This is the debate speech that I put forward at the debate on the motion “This house believes that one cannot be truly moral without God” on behalf of Maynooth Christian Union along with my co-partner. The video was uploaded on the Atheist Ireland youtube channel, but unfortunately it doesn’t contain the full speech so I thought I might as well embed the video and provide the full speech:
Good evening all, I’m Gareth Peoples, and I’m the current Christian Union president on campus. I’d like to thank you all for being with us this evening, especially Dr. John Murray and Michael Nugent, and I would like to thank the Literary and Debating Society for being so open to the Christian Union proposal to debate this subject. Before I begin, I’d like to remind everyone this is the first event of our Christianity Week. Tomorrow (March 31st) at 7pm in the Student Common Room behind the Arts Block, Dr. Bryan Follis minister of All Saints Church Belfast will be speaking on “What is truth and where can I find it?” and on Thursday at 7pm, in Hall F in the Arts Block, James Crookes chaplain at Queens University Belfast will be speaking on “Life in the Emergency Room – Finding Hope in the Midst of Suffering”.
What is morality? - Morality is a framework based on empathy by which we understand, behave and operate in relation to ourselves and to one another so that we might better fulfil our purpose as human beings.
What is true morality? – True morality involves a framework as I’ve just described that reflects the reality and fullness of relationships in this world.
When the question of whether or not one can be truly moral without God is posed, many assume that one is saying that people who do not believe in God cannot be moral. However I recognize that it would be highly inaccurate to say this considering many non-believers put the lives of many Christians to shame.
What am I going to argue tonight then? – I will be arguing that God and God alone can provide the true empathy and true understanding that we use in every day moral dilemmas. The case I’ll be making is that God underpins all moral action and how we do morality, and that no act can be truly considered moral in His absence. Therefore no person can be considered truly moral in His absence.
This view of morality is referred to by Paul in Romans chapter 2 when he writes:
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 word of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them on the day when according to my Gospel, God judges the secrets of men by Christ Jesus.
Romans 2:14-16 (ESV)
I.E – God created all irrespective of beliefs with a conscience, by which we can better understand His moral standard, and if used correctly can facilitate moral behaviour. But how is this view justifiable?
Why can’t morality be relative? - C.S Lewis in his Mere Christianity develops and understanding of morality that demonstrates that although people may claim that morality is constructed or relative, people from the smallest of all disputes to the biggest behave as if there is a Moral Law between them and others. Lewis notes that when we quarrel we rebuke one another for wronging us saying “You should know better”.
We say these things but why do we say them? - Lewis goes on to argue that one says one should know better because there is a common Law or standard between them. Otherwise what sense would it make that one would expect better of them? If this standard could not exist, how could we hold another to account? If we are basing it on our own subjective standard, how can we expect others to share it, and how can we expect others to understand when they do wrong by us? If we genuinely believed that moral standards were equally acceptable why would we do this?
This becomes even more apparent in international issues. In conflicts were recognize that certain acts are unacceptable. We condemn mass murder in Darfur in the same way we condemned Soviet Russia, Rwanda, Cambodia and other nightmare scenes of the 20th century. Here in Ireland, we condemn the clerical child abuse that took place. We condemn these things because they aren’t to be tolerated. They violate our common standard as human beings, and the Moral Law we use to hold people to account. Deep down we know these things are universally wrong because of the moral law that runs through our conscience. We can either ignore the Moral Law and its Law Giver or we can affirm them.
However in all reality we certainly do not regard morality as relative, and as such this is inconsistent with true morality. If morals aren’t external to us they are our mere construction and they are at our whim. Either morality is invented, or it is a standard independent from your or I. The US Declaration of Independence has on its second line:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
US Declaration of Independence
In addition we have the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Both of these demonstrate that the reason these rights are unalienable is firstly because they are not subject to human opinion; if they were they would hardly be unalienable or undeniable. The second reason that rights and morals aren’t ours to give or define in the first place. The US Declaration of Independence ultimately rests on the conclusion that we are under a loving God who cares for our welfare.
If morals are universal, and if a moral law exists, why do people still do bad things? – Let me first make clear that in my case and in Lewis’ case the Moral Law isn’t deterministic like the Laws of Physics. Indeed all humans by their very nature fail to act coherently by the Moral Law, yet expect it of others. This is the reason why we rebuke one another in the first place. This puts us into a strange paradox. We in a sense can’t live with it (the Moral Law) due to the weight of the Moral Law in guilt, and we can’t live without it due to its necessity in moral judgement. We seek to justify ourselves, yet we also fall guilty of the Moral Law.
This closely follows the Biblical narrative. We were all created in God’s image (our true empathy) and called to reflect His will in this world. We fell short of His standard by disobedience and sin which separates us from God. We cannot ever hope to be justified by our standard because we rejected His.
What is the solution? – The solution is that someone who is blameless takes this burden away, and allows us to grow gradually as moral beings re-finding our connection with God. That person is Jesus Christ, who took our sin away allowing us to be justified on His behalf by free grace rather than our own so that we might gain a relationship with the Father, and live more closely each day by His path, allowing us to reflect His will (our true purpose) and to expect this of others.
In conclusion, there is a universal Moral Law and by extension a Moral Law giver. This is clear in our personal disputes. Human rights operate so that they depend on a loving God who cares for our welfare. Finally our inability to follow the Moral Law yet expecting it of others closely matches the Biblical standard of salvation. If this is indeed the case and it seems to be any moral consideration which rejects God isn’t coherent with reality.
Thank you.
