Nevertheless, even unbelievers still adhere to moral codes and standards. But without a belief in the truth of the Bible, where do these standards come from?
If you ask an atheist or skeptic to explain the origins of morality, you are likely to hear an explanation that says something about rules and standards of morality being determined by natural selection, based on what is most beneficial to humanity as a whole, rather than being based on individual codes of conduct. A rather self-defeating approach, when we consider that human society is made up of individuals and that there can be no corporate morality without individual morality.
Furthermore, in a survival-of-the-fittest system,those individuals whose genes give them the anomalous desire to refrain from violent acts such as murder, rape, or exploitation (all of which are logical acts in terms of surviving to pass on your genes and evolve while weeding out less fit rivals) are actually less likely to survive and evolve. Think of it this way: If Creature A is the first and only one to have a genetic mutation inclining them towards non-violence, how long are they going to survive to pass on those non-violent genes, since Creatures B, C, D, etc. do not have the same mutation and therefore have no qualms about engaging in violence? Not very long.
On the other hand, many people try to explain away moral rules and standards that they dislike or disagree with by making arguments along the lines of “But we see it in nature! How can it be wrong if it happens in nature all the time?” This is a particularly common argument used in defense of behaviors such as homosexuality and polyamory.
Now, before we go any farther into breaking down the actual logic of this argument, it is important for Christians to note that, as a result of Adam’s and Eve’s sin, nature is cursed and corrupted (Genesis 3:17, Romans 5:12, Romans 8:20-22). Therefore, while we cannot know all of the precise details of that perfect pre-sin world, we can be certain that animal behaviors have indeed been modified by the curse, as evidenced by carnivorous, predatory behavior that exists today, in contrast to the vegetarian diet that all creatures adhered to in the beginning (Genesis 1:29-30). As a result, we cannot be certain that other animal behaviors observed to-day are necessarily reflective of God’s original intent.
THAT BEING SAID, IF THE PRESENCE OF A BEHAVIOR IN NATURE SIGNIFIES ITS MORAL ACCEPTABILITY, THEN THOSE WHO HOLD TO THIS VIEW ARE STILL FACED WITH A SERIOUS PROBLEM: A LACK OF LOGICAL SELF-CONSISTENCY.
A while back, I wrote an article in which I discussed the importance of self-consistency in Chris-tian apologetics. But that concept applies to both sides of the argument; just as it is important for Christians to be logically self-consistent in regards to the evidence they use, it is also important to point out the ways in which unbelievers are being inconsistent in their arguments.
As an example, let’s look at the argument that homosexuality and polyamory cannot be wrong if we observe them in nature.
If the existence of a behavior in nature automatically makes that behavior morally acceptable, then logically this means that slavery, rape, forced labor, physical abuse, murder, cannibalism, and various other forms of violence, all of which are observed in nature, are also morally acceptable. This is a logically self-consistent conclusion, and yet when was the last time you heard someone advocating for any of these behaviors? Personally, I have never encountered an atheist or skeptic who argued that rape or slavery must be moral since we observe them in nature. On the contrary, everyone I have ever spoken to on the matter has been adamantly opposed to such things—as they should be!
But how, then, can nature be our moral guide, if so much of the behavior we see there is considered unacceptable and immoral among humans? The simple answer is: It can’t.
The only remaining option, then, for those who wish to use nature as a moral compass, is to be selective in which behaviors they choose to cite in support of their belief. But, just as we saw in the example of Christians using the shape of laminin to support their belief in the Bible while ignoring the shapes of other molecules or microscopic structures, this has reduced their argument to a simple and ineffective “Because I say so.” Which really, is no argument at all.
So the next time someone tells you that an immoral behavior must be acceptable since we see it in nature, be sure to bring up some of the other behaviors taking place in nature, and respectfully point out the inconsistency of their argument.
The Bible explains humanity’s automatic sense of morality when it tells us that the law is written in the hearts of believers and unbelievers alike (Romans 2:14-15), just as it explains that every single one of us has broken that law in some way or other, and are therefore all guilty before the righteousness and judgment of God. Let us strive to use the world’s attempts to justify sinful behavior as a gate-way conversation to share the truth of sin, forgiveness, and redemption with the lost. And, as always, remember to do it respectfully, and in love.