This is Part 3 of a four-part series on the self-evident nature of God. Be sure to check out Part 1 (If There Is No God, There Is No You) Part 2 (If There Is No God, There Is No Free Will), and Part 4 (If There Is No God, Then Something Came from Nothing).
If we are just biology and chemistry, then nothing actually has real, inherent value; there’s just value we ascribe to things because we find those things useful.
That means that if there’s no God, then there is no true worth, only ascribed value.
If you’re a “none” (someone who has no religious affiliation), this is a big deal, especially when it comes to justice.
If we are only biology and chemistry, then there is no such thing as true justice, only useful strategies for preserving our kind. In a world filled with ascribed values, we can’t meaningfully call people to fundamental standards of right and wrong.
For atheists, a statement like, “You truly ought to” or “ought not to” doesn’t really have any meaning. Of course, this doesn’t mean atheists can’t be moral, just that their morality lacks a consistent intellectual foundation. They have a difficult time finding a place for their “ought” to stand.
The only way we can say that something is unjust is if we appeal to a higher vision of how it ought to be. Martin Luther King, Jr., for instance, said the reason segregation laws in America were unjust was because they conflicted with the higher laws of God. It didn’t matter that the majority wanted segregation. Dr. King said, “The majority is wrong.”
We agree. We look at oppression and say, “That’s wrong, because it’s not supposed to be like that.” But if there’s nothing higher than biology and chemistry, you can’t say that. There is no “supposed to.” There is only “is.”
This is a particular problem for “nones,” because when it comes to religion, “nones” love to say, “I have my truth; you have your truth.” Truth is relative. Sounds pretty liberating, right?
But “nones” don’t want to say this sort of thing when it comes to justice (“Well, you have your justice, and I have mine”). They believe in basic human rights. They don’t want to hear about the abuse of women or gassing of children in Syria and have someone say, “Well, that’s just how things are over there. Justice is relative.”
We say, “No. That oppression is wrong in all places and at all times.”
Justice can’t be relative. Because if justice becomes relative, justice becomes injustice.
C.S. Lewis said that this was what ultimately brought him to see that there had to be a God. As an atheist, his biggest objection to belief in God was all the injustice in the universe. In the end, however, he realized that injustice was more of a problem for him as an atheist. In Mere Christianity, he wrote,
My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of ‘just’ and ‘unjust’? …. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?” Lewis said that if the evolutionary process was solely responsible for life, it meant that there was no such thing as universal justice, only things he saw as personally beneficial. “But when I said that, then my argument against God collapsed, too—for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies …. Consequently, atheism turned out to be too simple.
If there is no God, there’s no such thing as worth, only ascribed value, which means there’s no such thing as evil and injustice.
If there’s only ascribed value, that also means there’s no such thing as beauty or love. When there is no God and you behold beauty, you are forced to say, “Well, the reason I find that ‘beautiful’ is because my ancestors believed there was food out there and that impulse helped them survive, and they passed down that neurological feature to me, which is why I find that beautiful.”
When I hear atheists take this kind of approach I think, “Really? That sunset I find so beautiful somehow remind me subconsciously of Twinkies?”
How about love? Are you comfortable saying that your love for your kids or your parents is merely a conditioned response evolved in your genes that enables you to propagate your DNA into society faster than your neighbors?
Try putting that on a greeting card on Valentine’s Day: “On this very special day, my genes are releasing chemical compounds into my bloodstream because they have been cultivated through centuries of evolution to see you as particularly useful for the propagation of my DNA into the next generation!”
You can’t prove your love for someone exists by biology, but you know it is real. But if there is no God and we are only chemistry and biology, then beauty and love are simply illusions.
I am indebted to Andy Stanley’s helpful series, “Who Needs God,” for the concept of this series and the structure of the posts’ titles.
Comments