Last November, I bought my daughter Rachael a ping pong table for her birthday. Ever since, she and I play at least 3 nights a week. She keeps playing her heart out, no matter how many times I beat her (I know, you think I should let her win once in a while! While that would seem to be an option, she can tell when I’m not trying as hard as I can and she gets mad. I must win or she’ll lose interest!) In the process, she’s gotten to be quite good, and is improving at a faster rate than I am. I’ll probably quit playing her in another three months. I hate losing.
Anyway, a couple of days ago we were playing and got into a fierce debate. She made a great serve, but I called it wide of the middle line, a fault – my point! No, she insisted, the ball was in bounds, the only fault being with my eyesight. Both of us knew the rule, and both of us insisted that the other had seen the play incorrectly. As we kept on, she pulled out a statement that I’ve used many times around our house – “I wish we could rewind the divine videotape and watch it, because I know it would prove that I’m right!”
In the midst of our debate, we stumbled upon one of the most compelling existential pointers to the existence of God – the so-called “Moral Law.” While many philosophers and theologians have elaborated upon this, I most recently encountered it in The Language of God, written by Francis Collins, scientist and head of the human genome project. This law is invoked hundreds of times every day by people all over the planet, with very few ever stopping to think that it begs the existence of a supreme moral being. As Collins puts it,
Disagreements are part of daily life. Some are mundane, as the wife
criticizing her husband for not speaking more kindly to a friend, or a child
complaining, “It’s not fair,” when different amounts of ice cream are doled out
at a birthday party. Other arguments take on larger significance. In
international affairs, for instance, some argue that the United States has a
moral obligation to spread democracy throughout the world, even if it requires
military force, whereas others say that the aggressive, unilateral use of
military and economic force threatens to squander moral authority. (p. 22)
Every single one of us on planet earth appeals to some unwritten higher standard of behavior. None of us questions whether or not there is such a thing as “right behavior,” we simply debate whether a particular action is in line with the standard or not. Rachael and I playing ping pong illustrates this on a couple of levels. First, there was a standard of right and wrong that we both agreed upon, namely that it was “right” to follow the rules established for ping pong. It would be wrong to simply invent new rules along the way that favored one to the disadvantage of the other. Second, we intuitively knew that both of us could not be “right” in this case – the ball was either on my side or hers, but it could not be both simultaneously.
What does this have to do with God? Our experience tells us that the concept of right and wrong is universal among all human societies and individuals. While not every society agrees on whether a particular action is right or wrong, all societies agree upon the existence of the categories. Despite various attempts, this universal “Moral Law” has not been explained away as a cultural artifact or an evolutionary by-product. Unless one rules out the existence of a supernatural being a priori, the existence of the Moral Law causes one to take pause: Isn’t it at least possible that some controlling power outside our universe has placed inside each one of us a moral code of behavior? In fact, if this power created humans, wouldn’t you even expect that such a code would be hard-wired into us? While the “Moral Law” certainly does not prove God’s existence, it forces us to consider that this is at least possible, maybe even probable.
By the way, Rachael and I decided that without access to the instant replay tape, we’d have to settle for a “do over.” Don’t you wish you could do THAT in life?!
Anyway, a couple of days ago we were playing and got into a fierce debate. She made a great serve, but I called it wide of the middle line, a fault – my point! No, she insisted, the ball was in bounds, the only fault being with my eyesight. Both of us knew the rule, and both of us insisted that the other had seen the play incorrectly. As we kept on, she pulled out a statement that I’ve used many times around our house – “I wish we could rewind the divine videotape and watch it, because I know it would prove that I’m right!”
In the midst of our debate, we stumbled upon one of the most compelling existential pointers to the existence of God – the so-called “Moral Law.” While many philosophers and theologians have elaborated upon this, I most recently encountered it in The Language of God, written by Francis Collins, scientist and head of the human genome project. This law is invoked hundreds of times every day by people all over the planet, with very few ever stopping to think that it begs the existence of a supreme moral being. As Collins puts it,
Disagreements are part of daily life. Some are mundane, as the wife
criticizing her husband for not speaking more kindly to a friend, or a child
complaining, “It’s not fair,” when different amounts of ice cream are doled out
at a birthday party. Other arguments take on larger significance. In
international affairs, for instance, some argue that the United States has a
moral obligation to spread democracy throughout the world, even if it requires
military force, whereas others say that the aggressive, unilateral use of
military and economic force threatens to squander moral authority. (p. 22)
Every single one of us on planet earth appeals to some unwritten higher standard of behavior. None of us questions whether or not there is such a thing as “right behavior,” we simply debate whether a particular action is in line with the standard or not. Rachael and I playing ping pong illustrates this on a couple of levels. First, there was a standard of right and wrong that we both agreed upon, namely that it was “right” to follow the rules established for ping pong. It would be wrong to simply invent new rules along the way that favored one to the disadvantage of the other. Second, we intuitively knew that both of us could not be “right” in this case – the ball was either on my side or hers, but it could not be both simultaneously.
What does this have to do with God? Our experience tells us that the concept of right and wrong is universal among all human societies and individuals. While not every society agrees on whether a particular action is right or wrong, all societies agree upon the existence of the categories. Despite various attempts, this universal “Moral Law” has not been explained away as a cultural artifact or an evolutionary by-product. Unless one rules out the existence of a supernatural being a priori, the existence of the Moral Law causes one to take pause: Isn’t it at least possible that some controlling power outside our universe has placed inside each one of us a moral code of behavior? In fact, if this power created humans, wouldn’t you even expect that such a code would be hard-wired into us? While the “Moral Law” certainly does not prove God’s existence, it forces us to consider that this is at least possible, maybe even probable.
By the way, Rachael and I decided that without access to the instant replay tape, we’d have to settle for a “do over.” Don’t you wish you could do THAT in life?!
