Morality Without God 

I'm not saying it doesn't happen. It does. All the time, in fact. Right now, at the school I'm sitting in, while some amazing students participate in MUN, there are people doing it all around me. They're practicing morality. Just like the poster says on their bulletin board next to their really nice lounge - they're playing nice, working hard, and staying kind. 

But why?

Why do these things? 

I can remember before I became a parent I vowed never to say to one of my children, "Because I said so!" Of course, reality came with a lot more dirty diapers, dishes, and exhaustion than anticipated so, I've since broken that vow (more than once). But I still like the reason for my initial resolve. That's why I usually take the time, eventually, to explain carefully the "why" behind anything I ask my kids to do. 

I think the kids at this school deserve the same respect, wouldn't you agree? If you think their poster is correct - play nice, work hard, stay kind - I'm sure you do.

Well then, I wonder what reason they usually give around here for obeying these three important moral mandates? After all, we can't expect students to obey them simply because we said so. That's totally unreasonable. If one of their friends hands them a bag saying, "Here, try this." We would expect the student to at least ask, "Ah, why?"  And hopefully, whatever great reason Mr. drug pusher friend comes up with, our inquisitor will say something like, "Ya, not a good enough reason. Go flush that crap." We expect students to ask "Why" and then assess the reason for integrity, consistency, and sense.  

Now, you may say, "Well, taking illicit drugs is not intuitively right. Being kind is." Here's where I challenge you to really think hard. Is being kind, working hard, and playing nice, really intuitively right? I submit to you that only if there is an Objective Dictate Giver (ODG) :) (I know, you see it. Lit, huh?) can it be said that these moral mandates are in any way intuitive. In fact, without an ODG (okay, okay let's move the letters around a bit), or a GOD, whose very being or essence is the cause of the "rightness" of these mandates, there would actually be intuitive reasons NOT to follow these mandates. Playing nice does not get me ahead in this world. Working hard is the last thing I want to do if I can cheat my way to results without much strain. And staying kind work's only as long as it works for me. As soon as it doesn't, I'm not kind. 

Here I am at a school, where, like many, many schools, they want nothing to do with an ODG. Oh, sorry, did it again. I mean, a GOD. So, what reason do they give to their students for following the advice of these mounted moral mandates that are hanging all around me? I really wonder. I do. 

Like many of the students here, there are plenty of people practicing morality without God. But why? Because someone said so? Because it's simply the right thing to do? Because this is obviously how humanity thrives? Nope. Sorry. These answers are far from satisfying. In fact, they fall hopelessly short. 

At Logos, we believe that you should play nice, work hard, and stay kind too. But our reason is not that these are the obvious, most intuitive things to do. And our reason is certainly not because we say so. No, we believe that there is a GOD whose very goodness defining image we were created in. An image we are created to shine. An image that, when honed, polished, and glistening we find ourselves living out an abundant life. Our God is the Creator being from whom we derive concepts like "nice" or "kind" or "honest" and whose divine nature and commands to be fruitful and make known His glory, are the reasons we work hard and strive honestly. No other reason makes more sense. No other reason sets such a solid foundation for morality.  

Honestly. Without a GOD, moral mandates are arbitrary. They're void of any potency needed to stir the soul to obedience. In fact, without God, moral mandates are so lame, you may as well just hang em on posters all around a school and hope that people will obey "because I said so." 

A little philosophy goes a long way. Someone should tell Nike. I don't expect a shoe company to have a philosopher on their payroll. I bet you don't either but I sure expect a few high paid executives to see a little ways down the pike. I mean really? You didn't see this one coming, Nike? 

The obvious (or maybe not so obvious) problem with this statement is that it takes the relativistic assumption that all views, thus causes, are created equal. I mean really, "believe in something" is synonymous with "believe in anything" if you don't specify what that "something" is. And I think this just is the point  Nike is trying to make. I THINK they are essentially saying, "We don't really care all that much what your cause is, just believe it at all costs, like cool Kaepernick did." That may sound kind of exciting at first. I'm a guy. I like rugged, Navy SEAL type sacrifice. And hey, throw in a little NFL and ya, I dig it (that's an old 70's saying for "It's lit!"). But as you can see from the meme I generated, there's a real problem with this slogan. If you don't see it yet (because you're multitasking while reading this), I'll spell it out for you. This saying can apply (quite well I might add) to ANY cause, including extreme, radical Islamic terrorism. In fact, given Osama Bin Laden's current status, I'd say this slogan applies better to him than to Colin Kaepernick. Now, I'm not saying that Nike is going to be the first to come out with a line of shoes called the BIG Terrors. No, I'm sure they do not want this slogan to be applied to anything like terrorism. The problem, though, it just does apply to terrorism (and anything else) if you insist on a relativistic perspective on worldviews and their subsequent causes. 

So what would Nike say in response? I hope they would agree not all causes are created equal. I hope (and assume they would) say, "We in no way support the use of this slogan to promote any cause that would be harmful, degrading, or deleterious to the thriving of humanity." (Professional sounding, ya?). I'm sure they would (and maybe will need to) say something to this effect. This, stance against the tyranny of terror, though, betrays a belief in objective reality. In other words, a belief that some views (and their causes) are wrong - truly wrong. Well, if Nike believes that their new slogan should not and MUST  not be applied to something like terrorism, what's their reasoning? After all, if truth is relative, then their new slogan can easily apply to terrorism. 

The problem, however, is much deeper than it may first appear. Here's why. If truth is objective, then there are many more beliefs that are in presuppositional conflict than just the belief that terrorism is evil vs. terrorism is not evil. What I mean is, if truth is objective then there are many beliefs that totally conflict at a foundational level. So, while Nike may want to say something like, "Okay, you got us. We see that there really is some real evil out there and we do not want our new slogan applied to any of that obvious evil. However, aside from the obvious evil, we want people to apply the slogan to any other belief that suits there lifestyle." they can't actually say this and remain reasonable. Why not? Because there just are major conflicts between views/causes which means it's impossible for them both to be right, not in an objective reality anyway (and trust me, you don't want to live in a subjective reality). So, would Nike suggest you "sacrifice everything" for a wrong belief? (Well, probably ya. Actually, the only real sacrifice Nike probably cares about is your allowance on their newest shoes). Or would they stand by the false and meaning-less assumption that all beliefs are right as long as they don't cause overt harm to the human race? 

Being willing to sacrifice everything for a cause is great if that cause is worth sacrificing for. The only way you know if a cause is worth sacrificing for, though, is to know that it is the truth. And the only way you really know it's the truth is if you (my seniors are going to love this) analyze the belief's basic presuppositions to determine if they are meaningful thus building on a solid foundation of reason. 

If Nike had a good philosopher on staff, I think she (and it would be a she cuz women are just so much smarter) would have suggested a slogan more like this: Determine Truth. Then believe it. Even if it means sacrificing everything. Wow, this sounds like something right out of the Bible. You know, come to think of it, if Nike is keen on sacrifice stories and causes, I got a great one for em. Think they'll put His face on a poster?