"If it is possible, as much as depends on you, live peaceably with all men." - Romans 12:18
From a Biblical perspective, peace should be the default state of the human race. Unfortunately, this is a prescriptive concept, not a descriptive one. Throughout our history, we have had great conflict. It took one generation for murder to enter our world, as the jealous Cain famously murdered his brother, Abel. Not long after, Cain's descendent, Lamech, boasts of killing a man for wounding him, and how if he who kills Cain deserves to receive vengeance, Lamech more so.
This tendency never stopped. The Earth became filled with violence, and the Lord showed remorse for the mere creation of mankind, so He flooded us out, sparing only those aboard the ark. Then He split us off from the rebellious community at Babel, confusing our languages and dividing us into nations. And nation rose against nation. Peace should be our default, but throughout time, our sinful nature has won out. Conflict has spread, both on an individual and global scale. There have been very few times throughout history in which someone, somewhere, was not fighting.
But we can make peace as well. One peculiar example happened in the 6th century B.C. The Battle of Halys, also known as the Battle of the Eclipse, was fought between two groups, the Lydians and the Medes. The war itself had been going on for 6 years, but it was brought to a beautiful end when the final battle was abruptly ended by an eclipse, which both sides interpreted as a bad omen. Peace talks began, and finally, the king of the Lydians gave his daughter in marriage to the son of the king of the Medes. The Halys river was officially established as the border between the two nations, and the war was finally over.
As fascinating as this account is, a modern audience will understand the flaw in the story. On the one hand, it is good that the Medes and the Lydians were able to broker peace. On the other hand, their reasons for doing so are foolish. An eclipse, however unexpected, is not a "bad omen", and had the war continued, it would have gone just as any other war. Lots of death and tragedy until one side wins, or peace was brokered some other way.
This leads us to an interesting concept. It is possible to reach the right answer for the wrong reasons. In this case, peace is the right answer, but the eclipse is the wrong reason. The right reason is that mankind is not designed for conflict, and the Earth is more than capable of sustaining us all. Conflict is caused by other wrong things. Envy, greed, ignorance, pride, these things and more lead us to do some very bad things.
And they're all a part of our sinful nature. For 6,000 years, the species made in the image of God has fought viciously against Him and His ways, a war which does not always involve shield and sword. But still, we do terrible things, and even when we do not do them, we support them.
But we're not all bad, right? We do good things. We don't even need to be told to. We can, as the saying goes, be "good without God". The problem is, without God, we do not have to be good.
Ultimately, God is a good designer, and human beings are one of His greatest designs. Inherently, we all have some sense of justice. The Bible puts it this way: "For as many as have sinned without law will also perish without law, and as many as have sinned in the law will be judged by the law (for not the hearers of the law are just in the sight of God, but the doers of the law will be justified; for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them) in the day when God will judge the secrets of men by Jesus Christ, according to my gospel." (Romans 2:12-16).
From this, we see that human beings are inherently aware of good and evil. Furthermore, we do often choose the former. We "by nature do the things in the law". We get married. We preserve human life. We respect each other's property. We abhor dishonesty. Ultimately, Scripture gives us a greater understanding of what we all know by instinct.
Because of those instincts, not only those who haven't heard of God, but also those who intentionally reject Him, want to do what they think is good. But with no God upon which to ground these morals, they begin seeking alternatives. But just as you cannot obey a law that does not exist, it is very hard to convince others to live by those same laws.
See, atheists have one common doctrine between the lot of them: There is no God. Beyond that, while they may have common beliefs with other atheists, nothing says they have to. Not all atheists have to believe in Evolution, for example. Evolution is just one of many atheistic religions.
Just as atheists do not all agree on Evolution, there is no moral view common to all atheists, because there is no foundation upon which to build these views. Just as the Medes and the Lydians declared peace because of the eclipse, but an eclipse will not likely end any other war ever again, atheists might well use the wrong formula to get the right answer, but when they take that formula to other atheists, they will disagree, because the wrong formula does not necessarily lead to the right answer.
To be a necessary conclusion, a conclusion must be appropriately connected to certain premises. Observe the following example:
Premise 1: All snakes lay eggs.
Premise 2: An adder is a snake.
Conclusion: Adders lay eggs.
The conclusion "adders lay eggs" is a necessary conclusion from the premises. Now, I'm going to throw in a plot twist here and say that actually, I just showed an example of using the right formula to get the wrong conclusion! Adders do not, in fact, lay eggs. Many snakes do, but adders actually give live birth. The flaw, in this case, is in the premise.
As a Christian, I obviously believe God exists. I also believe the evidence for this conclusion is convincing. But for sake of argument, let's suppose, just as the premise "all snakes lay eggs" is wrong, "God exists" is wrong. In that case, the following formula still works:
P1: God exists.
P2: God forbids rape.
C: Rape is wrong.
That rape is wrong is a necessary conclusion of the Christian faith. There isn't even the potential for a grey area here. It's not like killing, which is generally a sin, but may be permissible in self defence. There is no way to justify rape in any scenario if God exists.
But what if He doesn't? Let's use Penn Jilette as an example. In one interview, Penn Jillette said "The question I get asked by religious people all the time is, without God, what’s to stop me from raping all I want? And my answer is: I do rape all I want. And the amount I want is zero. And I do murder all I want, and the amount I want is zero. The fact that these people think that if they didn’t have this person watching over them that they would go on killing, raping rampages is the most self-damning thing I can imagine. I don’t want to do that. Right now, without any god, I don’t want to jump across this table and strangle you. I have no desire to strangle you. I have no desire to flip you over and rape you. You know what I mean?" (1).
Now, at the outset, I have to wonder how often Penn really gets asked this question? Of course, I consider it possible. I am fully aware of the tragic number of Christians who are not capable of defending the faith. But it does perplex me how often I hear of this mythical group of stereotypes wondering around, saying the dumbest possible things, then getting stumped when the atheist gives the most obvious response in the history of apologetics. Meanwhile, I never seem to find them. I've never met a Christian, nor even a Theist, who asks "without God, what's to stop me from raping all I want?" I've been in groups with thousands of Christians, I've browsed forums, I've even done admin work for some ministries larger than I anticipate Bible Brain will grow during my lifetime, I have never seen this level of incompetence. Yet, Penn Jillette seems to get this "all the time", and I've met other atheists who make the same claims.
My suspicion is that Penn may have heard versions of the moral argument, but severely misunderstood it. Nevertheless, let's plug in Penn Jillette's formula and see if it necessarily leads to the conclusion that rape is wrong.
P1: I, Penn Jillette, do not want to rape anyone.
P2: I, Penn Jillette, do not rape anyone.
C: Rape is wrong.
Notice how the conclusion does not flow naturally from the premises. Instead, Penn has reduced morality to a matter of preference. Personally, I eat all the avocados I want: None. From the taste to the texture, I despise avocados, and outside of a survival situation, I would never willingly eat an avocado. And I know I'm not alone in that. Thousands of people around the world despise avocados. But my particular distaste for avocados does not make it wrong for you to eat as many as you like. If, for some bizarre reason, I wanted to condemn eating avocados, I would need a stronger reason.
In the same way, when it comes to moral claims, you need a stronger argument than personal preference. Otherwise, you're inevitably going to meet someone with an alternate preference, and that same formula will lead them to a different answer. As I have shown before, if I became an atheist, I would still have a lot of the same desires. I wouldn't suddenly become a crime drama psychopath and go on a murder spree. But it would be entirely consistent with my new worldview if I did.
In fact, the irony is, there are some moral views I only possess because I am a Christian, and Penn Jillette very likely differs from these. "Small" things, like cussing, are evil in my eyes, not because of any personal preference - I actually have to restrain myself - but because God has designed the tongue to both glorify Him and edify others. Personal pleasures, such as alcohol, are designed to be enjoyed, but there is a limit. And I believe sexual purity goes beyond mere consent. Adultery, fornication, even lust, are all wrong.
But by nature, we all tend towards various sins, with God being the main reason many Christians restrain themselves, including myself. If I became an atheist tomorrow, I would not rape anyone, but I wouldn't abstain from certain other behaviors. Some of which Penn Jillette might call immoral. Others, he might say I am currently immoral for speaking against. But because of his atheistic worldview, he has no foundation upon which to build his moral views. Penn Jillette may consider it "damning" that I limit my behavior to conform to God's Holy standard, but the truly damning thing is that Penn seems to believe he is God.
See, if there is no God, the highest legislative authority is man, and the one who is "right" is the one with the biggest gun. Even then, there are ways around this. It's called "crime", and contrary to the old saying, sometimes, it does pay.
To really drive this point home, consider the infamous Jeffrey Dahmer. Because of the particularly gruesome nature of his crimes, many people know about him, but not as many people know that in the end, Jeffrey Dahmer found Christ. Here's what he said: "If a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behaviour to keep it within acceptable ranges? That’s how I thought anyway. I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime. When we died, you know, that was it, there is nothing, and I’ve since come to believe that the Lord Jesus Christ is truly God, and I believe that I, as well as everyone else, will be accountable to Him." (2).
So now we have a distinction between me eating all the avocados I want, and Jeffrey Dahmer eating all the people he wanted. What can an atheist say that would convince the next Jeffrey Dahmer to "modify his behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges"? In fact, what exactly are those acceptable ranges? Every atheist, using the wrong formula, thinks they have the right answer. And in many cases, they very well might. Atheists do some very good things. But they also do bad things. Some of these, they will recognise as bad. Others, they may actually defend as good.
This all comes to one conclusion: If there is no God, there are no moral absolutes. There are personal preferences, there are cultural norms, there are laws, but there are no moral absolutes. Things can be desired or undesirable, they can be socially accepted or taboo, they can be legal or illegal, but they can never be good or evil. By contrast, if there are moral absolutes, there must be a God behind them.
But this is where it gets problematic. The greatest strength of the moral argument is also its greatest weakness. See, most people instinctively recognise that there are moral absolutes. However, because they are not tangible concepts, they can be as easily denied. This actually means the moral argument may be living on borrowed time. As our culture drifts more towards relativism, the human conscience is becoming seared, and morality genuinely is seen as mere preference. The only absolutes are that there are no absolutes, and it is absolutely offensive to say otherwise.
If you're an atheist, it is a consistent option for you to go along with this. Ok, maybe there are no absolutes, maybe drunkenness, porn, gay "marriage", rape... Maybe they're not morally wrong. Maybe they're just morally different. In this case, the more argument isn't going to be effective for you. This is fine, there are other reasons to believe in God, specifically the God of the Bible.
Chief among these is the evidence pointing to the resurrection of Christ. If Christ is risen, not only does this verify His claims to be God, but conveniently, it also makes up for our moral failures. Every time we have used the wrong formula, every time we have got the wrong answers, were nailed to the cross. This paves the way for salvation. When we rebel against God, this is called "sin", and it is punishable by what Scripture calls the "second death" - an eternity suffering God's wrath. But those who place their faith in Christ will receive the reward He is owed for His perfect life. This is the only formula that will get you eternal life.
References
1. Jillette, Penn - quoted in "Penn Jillette Rapes All the Women He Wants To", The Interro Bang, April 30th 2012 (link)
2. Jeffrey Dahmer, in an interview with Stone Phillips, Dateline NBC, Nov. 29, 1994.