Is Morality Relative?

 Below is a response to one of my students concerning moral relativity vs moral absolutes:



If a standard- Objective truth: then important things are not subject to mans interpretation and opinion.
If no standard- subjective preference: everything is dependent upon individual opinion and preference in the moment.

If we have objective truth then it does not matter what laws man makes or what feelings an individual has, the truth is always true.  For example, pedophilia is wrong!  If that is only my opinion then we are not certain it is wrong just because many agree; there are those who would disagree.  If that is only an opinion then it is subjective  and neither opinion is wrong and neither opinion is right.  I personally do not believe this is an opinion, I believe in a standard of truth that is not subject to mans opinions.

Here is a logical reason why I believe there is a standard.  Every human needs oxygen to stay alive.  This is not a subjective opinion, but an absolute standard fact.  I think it is logical that there is also a standard; a set of laws for man to discover in the metaphysical (supernatural) world similar to the laws man has been discovering in the physical world.  In the physical world man has discovered the laws of gravity, motion, physics, thermodynamics etc... etc... etc...  Man did not make these laws, but discovered them.  It seems logical to assume that the metaphysical world would also have laws and man must discover them.

These metaphysical laws would logically be established by one whom we call God.  So it is not a question of God, but which god.  Did God leave a trail, a Holy Book, something for man to discover what his created purpose is and what his relationship ought to be with his creator?

What do you think?

Part III B: The buffet of religion or did God create with purpose?

             If someone does not have strong beliefs they may be questioning what to believe.  There are so many religions to choose from.  Which religions have it right?  Do they all have it right?  Is it possible that there is only one right?  If so, how can so many people get it wrong? 

    Because religions are as vast as there are people groups on the planet it would be impossible to address every religion that man practices.  For example, Hinduism is the foundation of many eastern religions, such as Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism and the like. Judaism is the starting point for many religions as well; such as, Christianity, Mormonism, Jehovah’s Witness, Islam etc...  (There are some who will find offense to this last statement and if that is the case please re-read the definition of religion given in the previous blog.)  There are also newer religions, such as, Wicca, Scientology, new forms of old religions; such as the new atheism, new agnostic, of course there are your traditional atheist and agnostics etc… etc… etc…  

    When one decides to become cognitively consonant pertaining to their religious beliefs or beliefs in the supernatural (metaphysical) it is imperative to take a look at the source of one’s belief.  In the process of determining where one would like to put their faith many questions should be asked, without these questions one either accepts or rejects particular belief systems blindly.  It is also imperative to come at this with a purely open heart.

     A truth can never be undone by a question.  If someone questions the roundness of the earth and suggests that he/she perceives that the earth is rather flat.  If this someone questions and challenges, does this change the facts?  If God exists and has a purpose for His creation does that become undone by a question?  The point is, not all of us are on the same level of belief and not all of us use the gift of reason at the same level.  Let us try to determine if we were created with a purpose!

Part III A: Religion: The Sacriest Word Of All!: Is it one size fits all?

              It is safe to say that just about everyone who reaches an age where they are contemplating life, it’s meaning and purpose, has formulated a definition of religion.  One of the questions I ask my students the first day of class is, “How would you define religion?”  As with faith, there are multiple answers which range from, defining religion to be a set of ideas that people are brought up to believe, to a way for governments to control us, to a God ordained way of life.  All the answers my students give have some merit based on the definition I will give.  Religion is man’s attempt to explain the behavior of mankind; his interaction with the world around him and the idea (possibility or impossibility) of as well as man’s relationship to, a supernatural- spirit realm and Supernatural, Spiritual gods or God.  Or for those who are squeamish with the concept of supernatural, let us call it metaphysical.

              It is important to state that the definition of religion is not as close to absolute as the definition of what science should be.  That is not to say that one cannot find absolutes in their religion.  The western mindset pertaining to religion is somewhat of an individualistic mindset that allows the individual to freely express religion on their own terms.  This is why I used the definition above; it allows the individual to have free expression of their beliefs as well as allowing for the possibility of gods or a supreme god who mandates a set of beliefs, rituals; sacred acts to appease said gods or god.  The definition even allows for a loving relational God. 

              Religion has evolved over time along with the best definition for it.  Though it is debatable where the American founding fathers stood on particular religious thoughts and expressions, though the European ideology of church being governed by the state caused many different expressions of religious belief to be birthed, one thing stands as fact. The Christian religion has been utterly influential throughout the western world since Constantine made Christianity the main religion of the Roman Empire.

              In our ever shrinking world because of the ease of global transportation, the internet, multicultural cities and other factors western religious thought and expression is easily found worldwide.  Eastern and Middle Eastern religious ideologies, thoughts and expressions have come to be more influential in the west because of these same factors.  This is interesting because of the very nature of religion.  Most people who take their religion seriously consider it to be something personal and sacred.  What do we do when we come across someone whose religious ideology don’t line up similarly to our own?  Is pluralism the answer, or should we live and let live?  These types of questions are very important for those who consider religion to have value (of course all adhere to one set of religious values or another whether they recognize their religion or not).

             Of course there is the atheistic religion that is permeating western society.   I have interacted with many atheists over the course of the last few years and their beliefs are as wide spread as any other religions.  Some, who call themselves atheist are more agnostic and atheist.  Meaning, they do not state empirically that their is no god, only that there is no god presented that they can accept (or something along those lines).  Others are much more ardent in their belief that there is no god.  Yet each atheist has a belief system concerning morality and rights and wrongs.  They all have a belief system concerning consequences for their actions.  They all have a thought on how the universe began etc... etc... etc...

              Since this work is intended to focus on faith and not on religion the answer to these questions posed above will not be addressed fully, though posing the questions and dealing with the whole “religions” part of life is important when talking about faith.  Whatever ones religious beliefs are it is important to remember that being sensitive to ones fellow man and operating from a stand point of compassion is the best way to address some of these sensitive topics.

Part II D: Naturalistic Evolution: Faith or Fact?

With that in mind it is time to broach the subject of evolution.   As stated earlier, because evolution has been a scientific discipline, much in the way of understanding biology, anatomy and the constructs of basic life has come to light.  This helps humanity on many levels including man having the ability to combat and overcome disease.  One very recent possible breakthrough for scientists is figuring out the correct binding of proteins that will in turn bind to another protein that is central to the influenza virus.  With this binding comes new information that will help man battle the common cold as well as strains of influenza that are more difficult for our immune systems to manage.  This does not explain in detail the pain staking difficult work scientists had to go through to have a brake through.  Not only do proteins have to bind to the infectious based protein, they have to be the right kinds of protein that bind.  They not only have to be the correct kinds of protein, but they must bind to the infectious causing protein in the correct place.

              It took the most cutting edge technology to accomplish this; just right environment and many thousands of hours of research and development for scientists to get to a desirable outcome.  It begs the question, if it takes so much time, energy, research and intellectual know how to produce proteins that are affective in combating one disease, how then does one explain away a purely naturalistic process for the origins of life and evolution?  

              Evolution at an earlier stage in its history was a simpler concept than it is today.  One did not have to clarify whether or not they were talking about evolution from one species to another or talking about the origins of life.  Today, because of many factors, evolution theory is a much bigger dilemma than it was.  In the beginning evolution had a simple base; something along the lines of simple less complex organisms evolved into bigger more complex ones.  Today, because of technology we can see a lot of similarity in one celled organisms and multi celled complex organisms.  Scientists look at the more complex organisms and determine, based on DNA, RNA, and Genome mapping which organisms look to be most closely related.   Because of very close relations for particular species scientists determine which species evolved from others.  This in and of itself appears to have value, if evolution had already been proven at a base level.

              Looking at evolution from a purely logical point of view one needs to ask a more in depth question; how did the first single celled organism get here?  Until that question can be answered fully, all other conjectures of purely naturalistic evolutionary processes as the only possible explanation is blind faith based.  If, by chance, a natural process is found it doesn’t prove that natural origins are the only answer to the origins of life, it only changes the faith from blind faith to substance based faith.

              At this point it must be stated that some scientists have moved back into the Deist camp because of the difficulties posed with the question raised in the last paragraph.  Depending on an individual’s interpretation concerning Deism (the belief in an entity outside of the known universe is the “first cause” of the universe) one of two belief systems emerges.  One belief is that the entity was the first cause of the universe only; the other possible belief is the entity is the first cause of life as well.  If an individual determines that the entity was the first cause of life as well as the universe, that individual cannot believe in a purely natural origin to life, thus does not believe in purely naturalistic evolution as the only possibility to life’s inception.  This line of thinking also leaves open the possibility for the entity to be the first cause on many levels that are not personal in nature to man.  It is no more personal for the entity to make a fish than for the entity to make a one celled organism.  This could mean that the entity made everything up to the point of man and then allowed man to evolve from one of the things it made.  Therefore the entity would have been more personal with every creature then it was with man.

              It would appear that Deists would not take things that far, therefore most believe the entity was the first cause of the universe and everything else happened by pure natural processes.   But this leads back to the question of how did the first single celled organism come into being?   Who or what caused life to begin on our planet or the universe at large?  Atheists do not have a legitimate answer to these questions.  Every single hypothesis presented that purports a natural origin has difficulties to say the least, in fact these difficulties are so severe a better word to define this process is, impossible.  To truly grasp this material, one would have to study every possible scenario of how a naturalistic origin to life has been presented.  There are many volumes of material that have been written concerning this matter and if one would like to determine whether or not putting their faith in naturalistic pursuits alone is worth it, becoming informed is essential.  

              Instead of trying to regurgitate something that others have said much better than I can, it will suffice to say that those who have made this pursuit their life’s work have become frustrated with the lack of evidence.  As I have done my research I have found that some leading scholars in this field have actually written about their findings with disappointment or after having presented their findings they state something along the lines of, though the findings make naturalistic origins to life more difficult to explain the findings should not necessarily line up with what is preferred (what is preferred by the researcher and his audience).   Some researchers have gotten so frustrated that they start trying to figure out if certain things such as homochirality are even necessary for life.  The reason they want to find a legit reason to question this is because it is absolutely needed for life and it cannot happen by purely natural means alone (to study this subject on a more complete level a wonderful resource is Origins of Life by Fazale Rana and Hugh Ross).

              This is why I question evolution being ported as a theory (something that is true or recognized as the best explanation).  If we compare the Big Bang Theory with the Evolutionary theory we see that the more tests that are devised and the more understanding we have the more apparently true the Big Bang Theory appears to be.  With the Evolutionary Theory, the more tests it goes through, the more understanding that we have; the more difficult and fragmented it becomes.  Does this alone prove Evolution to be false?  I’ll leave you to do the research for yourself to come to your own conclusions.  However, as things sit today it takes blind faith to believe in a purely natural origin for life.

Part II C: Evolution and the Big Bang: Are both theories equal in status?

Scientists by and large have made significant advancements in the last century on just about every theory it has purposed.  Before I go any further down the evolutionary theory/ naturalistic origins of life theory, I want to address a couple of conceptual differences between the scientific community and the rest of us.  Scientists don’t believe anything can be proven absolutely including all the laws mentioned above.  The only thing science believes it can do absolutely is rule out possible hypothesis that prove to be false (earth being flat, steady state theory etc.).  Each law is constantly being tested and may only be a law for a few centuries, though most laws appear to have the ability to stand the test of time as they are tweaked.  Theories, as defined by science, are not what many lay people define them to be.  Lay people believe a theory to be something that is still left up to debate; where the scientific community views theory to mean something that is generally accepted to be true.

              When something such as evolution reaches theory status in the scientific community it has reached the point of the best possible answer bar none.  Evolution and naturalistic science is a difficult subject to address for both naturalistic atheists and those who hold different views.  Atheist, not scientists in general, have put evolution on the best answer path and have not put anything up against it as an alternative theory.   It is difficult to prove that evolution deserves such a high position.  To illustrate this point I am going to dig into the Big Bang Theory and then the Theory of Evolution; then compare the two theories.  

              The earliest possible dating for the framework of the Big Bang Theory dates to the first couple of decades of the twentieth century.  Scientists were just beginning to wrap their minds around the concepts of the universe not being a constant in space and size.  It was theorized that matter was either expanding or contracting.   Even up until mid-1960 the Big Bang was sharing just about equal footing with the Steady State Theory.  Over the next few decades the Big Bang Theory became the foundation point for other studies, such as the formation of galaxies and getting closer to the starting point of the Big Bang (Steady State Theory lost its footing and was no longer looked at as a viable option).  In the late twentieth century and the early twenty first century the technological advancement of satellites and telescopes have only helped to solidify the Big Bang Theory’s place in science.  Thus the new science of the Big Bang has gained actual legit, scientific solid footing.  Compared to Evolutionary theory and research the Big Bang research is an infant.

              The Big Bang Theory does not attempt to explain what preceded it.  Some scientist call the beginning point the “God particle” because no one knows how it got there or who put it there.  Science is not able to answer that question because of the framework science is supposed to work in.  Science is supposed to test the physical natural universe and all that is within it that is physical; that is all!  Science is not supposed to question what is outside of the universe because moving in that direction puts it in line with faith based communities, not intellectual practical communities.  Whenever science goes down the path of dull universe or pluralistic universe ideas or multiverse; anything that is not testable in the framework listed in a previous article, that particular type of science has become faith based and shares equal footing with religion (a discussion of faith in religion will be addressed later).  Let me state, that research that can yield actual physical results that can be testable is not faith based, but anything that can only be understood theoretically, instead of actually physically tested is just playing with math.  Math formulas are only as useful as the assumption that lead people to conceptualize the formula.  What this means is that people come up with formulas based off of their world views, theist and atheists both do this.  But this leads us to a rabbit trail.  In the next part of our series we will address evolution.

As just a rabbit trail, since science is not here to state truths we need other tools to find truths, such as metaphysics,  and philosophy.  

Part II B: Science is not Atheism: Empirical Data is For every belief to interpret

              Science as a discipline is not supposed to find its roots in faith.  It is supposed to find its roots in intellectual pursuit and then put faith in action to prove a question empirically.  How long is the “faith in action” (hypothesis) part supposed to go on?  When does the “faith in action” (hypothesis) for science start to look more religious than scientific?  These questions do not diminish science as a discipline nor do they take away from science, the ability to do what it’s intended to do.  These questions only help to clarify where people on an individual basis are rooted.

              To illustrate my point I will attempt to expound upon one particular hot topic that charges both the scientific community and religious community at large.  Science should be empirical, but those who hold to religions like atheism, Christianity, Judaism, Islam etc… typically get charged.  Over one hundred and fifty years ago a hypothesis was put forward by Charles Darwin concerning evolution; he wrote a book called: The Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection or The Preservation of Favored Races in the Struggle for Life, (better known as: The Origin of Species).  Because of this “theory” many scientists have put the scientific method into practice and some atheists have come to believe this is the best known answer to the origins of life; while other have reserved judgment.  While still others have come to the conclusion that evolution does not add up.  In the process man has gained an invaluable amount of information concerning the biology of man and other species.

              Much in the way of understanding our genetic makeup as well as the genetic makeup of many other species has come forth recently because of this particular scientific discipline.  One particular study has been in the works for many years; mapping the human genome.  Scientists have recently completed an extensive amount of research that has found our genome to be over three billion base pairs.  In the process they have found that our genome is only slightly different from that of many primates.  There are only about 500 base pairs that are noticeably different between humans and primates.  These differences are significant though they be quantitatively small (500 out of over 3 billion is a small number).  

              Many proponents for evolution believe this to be good evidence leading to the proof of a purely naturalistic evolutionary process for life and go as far as to say God is not necessary.  This is the religion of atheism.  Scientifically speaking, is that a correct assumption?   Does having a small difference in DNA, RNA and Genome structure prove one species evolved from another?  Does it also prove that life’s inception had to be natural?  What happens when a hypothesis has been exhausted and no provable answers come to bear fruit for the purposed question?  DNA, RNA coding is so advanced that it blows our binary coding away!  Every evolutionary hypothesis that suggests that life could arise on its own by purely natural circumstances has been either disproved or on the verge of disproved.  Not one hypothesis has stood the test of true science.  

The flavor of the decade is abiogenesis, which is purely faith based if one believes it true.  There is no physical evidence to support it.  The atheist will say that young scientific inquiries always have problems.  But the reality is that they must hold on to such things to give their world view a chance at being logical.  Abiogenesis only works if your have blind faith because no real evidence proves it.  And what makes the faith blind is the fact that we are dealing with the physical world, not metaphysical; and there is no logical reason to blindly believe in the physical when there is no evidence.  It is similar to the time when man believed the earth to be flat when all the evidence points to a spherical earth.  It is similar to believing the earth is only 10,000 years old when all the evidence points to the earth being much older.