Why does humanity have a sense of morals? Why do we think of human rights as something concrete? How can anyone claim that to expect a standard of someone, or to say that a life is not righteous, is shallow, whilst still holding on to their moral conviction that genocide is wrong.
I’ve been reading Tim Keller’s “A reason for God.”
We all know that people have a right to life, and a right to freedom etc. We know that people who violate these rights and oppress others are morally wrong. We also know that the secular world claims an “all roads lead to Rome” pluralistic approach is fair to all religions. It claims that being tolerant of others and their beliefs means accepting that they are just as right.
But for me, pluralism doesn’t work; in saying all religions are manifestations of the same “life force” or concept, instead of making all equally right according to the pluralistic principle, they treat all as equally wrong. Why? Because each religion directly contradicts the others, and failing to recognise that they are different enough that the gods they all describe can be both true and the same God is ridiculous.
Here’s how I see that approach;
It’s OK, God can exist and not exist, people can go to heaven and at the same time be reincarnated on earth, there can be both a harmonious triune God and thousands of competing Gods, there can be salvation through works alone and salvation through faith alone and there can be both hell and no hell.
A pluralist may well say that a Christian who claims Christianity is the only truth is shallow and intolerant, is actually showing less respect and tolerance for ALL of the religions, in claiming that they are all wrong in differentiating between one another, yet claiming that everything is relative EXCEPT that statement that there is no ultimate truth. What possible evidence have they got to say that there can’t be ONE option that is true? To me it seems that this is just a way of avoiding the fact that ONE might be true, and justifying to oneself that you don’t need to look for a truth that may be there.
So how does this fit with morals? Similarly, you can’t claim that anything is right or wrong, if you see morality as a construct. But for whatever reason, we do KNOW some things are wrong. And if it weren’t then what right do you have to intervene to stop a genocide? You are imposing your (apparently exclusively personal) morals on someone else.
So the fact that there is an ultimate morality of justice and rights, which goes against all the laws of the natural world (that is natural selection and violence to survive) suggests to me (Via Tim keller) that there must be some absolute out there.