atheists often confuse moral epistemology (that something is right or wrong) with moral ontology (why something is right or wrong). For instance, atheists can theorize that murder is wrong, but can provide no standard that establishes why murder is wrong. Without any understanding of why it occurs, you could wholeheartedly know that flipping a light switch causes the light to come on. But if someone asked you to provide a justification for why the lights come on when a switch is flipped, and your reply was simply “They just do”, that is no answer at all. And the same applies to morality. In order to have a consistent and reasonable objective moral stance, you need to have an objective moral foundation. But what grounds the nonbelievers’ moral positions? What makes their moral views more than mere hunches, inklings, or subjective opinions?

Atheists sometimes take the topic of morality the wrong way, and believers often times present it in the wrong way. Let me state this plainly. I’m not saying that atheists cannot be moral people. And I’m not saying that atheists don't know what morality is. I am saying, though, that because they believe there is no standard beyond themselves, atheists cannot justify morality in their worldview on life. Those who believe in this worldview are falling for the same lie that Satan told Eve in the Garden of Eden: "Hey, Eve, why don't you just rely on your thinking and not go by what God says is right or wrong." Moral relativism ends up telling you that you are God. With atheism, morality could never be objective; it would always be man-made, varying from culture to culture, person to person, and therefore subject to be subjective.

Atheism clearly fails as an explanation for objective moral truth. Given its failure, it seems reasonable to ask, "Is there a more solid base for morality?" Let's consider the remaining two most popular explanations. First is the Instinct Theory of Morality (which is just another term for evolution). According to this theory, we have a moral sense of right and wrong because nature wrote it on our genes.

Before we can obey nature, though, we ought to ask which nature we should obey. We all have conflicting urges. Sometimes we want to help people, yet sometimes we feel the urge to hurt people. If nature gave us both desires, then isn't it strange to applaud one yet discount the other? Charles Darwin himself said: "Nature can give us instincts, but nature can't tell us which instincts we ought to follow over another." We are left with no basis for determining which nature we ought to follow.

When you look at nature, you would see such behavior as cannibalism, rape, incest, theft, and all sorts of actions that we would surely describe as immoral. In evolution, the same accidental, blind, impersonal, mindless, and purposeless process has produced every creature. In 2005, the London Zoo offered a very provocative exhibit titled “Humans in Their Natural Habitat.” It featured men and women wearing bathing suits with green fig leaves. They posed on rocks, and pretended to groom one another like monkeys. A spokesman for the zoo said, “Seeing people in a different environment among other animals teaches members of the public that the human is just another primate.” If the human is “just another primate” among creatures created by the same process, why are we more significant? Any adequate moral system must account for what makes humans have value. William Lane Craig stated well that, within the worldview of evolution, “What is so special about human beings? They're just accidental by-products of nature which have evolved relatively recently on an infinitesimal speck of dust, lost somewhere in the heart of a hostile and mindless universe, and are doomed to perish individually and collectively in a relatively short time." The difference between the animal kingdom and humanity is that man is a moral creation with a moral responsibility. A dog, for example, may look at food in front of him and think, "There's a lion back there. I won't eat my food because I don't want to get eaten myself by the lion. But no dog looks at another dog and thinks, “Wow she's beautiful, but I think I'll wait until marriage." If your dog steals a bone from the dog next door, they don't set up a doggy court system.

Author and philosopher Sean McDowell states of Jeffery Dahmer, "The sexual predator and cannibal placed the blame for his murders on his belief in evolution. He found no basis for affirming intrinsic human value." Dahmer’s dad, Lionel Dahmer, states of his sons rational: "If it all happens naturalistically, what's the need for God? Can't I set my own rules? Who owns me? I own myself.” This example illustrates the predicament an evolutionist is in. Within this worldview, humans have no value. Skeptic E.O. Wilson, a Harvard biologist states: "If evolution is true, and there is no God, then morality is an illusion." It is difficult to think that the holocaust or 9/11 as not being objectively evil, but that is exactly what you are faced with if committed to the worldview of evolution.

As Richard Dawkins and Michael Ruse have stated, within this worldview, “There is no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pointless indifference. We are machines for propagating DNA. It is every living object’s sole reason for being.” “Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction. Any deeper meaning is illusory.” Any morals that we observe among society would be the incidental byproduct of biological evolution and societal conditioning that has developed within our species to assist humanity in its survival. If we witnessed each other performing seemingly good deeds within our society, it wouldn’t be because it was objectively good. It would be because our embedded natural instinct is to help each other in order for our species to survive. By the same token, if we were to observe someone in the act of murder they wouldn’t be acting objectively immoral. They would simply be acting unfashionably according to their social structure. On the evolutionary view, a person who is a rapist is doing nothing more serious than acting unfashionably. As philosopher William Lane Craig says, “Like the man who belches loudly at the dinner table violates rules of etiquette"(, and) the person who wears white socks with a tuxedo (is) socially unconventional", the rapist has done nothing morally wrong. If nature gave us our sense of morality to preserve the human race, depending on the person, certain actions - such as rape – would be acceptable because they helped pass on genes to the next generation.

In fact this is precisely what Charles Darwin coined “survival of the fittest.” If you were the “fittest” to survive, then what is wrong with these actions? Adolf Hitler hated the God of the Bible, but he loved Charles Darwin, and he put the evolutionary principle of “survival of the fittest” into practice. In “Mein Kampf” Adolf Hitler wrote, “If nature does not wish that weaker individuals should mate with the stronger, she wishes even less that a superior race should intermingle with an inferior one.” This held belief system led to the extermination of an estimated twenty-four million in World War II, including his primary targets: the Jews and the handicapped. This Nazi regime is just one of the many examples that could be listed. Within the worldview of evolution, killing the inferior and handicapped would help improve the species and its survival. But does that mean, say, the Holocaust was a good thing? Rape may enhance the survival of the species. But does that make rape acceptable? If you say no to these questions, and you believe that evolution is the source of morality, then what’s to stop morals from evolving to the point that one day human extermination, rape, etc. are considered moral?

Evolution can't explain how we got here physically in the first place, let alone explain how morality got here; which is not physical at all. Dr. Alvin Plantinga of Notre Dame University wrote a paper called Naturalism Defeated. His argument was that if our human minds are the products of evolution, then we cannot trust our minds to produce reliable truths about anything. Richard Dawkins, who holds an evolutionary worldview, confirms this by stating, “If we can't trust our belief forming faculties to tell us the truth, how can we trust them to tell us truth about anything including evolutionary science?” Darwin himself wrote, “With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy.” Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” Even if you granted to an evolutionist that it’s possible evolution could be responsible for us knowing right from wrong, that still would not explain why something is right or wrong. As Carl Gallups states, this worldview cannot, with any degree of reason, answer, “Why do I have the ability to think, create, design, feel, and disseminate information to the rest of the world around me? If I am an accidental, random hodgepodge of chemical conjoining, why do I want to ponder and invent and communicate - and why am I the only species who does things intentionally, and not just instinctively?” Why does anyone have to obey a chemical process? You cannot have a moral obligation to chemistry!

With all of the extremes one would have to go in trying to live out evolution, and the fact that this worldview fails in explaining why there is objective morality, add to this that, if true, you would have no meaning throughout life. As professor E. O. Wilson has stated, "No species, ours included, possesses a purpose beyond the imperatives created by its genetic history. We have no particular place to go. The species lacks any goal." Professor James Corbett has stated, "As the sun is a star, there are more stars in the universe than there are grains of sand in all the beaches in the world combined. We are not just insignificant. No, we are beyond comprehension insignificant. We can't even conceive of how insignificant we are." Dawkins, who has admitted that a sense of purpose is only an illusion within evolution, when asked if he really wants to live with the moral ramifications of this worldview, answered: “No.” Evolution, just like atheism, is simply not livable.

It seems that both atheism and evolution fail to account for objective morality. So what else could be the foundation for right and wrong? This leads us to the third and final given explanation: Theism. In The Brothers Karamazov, novelist Fyodor Dostoyevsky observes, "If there is no God, all is permissible." In other words, If God does not exist as the foundation of morality then anything goes. If God does not exist then the two previous explanations are all that remains – and we’ve seen where they lead. Yet if God does exist, then we have the only true foundation for worldwide objective morality.

Over the centuries, the most statistically powerful argument of God’s existence is the moral argument, which goes something like this:

Premise 1. If God does not exist, objective morality does not exist.

Premise 2. Objective morality does exist.

Premise 3. Therefore, God exists.

Just as there are laws of physics, there are laws of morality as well. And the Bible (Romans 2:14, 15) says these laws of morality are written on our conscience; conscience meaning "with-knowledge." If we are made in the image of God (Genesis 1:27), because morality stems from His character, it makes perfect sense why, from birth, we all have a grasp on objective morality and strive to live it out. We should desire to live truthfully because God is truth. We should desire to live lovingly because God is love.

The late atheist, Christopher Hitchens, brought this challenge to believers: “Name one ethical statement made or one ethical action performed by a believer that could not have been uttered or done by a nonbeliever.” Atheist Sam Harris, in his book The Moral Landscape, says that people don’t need to believe in God to understand that objective moral values exist. Unknowingly, Hitchens and Harris are actually making an argument for God! Just as the Bible says, whether you are a believer or not, your innate conscience tells you that morality exists. Immanuel Kant, the renowned moral relativist wrote in Critique of Practical Reason, “Two things fill the mind with ever new and increasing admiration and awe, the oftener and more steadily I reflect on them: the starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.” The majority of unbelievers do believe in objective morality, but by having this belief they are literally borrowing it from the Christian worldview that they deny!

A story circulated some years ago about Sherlock Holmes and his loyal friend and student Doctor Watson, who were on a camping trip. After a good meal, they lay down for the night and went to sleep. Some hours later, Holmes awoke and nudged his friend awake. "Watson," he said, "look up at the sky and tell me what you see." "I see millions and millions of stars," Watson replied. "What does it tell you?" Holmes questioned. Watson pondered and then said, "Astronomically, it tells me that there are millions of galaxies and potentially billions of planets. Astrologically, I observe that Saturn has moved into Leo. Horologically, I deduce that the time is approximately a quarter past three. Theologically, this is a vast universe and we're just a tiny, insignificant part of a great whole. Meteorologically, I suspect that we will have a beautiful day tomorrow. What does it tell you?" Holmes was silent for a minute. "Watson, you idiot, someone has stolen our tent!" This story illustrates well that you can be very profound in an answer and miss the larger point. You now see how far one has to go to try and make the worldviews of atheism and evolution livable. Truth affirms reality, and both worldviews do not get even close. That struggle of trying to explain life is the struggle one has to deal with if we choose to live our lives without any reference to God.

As stated at the beginning of this post, there are four questions that everyone must address throughout life: What's right and wrong? Why am I here? What brings me meaning and purpose? And what will happen to me when I pass? With what we have discussed, let’s plug in the answers to these questions given by each of the three worldviews (not people who hold the worldviews).

Atheism: Moral truth is a matter of personal opinion; therefore the very categories of good and evil dissipate and lose their meaning. We don’t know how nor why we are alive in the first place. Since we don’t know why we are here, there simply is no such thing as meaning and purpose outside of, say, making money. Since God doesn’t exist, there is no hope beyond the grave.

Evolution: Good and evil do not even exist; they’re mere illusions. We’re accidental by-products (think of bad meat in dog food) formed by a blind process that, because our minds are not trustworthy, we don’t know even exists itself. This process also created bacteria and mud, etc.; therefore we have no significance over anything, let alone meaning and purpose. We do not know, but if everything is an accident there could not be a created afterlife.

Theism: We all have a sense of right and wrong from birth. This sense is given to us as created beings from a Creator who loves us dearly. As the pinnacle of His creation, we are to seek and personally know God, and make Him known throughout the world for means of salvation. Our hope of salvation is solidified through the death and resurrection Christ, who paid our sin debt, clearing our bridge to eternity in Heaven.

In all that we have discussed, theism is the only worldview that is reasonable and livable. It’s the only worldview that says objective moral truth exists. Even atheistic scholars have stated this. ‘“If moral imperatives are not commanded by Gods rule, then what ought to be is a matter simply of what any of us decides should be. There is no other source of judgment. If there is no God, then morality collapses under the weight of the grand “Says Who" problem"’ - atheists Richard Rorty and Art Leff. The Declaration of Independence correctly notes that we've been endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights. He is our “law above the law.” No matter the majority opinion may be, deep down you know what right and wrong is. So is God the best explanation for objective morality? No. He is the only explanation.

Theism is also the only worldview that explains why we are here, what gives us meaning and purpose, and what gives us hope.

But religious and moral claims are often considered matters of personal preference rather than knowledgeable claims about reality. As a result of this cultural divide, people have been trained to compartmentalize their belief in God from their daily lives - to keep their beliefs about God in the private, subjective realm and not to consider them as objective truth. Youth culture expert Walt Mueller states that those who compartmentalize their religious and moral beliefs this way "have embraced it as something they do from time to time. Instead of integrating their faith into all of life, they live an unintegrated faith that only touches select parts of who they are." Steve from the 2003 movie The Italian Job says: “Hey, don’t talk about right and wrong with me man because I just don’t care.” Because our culture has tried ingraining the idea in us that we shouldn’t think on our own, this is the attitude of most people; Christians included.  So why write this? Why is it so crucial to understand that there is such thing as objective truth in the world? Well, just look at the stats: Among adults, 32% of those who were Christians said they believe in objective moral truth compared to 15% among nonbelievers. Among teenagers only 9% of Christian teens believe in objective moral truth versus 4% of nonbelieving teens. While many believe Christianity offers a truth, how many truly understand that it is the truth, the only hope for salvation, and the sole opportunity for a personal relationship with the living God who created the universe? In John 14:6 Jesus did not say, "I am one of the ways, one of the truths, and one possible life. If you want to come to me through the Father, go forward doing whatever you think is right and what feels good." If there is no objective moral truth, then there can be no such thing as sin, which by the way is precisely what worldviews that deny God want to believe. It’s only when people see there is a truth within morality, and that we all need to be saved from our sins, that the Gospel of Christ will even make sense and will experience a sense of urgency.

With those stats in mind, I want to ruffle feathers and hit particularly Christians hard here. Author and cold case investigator turned Christian apologist, J Warner Wallace, writes: “Why do we hesitate to share the Gospel with non-believers? It’s because we treat the gospel as a cookie rather than a cure. I asked (my) Christian students if they would be willing to follow me into the streets . . . to convince people that chocolate chip cookies are the best cookies in the world. Unsurprisingly, none of the students were excited about going. When asked, they quickly admitted that it seemed pointless to try to convince people of something as subjective as a personal opinion about cookies. They recognized that cookie preference is a matter of subjective opinion, rather than objective truth, and none of them were willing to go out of their way to argue for an opinion. I then asked them if they would be willing to follow me into a region . . . that was suffering from a Tuberculosis outbreak to convince those infected with TB to take the one known cure, Isoniazid. All of them found this to be a worthy effort and said they would be willing to help for a cause such as this. They recognized the difference between the cookie and the cure. Cookies are a matter of subjective opinion, but cures are a matter of objective truth. If the people suffering with TB didn’t know about the cure, they would die. Personal opinions about Isoniazid are irrelevant. Some TB sufferers might, for example, prefer to take Ibuprofen. But the objective truth about TB and Isoniazid overshadows any opinion someone might hold about their favorite treatment. Cures are like that. When we are objectively convinced that a particular treatment is the exclusive cure for what is ailing us, we ignore our preferences and act quickly to save ourselves and share the truth with others. There is a relationship between our categorization of Christian claims and our desire to share them with the world around us. Some of us hesitate to share the Gospel because (whether we care to admit it or not) we’ve come to see religious truth as a matter of subjective opinion rather than objective truth. We treat the Gospel more as a cookie than a cure.”

The Bible says that we are going to be eternally separated after death from an all-loving God due to a sickness we all have called sin. But to take away what’s coming to us, Jesus died on the cross, nailing with him every sin to ever be committed. He rose three days later from His tomb. And by showing He is God in the flesh, if we trust in Him as God (John 3:16) we will have the gift of salvation. As soon as you make a statement like this, so many people will simply say, "Well that's true for you." They may even go so far as to say: "Jesus rose for you. That's fine. But, Buddha rose for me." Or, "Confucius rose for me." "Krishna rose for me." "Joseph Smith rose for me." "Mohammed rose for me." And to say that Buddha, or Confucius, etc., can forgive your sins is like saying Starburst candy controls diabetes; it doesn't work in the objective real world. You see, the whole reason that Jesus had to die is because there is such a thing as morality, we've broken that moral code, and we're guilty towards God. If there is no objective morality then what was the purpose of Jesus for dying? Whether you believe in Christianity or not, this question of whether or not Jesus rose from the grave (as discussed in the earlier post: "Was Jesus Christ Really Resurrected?") is an objective claim about the way history actually unfolded. He either did or He did not; it’s only based on facts; there can be no opinion here.

In Proverbs 14:12, Solomon warns, “There is a way which seems right to man, but its end is the way of death.” Is life just a glorified monopoly game where you strive to get a bunch of stuff now, because when the game is over it's all going back in the box? Is that what life is all about? Not only are there often painful consequences for ignoring truth, but a person who seeks meaning solely from material goods and thrills away from God are destined to be empty. Recent students indicate that, for more than any other generation in history, this has come true for the generation of our youth, says author and philosopher Sean McDowell. So many people live their lives trying to find happiness and meaning in a place it simply can’t be found. So often we try to make something our god. We find out, though, that the joy we hoped to find was just not there. Ted Turner once said "When you get to the top all you find is a bag full of holes." Two thousand years ago Jesus gave His followers a sermon about the most important things in life. He summed up the core of His message when He said, “But seek first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and all these things will be provided for you” (Matthew 6:33). In other words, the most important thing for us to focus on is not our own thrills or possessions, but to focus first on knowing God and making Him known to the world. Amazingly, when we stop focusing so selfishly on ourselves and start making the lives of other people better, we end up living a truly fulfilled and meaningful life.

A group of Pharisees and Herodians came to Jesus and asked Him if it was alright to pay taxes to Caesar. Jesus looked at them and asked to see one of their coins. He took the coin and asked whose image they saw. The men replied, "Caesar." Then "give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar, and give unto God that which belongs to God", He replied. Had this group of asked Jesus the next logical question “What belongs to God?” He would have replied, "Whose image is on you?" You are made in His very image. You belong to God and are undeniably valuable in His eyes. In the original language that the New Testament was written, do you know what it means, in Ephesians 2:10 that we’re Gods “workmanship”? It’s the Greek word for “poem”. It literally means that you are a poem from God. Do you feel like you’re worthless? Do you put on a smile every single day in hopes that everyone will think you’re just fine? Paul is saying here in this verse that you are not an accident. No matter what skin color you have, what your height is, how smart you are, if you have a physical defect, YOU are a poem from the author of the entire universe who yearns to share a deep, and personal relationship. YOU are the purposeful creation of a God who loves you, and wants you to know that you are beautiful. And this God has a specific purpose for your specific life. You may deny Him, but He will never, ever deny YOU. It's not a coincidence that the first thing we learn in the Bible of God is not that God is love, or that God is personal, or even that God is holy and just, but that in the beginning God created. Now, why does it matter that the first thing we learn is that God is a creator? It's because if something is created, it means there is a truth about it, and there is a purpose for how it's supposed to be used. And we are only truly set free when we understand the way, the truth regarding how God intended the life we each have to be lived.

The Kingston Trio released a parabolic song in 1963 called 'Desert Pete'. It's about a man who is in dire need of water while walking through a desert. He suddenly comes across a water pump and notices a tin can wrapped around it. "Dear traveler, do not despair. Dig below and you will find a bottle of water. You have surely by now tried to work the pump, and have seen that it was dry. Pour the water from this bottle gently around the cylinder and keep pumping. You will be very tempted to drink this bottle, but you will only become thirsty again soon. Trust me when I say there will be more, as this priming of the pump will cause suction of the ground water below. Follow the instructions and you will have all of the nourishment that you need. PS: Do not forget to refill the bottle and to bury it for the next passer-by.”

This is a parable of life. We’re all walking through a desert. Your choice is to consume your life onto yourself and soon be empty again, or to put your hands into those of the living God who gives you living water (John 4:13-14). When you find that living water, you become an instrument to give that nourishment to everyone else that passes by. He's no mirage. He's the real deal. And, as the song goes, He will never "fool a thirsty man."

In Nicholas Wolterstorff's meditation on the death of his son in a mountain-climbing accident, the Yale philosopher wrote, "When we have overcome absence with phone calls, winglessness with airplanes, summer heat with air conditioning - when we have overcome all these and much more besides, then there will abide two things with which we must cope: the evil in our hearts and death." God is the solution to both. He is nearer to you than you realize. And you don't have to take my word for it. Ask Christ if He is who He claims to be; to reveal Himself to you. “See that the Lord is good” (Psalm 34:8). And I guarantee that if you're prayer is sincere you will find Him, you will personally know Him, and there you will receive the answer, the glue, that puts all of life’s ultimate questions together. We all need saved. And He promises that He will give you that living water so you will never thirst in your soul again. If you are a truth seeker, I urge you to seek Jesus.