October 12, 2006

• 
  

  			Universal Law and Depravity — Part I
  			“These, then, are the two points I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe.” (page 21) [1] A common and baffling problem often encountered in modern apologetics is that of morality, and, more fundamentally, truth. Modern people like to deny that there are universal truths. They say that moral standards are entirely subjective, and that no such thing as truth exists except within an individual’s own personal belief. The practical consequence of this is that you can’t reason with anyone who denies universal standards. No matter how logical your arguments are, they can always come back and say they just don’t believe what you’re saying. You’ll get responses like, “That’s great that you believe that. I’m very happy for you; it’s just not what I believe.” Ignoring the absolutely insane logic behind denying universal standards (as that would itself be a universal standard), there is a more fundamental approach to the issue, and one that will probably resonate more deeply with today’s post-modern thinkers. Relative truth sounds like a nice, tolerant idea the way modern liberal thinkers present it. It’s a non-judgmental way of doing things. However, when you dig into the implications, you get some pretty shocking stuff. If someone firmly believes that there is no universal “right and wrong,” they can’t judge the Nazis for the holocaust [1] and they can’t judge serial killers and child molesters for their crimes — with no such thing as wrong, there’s really no such thing as crime, right? If, in the course of talking to a moral relativist, you punch said moral relativistin the face, he or she will, in all likelihood, not be happy with you. Why? Because you did something that he or she didn’t think you should do. Were you wrong to punch him or her in the face? Of course (Which is why I don’t recommend you try this particular tactic)! Can they judge you for it? Well, not if they believe that right and wrong are relative, they can’t. See, everybody’s got a sense in them of what right and wrong are. There is abundant evidence of this, the most commonly cited of which are the laws of historic nations. One would be hard pressed to find a nation that didn’t define murder as bad and charity as good, much less a nation that defined charity as bad and murder as good. Is this some sort of coincidence, or the result of overbearing, judgmental people? I somehow doubt it; I find it more likely that all people naturally realize that there is a certain standard of right and wrong. This set of principles is engrained in human nature, no matter how much some people would like to deny it. It’s part of what the apostle Paul was talking about when he said, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts…“ [2] Paul tells us in this passage that the law, whether one acknowledges it or not, is written on the hearts of everyone.     [1] Clive Staples Lewis, Mere Christianity (Touchstone, 1996) [2] The Holy Bible: English Standard Version (Crossway, 2001)

  • 5:38 pm
  • 7 Comments