Your browser (Internet Explorer 6) is out of date. It has known security flaws and may not display all features of this and other websites. Learn how to update your browser.

Got a Moral Law-Giver?

My name is Chad Williams; I am a former U.S. Navy SEAL having served on SEAL Teams 1 and 7. I also have enjoyed some time serving as a SEAL Instructor. Currently I serve at Living Waters as the Asst. Director of the Ambassadors’ Alliance alongside Director Tony Miano

My goal for this blog is to offer answers to questions that I receive from individuals in such a way that will benefit a community of like-minded Christians. Not only do I hope to provide answers, but I want to break down weighty or scholarly issues which believers may encounter during their fulfilling of the “Great Commission” commanded by Jesus Christ.

I received the following question in a recent email. It was this email that spurred my interest to start this blog.

“If there is a moral law how do you say that their [sic] has to be a moral law giver?….is that an extrapolated concept?”


The necessity of a “Moral Law-Giver” is to say if such an act as “torturing babies for the fun of it” is to be “absolutely and objectively wrong” it needs to be grounded; it needs to have an anchor-point. Otherwise it is not grounded having no foundation. It would be free-floating and merely subjective or relative.

You can see what happens when there is no Absolute Moral Law Giver (God) when we apply a “reductio ad absurdum” meaning we reduce a proposition down to its logical consequences revealing the absurdity of its conclusion.

The consequences of no Absolute Moral Law Giver will reduce as follows:

No Absolute Moral Law-Giver (Anchor Point) means,

No “Grounding” for Moral Law which means,

No “Standard” to use to differentiate or calibrate what is “Right” or what is “Wrong” which means,

All things become equal i.e. Love/Hate, Good/Evil, Right/Wrong. The words remain but all actual meaning is gone!

The startling conclusion of denying such an Ultimate Authority as God is revealed by the current “Pope of Evolution” Richard Dawkins as he writes:

“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”[1]

If one wishes to deny the existence of God they lose the ability to account for any kind of real and actual Moral Law. Morality reduces to absurdity, just molecules in motion that react differently under alternate influences and temperatures. According to this view, when the planes crashed into the Twin Towers on 9/11 nothing actually “Wrong” happened. It was just a re-arrangement of molecules and pitiless indifference as the “Pope of evolution” would put it.

However, such absurdity does not comport or jive with reality though. As human beings made in God’s image Gen. 1:27 we know that there is an anchored morality that permeates from the Creator of all things Col. 1:16. This truth has it has been written on our very hearts Rom. 2:15

So how does this play out? In what way might we encounter this kind of reasoning in the streets or during everyday conversation? Well here is one example of such a challenge to the Moral Law Giver.

Suppressor of Truth: “I don’t believe in God because of all the evil in the world”

Christian: “When you say there is such a thing as ‘evil’ do you not assume there is such a thing as ‘good’ too?”

Suppressor of Truth: “Sure.”

Christian: “Ok, well when you assume there is such a thing as ‘good’ and ‘evil’ do you not also assume that there is some type of moral law that we could use to tell us the difference between what is ‘good’ and what is ‘evil’?”

Suppressor of Truth: “I guess so.”

Christian: “Well if there is a Moral Law does there not have to be a Moral Law Giver which anchors and grounds such a Moral Law making it real and concrete rather than subjective and imaginary?”

Suppressor of Truth: “Um…I have never really thought this far into it but it seems to make a sort of sense.”

Christian: “Ok, well you see…when you say that you don’t believe in God because of all the evil in the world you are trying to disprove the very Moral Law Giver who grounds the standard that such an evil you refer to actually exists!

Suppressor of Truth: “Huh?”

Christian: “It goes something like this…You assume there is ‘evil’ and therefore assume there is ‘good.’ In order to tell the difference between ‘good’ and ‘evil’ you need a Moral Law. In order for this Moral Law to be real, (anchored and grounded) rather than subjective, relative, and imaginary it requires a Moral Law Giver. But you see… you are trying to discount the Moral Law Giver (God) which eliminates a real, anchored, and grounded Moral Law. Without such a Moral Law you have nothing to differentiate between what is ‘good’ and ‘evil’. Finally the very ‘evil’ that you refer to is no real ‘evil’ at all but only subjective and imaginary. So you see the very fact that you acknowledge there is such a thing as ‘evil’ is proof that there is a Moral Law Giver which is proof that God exists!

[1]Richard Dawkins, “God’s Utility Function,” published in Scientific American (November, 1995), p. 85

Leave a comment  




Submit comment