Moral code is like bedrock

Yaron Brook and Onkar Ghate have published an article on cnn.com called, "Our moral code is out of date". This is one of the first times that I have seen someone propose a basis of morality that is not ultimately rooted in the Bible and Christianity.

The article begins by pointing out that modern science has changed our world. Interestingly the authors point to 4 scientist as some of the great minds that ushered in our modern world. Apparently our authors do not know their history. They applaud Galileo, Sir Isaac Newton, Louis Pasteur and Charles Darwin. Sir Isaac Newton and Louis Pasteur were both committed Christians. It could be rightly argued that Charles Darwin's hypothesis of evolution has yet to be formally proven and was the engine upon which the genocides of Hitler were built. It could be argued that modern science would not exist if it were not for Christians who were influenced to explore their world so that they might discover more about it and thus know their God better. A great list of these Christians in science can be found on the, "Christian influences in Science" page.

The second thing they point out in the article is that the "rights of men" was the next great development. They point to the industrialist and all the commercial advancements that they have made that have revolutionized our lives. Arguably none of us would want to live without cars, refrigeration, air conditioning, etc..

Then the authors make an irrational leap. They say:

"But as far as we've come because of these two ideas, human progress demands implementation of a third idea to complete the scientific and political revolutions. We're still beholden to the past in ethics."

They argue that we turn to the Bible, the Quran or secular copies of these as authorities on morality. I would argue that we turn to the Bible predominantly. They argue that seeing the Bible as a moral authority distorts our conception of moral ideals. They go on to argue that instead of seeing Jesus Christ or Mother Teresa as moral heros we should extol the virtues of Galileo, Darwin, Thomas Edison or John D. Rockefeller. They declare that we should strive to be like these guys not the Mother Teresa's of the world.

Why is this an irrational leap? First science is always changing based on discoveries. Second the rights of men which are in flux based on whose political philosophy is controlling the country or region where one lives. But science and the rights of men does not imply by extension that moralities basis needs to change. It is an irrational inference because the one does not imply the other. Quite the opposite. I would argue that the morality falls in the category of transcendent universals that are at their core the same around the world. Other transcendent universals are logic and mathematics. Rather than being in flux they are more of a reference point we use to establish a basis for argument, commerce and from morality comes law.

To get back to what they say. We see them point out that the world applauds Bill Gates and Warren Buffet when they give their money away but that they should be applauding them for making it to begin with. Continuing they say that, "...morality should be about the pursuit of our own success and happiness". They then follow that, "...giving money away to strangers is, in comparison not a morally significant act." These writers see the pursuit of our own happiness as the highest ethical goal. The problem with this should be speak for itself.

The reason that the world applauds Bill Gates and Warren Buffet when they give their money away is that it resonates with the moral code of God that is written on the hearts of men. It is completely irrational to suppose that we can construct a new moral code and dispense with the Bible. The government can make laws against adultery but they cannot keep a person from lusting. They can make you swear to tell the truth but they cannot keep you from lying. All governments and societies can do is enforce external actions. The only way to truly deal with the corruption in a man's heart is to introduce them to Jesus. In doing this we turn to what is essentially as solid and unmovable as bedrock, the moral law of God.

The irony here is that they see the pursuit of our own happiness as the highest goal. Generally the happiest people I have ever met in my life have been those who have come to know and worship Jesus Christ as their Lord. The rejoinders in the Bible that speak to the joy we can have in Jesus are throughout  God's word. David finds God's law as sweeter than honey and more precious than gold (Psalm 19:10). Paul charges the Philippians to rejoice in the Lord always (Phil. 3:1, 4:4).

These guys have not borrowed from the Christian faith in order to make their moral claims. They have instead postulated the antithesis of the servanthood held up in scripture, that we should pursue our own benefit in everything. I can't begin to imagine a world where everyones highest value is their own advancement. This ends up being close to if it feels good do it. That would ultimately be a cut-throat and evil environment to live in. No, I will continue to pursue living a God focused life. It brings true joy to my heart. It seeks to care for the fatherless and the widows. It seeks to be a servant to those it encounters. This creates an environment where peace prospers and God is glorified.