Arguments that Christians have offered in favor of God based on the existence of morality have been misunderstood by atheists and also by some Christians.
Here's the way the moral argument goes: If there is no God, there is no objective morality. But there is objective morality evidenced by the problem of evil. Therefore, there must be a God.
I’ll specifically address the confusion because atheists are quick to object, “You're saying I can't be moral if I don't believe in God," and that is not our point.
Our point is, if there is no God, morality has no meaning. The quickest way I can get to that point is to offer a challenge by the late Christopher Hitchens, one of the New Atheists. He said, "Tell me one good thing that you can do as a theist that I can't do as an atheist."
That's a fair charge, but notice how it focuses on behavior. Can he do the same behaviors that we do? The answer is yes, he can. That's not the issue. The issue is whether the behaviors are good or not without God.
Let me offer another illustration. I'll use Christopher Hitchens.
What if Christopher Hitchens said, "I don't believe in writers."
And I said, "Well if you don't believe in writers, then how can you read?"
And he said, "I can read anything just as good as you can read, maybe even better."
The point isn't who can do the behavior more effectively. The point is whether there's anything to read without writers.
This is called the grounding problem. What makes morality possible? What does it sit on, so-to-speak? Reading depends on writing. Writing depends on writers. That's the grounding problem with reading.
Morality—being good—depends on there being moral laws. Moral laws require a moral Law-Maker. If there is a moral Law-Maker, then there are moral laws, and both the Christian and the atheist can do good things regardless of their beliefs because there are good things to do.
But if there is no God, then there are no morals, and there are no good things. You can still do the same behaviors, but neither the atheist nor the theist can define them as good.
Where Do Moral Laws Come From?
Greg Koukl
Which Kind of Evangelist Are You?
Greg Koukl
In evangelism, before there can be a harvest, there has to be a season of gardening. If we go to the field looking for a harvest, we may be frustrated because the fruit may not be ripe yet. In other words, before someone comes to Christ, there is first a season of considering Christ. I’m not a harvester. I’m a gardener. Someone comes into my garden after me and harvests my fruit. Do you think that bothers me? No, I’m glad. Jesus confirms this point in John 4. He says to the disciples, “You are about to reap where you did not sow.” He’s identifying one field, two seasons—reaping and sowing—and two kinds of workers—harvesters and gardeners. I think the gardening job is harder than harvesting because when the fruit is ripe, it falls into the basket. Jesus is telling the disciples they’re about to get the ripe, low-hanging fruit after someone else did the heavy lifting. Then He says, “So that the one who reaps and the one who sows can rejoice together.” I want to put a stone in someone’s shoe. That’s my approach. I want to create a doubt in their mind about their own view so they move a little closer to Christ. If more Christians thought of themselves as gardeners and left the harvest up to God’s sovereignty, more Christians would be willing to get into play. The book Tactics is a game plan that will allow you to do that effectively. Tactics help you to garden, and gardening is the biggest thing that’s needed right now.
Want to Share the Gospel? Start with This Question
Greg Koukl
Having a tactical game plan in place allows you to engage somebody in a productive way for Christ without taking a lot of risk on yourself. Don’t worry about the harvest, but think more about the gardening. If we garden effectively, the harvest will take care of itself. Trying to win someone to Christ is daunting for a lot of people, so they sit on the bench instead. I want to suggest how you can get in the game. First, gather information. What does that do? It gives me a lay of the land. I might find out if they are a Christian, if they used to be a Christian, whether they’ve thought about Christianity, or whether they’re hostile to Christianity. These are all things that are really valuable to know before you move forward. You don’t need to hurry. Do not worry about winning them to Christ. Just think about gathering information. I have a model question that will help you: “What do you mean by that?” You can use it different ways, under different circumstances, with different people. This is especially helpful when people are raising objections or challenges against Christianity. Examples: A: Friend: “Everything is relative.” You: “What do you mean by relative?” B: Friend: “I believe in evolution.” You: “What do you mean by evolution?” C: Friend: “I believe the Bible is filled with errors.” You: “Why do you believe the Bible is filled with errors?” It is always in your favor to ask more questions. You don’t have to answer the objection at this point. Just get more information. The more information you get, the better. The more you understand that person, the better you’ll be able to decide which direction to go or whether to go in any direction at all. This first question, “What do you mean by that?”—meant to help you gather information—is going to get you started, and that’s all we want to worry about at this point in the tactical game plan.
The Burden-Free Step in Discussing Christian Beliefs
Greg Koukl
When we think about the tactical game plan, or how we thoughtfully engage someone while staying relaxed and keeping our risk level low, I have in mind a multi-step process. The first step is to gather information. We can use the question “What do you mean by that?” The second step I call “reversing the burden of proof.” The burden of proof is the responsibility someone in the conversation has to give reasons or evidence for a view. Here is the burden of proof rule: The one who makes the claim bears the burden. If somebody says, “The Bible has been changed,” or, “God doesn’t exist,” or “Jesus didn’t exist,” or, “There are no miracles,” it’s not your job as a follower of Christ to show where the other person is wrong. It is that person’s job to show why he or she is right. After we ask some questions to get more clarification, we will have a clear picture of what they believe. We want to know why they believe their view. This is where some form of the question “How did you come to that conclusion?” comes in. “What are your reasons for saying that?” “How do you know that’s the way it really happened?” “Do you have any evidence for that view? I’m interested in finding out.” In the second step, we’re gathering a different kind of information than the first step. First, we get clarity on their point of view. Now we want clarity on why they believe what they believe. Just like the first step, there’s no pressure on you. It’s relaxed. You’re being a student. You’re just listening to what the other person has to say. The other person has to clarify their view and their reasons for it. Don’t be surprised when you get silence in response to your questions because most people have not thought through their views. You have no obligation to go any further into theology, apologetics, or philosophy. All you’re doing in the first two stages of the game plan is gathering information, getting an education, and deciding whether you’re in a position for the next step. No stress on you.