Reader questions Pastor Mitchell’s conclusion
The following letter is a response to Pastor Mitchell’s article in the Saturday, Dec. 5, 2020, Calhoun Times.
The existence of morality does not prove the existence of God; only individual faith can. In his latest article Pastor Jon Mitchell argues that the existence of morality proves God’s existence. I am writing to say it unequivocally does not. My argument is simple, and my hope is it can be followed without me embarking upon a tangent somewhere in this writing.
Pastor Mitchell actually confirms that his argument is fallacious within the third paragraph in which he writes: “Granted, there is not universal agreement as to what constitutes right and wrong, but most of us agree the line between good and bad exists.” If we do not have universal agreement then it also means there may not be universality of morality. “The line exists” says Pastor Mitchell. Yes, most societies would accept this but…where?
A classic example would be murder; is it wrong? Most societies would say “Yes.” What about the execution of a convicted murderer? Is that murder? You will receive multiple answers to this question, none with a sure footed consensus. For argument’s sake let’s tackle a topic less difficult: white lies. Do you tell your significant other they look fat in that new outfit? If your answer is “Yes,” then maybe you do like sleeping on the sofa. Again, where is this line that exists?
His next argument for morality comes from the animal kingdom wherein he asserts animals kill with impunity. Do they? Biologists and zoologists would tell you most animals do not. Why? Because most live in complex societies with rules that humanity is just now discovering.
Let’s take for example monkeys since Pastor Mitchell used them for explanation. Great apes and smaller simians live in complex societies as any nature show will tell you. They have loving relationships, show affection, defend their group, and even create tools that are used to help them obtain food. Now, is there violence in the animal kingdom? Of course, but I have never heard or seen two apes kill each other over a piece of colored paper.
Now we come to the caveman. That horrid, knuckle dragging buffoon who knew little and was violent to everyone he met. Or was he? Current archeology shows us that that was not the case. They formed structured relationships, even burying their dead with trinkets for the afterlife. If cavemen were so brutal, how did we survive to become the complex societies we are today? The idea that they were madmen wearing animal skins is a myth; men in suits are more savage.
However, the cavemen analogy does bring up an interesting topic. If current studies show us they were not madmen, then how did their relationships form? The answer is simple: they formed the same way as animal societies. Mutual cooperation, family bonds and a sense of community are what bind us together. Why is it hard to comprehend that morality can form without a sense of God?
Morality is merely what a society is willing to tolerate. Look anywhere in history, and you will find this truth. Pedophilia (as heinous a crime as any) was tolerated and institutionalized in ancient Athens, the birthplace of democracy. How did that change? Society decided to change it. What about slavery? The Bible does not condemn slavery outright, yet how, in our own country, was slavery vanquished? Because society decided it was time to end the abominable practice (with the help of different people from all different backgrounds).
That is the cornerstone of my argument; morality can be explained by what a society will tolerate. Who can live in peace when there is anarchy? The one who does not wish to live in a society with rules will soon find himself exiled. If morality is formed based on the experiences of societies, then morality is not inherent. It is not objective. It is subjective based on the understanding of society and what it is willing to tolerate.
That is “the line.”