Forced to face Existence

Each choice an individual makes transforms the theoretical into reality, birthing a thought into action that is in-erasable from time. The fact that individuals are able to transform the theoretical to actionable is the distinct attribute that separates man from all other creatures. Whether this attribute is birthed or requires nurturing is not of primary concern, it only matters that because of this attribute, we are uniquely placed into existence and therefore bound to all the related questions derived. Among these related ponderings that all individuals wrestle with throughout time and matter is recognizing an objective morality that no person may be removed from. Before discussing an objective morality, it is required to prove by sufficient reasoning that such a morality does indeed exist and define truth. Then, I will discuss how this ‘morality’ connects me to the world.

Response to Atheism

An objective morality requires an objective standard of right, so that all things: -right and wrong, can be measured based off this scale of value. A real being, or deity, must embody this right unless this right is purely an invention of the individual imagination and therefore, is not a standard that encompasses all. Existentialists and relativists claim that there is no such thing as ‘right,’ that existence is mere chance. Naturalists believe that we ought to live purely based on experience and that experience has not revealed such a thing as a universal being to base our morality. All the subjective terms and ideas given to individuals of this amoral camp can be grouped together as not believing in an objective being to embody morality. The biggest flaw with this reasoning is that it fails to come up with a satisfactory explanation for how humans have developed a unique dependence on the theoretical. Specifically, humans are able to imagine categories of thought that differ from the existing reality and through according action, are able to bring those imaginations to life. For example, today’s US dollar is depended on as if it were a good essential to meeting primary needs: food, shelter, and reproduction. However, the dollar’s value is imagined. It is usually digitally existent and therefore cannot be eaten, gathered to build shelter, or act as any kind of primitive tool. There is nothing of value to the dollar except our ability to bring it to life as a theoretical concept, but nonetheless, it is irrevocable to most people’s existence in the United States. There is no practical reasoning from an amoral perspective to explain people’s dependence on currency, the reason for people to hypothesize an existing morality that is cause for life and death, or equally, the reason for hypothesizing an existence without such a morality. Although I cannot provide tangible evidence that God and morality exist, unless my arguments are refuted or rationalized, the existence of a deity that embodies morality will be assumed true.

Truth is Absolute

Once it is accepted that an objective morality exists, it must be understood that this morality exists irrespective of individuals passing fancies of what is right and wrong. No ordinary person has the authority to make up morality because if they do, it is not really true, but the opinion of an ordinary individual. An objective morality must be inscribed into existence by a power other than ordinary man and man’s words cannot change/add anything to it. Also, it would be baseless besides by emotion and therefore useless to believe that a religion is true purely in the metaphysical sense. There are a limited amount of texts that claim to be divinely inspired and even fewer of them have material that claims to be historically, scientifically, and epistemologically true. Since there can only be one truth, only one religion is able to and must fit within these parameters which delimit truth or else the whole thing is nullified. If what is divinely inspired is not true or is only partially true, then there is no standard in which to determine which is divinely true and which is false. Therefore, the whole thing is either completely true or completely false.

Only ONE Text Can Be True

It must also be acknowledged that there can only be one version of truth. Two opposite things cannot simultaneously be true and the same holds true for a universal deity that sets the standard for morality. If Islam is true as accorded by the quran, its tenets must reject tenets of Christianity as accorded by the bible. Surah An-Nisa 4:157-158 says “And [for] their saying, ‘Indeed, we have killed the Messiah, Jesus, the son of Mary, the messenger of Allah .’ And they did not kill him, nor did they crucify him; but [another] was made to resemble him to them. And indeed, those who differ over it are in doubt about it. They have no knowledge of it except the following of assumption. And they did not kill him, for certain.” This is in stark contrast with Paul’s first letters to the Corinthians, in which he says “And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith.” (1 Corinthians 10:14) It is necessary to look at the actual text of the religions rather than advocates of each because man’s words are interpretive, subject to place and time. The bible and quran each claim to be the revealed word of God. Al-Baqarah 2:1 says “This book is not to be doubted. It is a book for the righteous” and the bible says “...when you received the word of God that you heard from us, you accepted it not as a human word but as what it really is, God's word, which is also at work in you believers.” (1 Thessalonians 2:13) If it is delimited and honestly believed that any one religion is true, than all other religions must be false and there is no necessity to explore other religions to “double check” that what is believed is absolutely true. That does not mean that there is no value in studying other religions and does not mean that people are capable of having an objective grasp on events or things. It means that all human experience suggests that there is such thing as truth and that truth exists independent of people’s practices/findings. Having laid down a framework of reasoning for morality and truth, I will delve into how morality connects me to every other being in this world.

Right and Wrong Only Exist Within a Moral Framework

If every individual fits under the same framework of morality and truth, then there are laws which men must be governed by or held accountable to. People of the amoral camp, (if any existing person has ever fully committed to it) have no basis to pronounce moral judgement on anyone in any form because they have already declared that they do not believe that such a moral basis exists. From the perspective that there is no morality, laws against murder is a form of protection for the weak. The strong are not required to abide by the same laws (even if they pay lip service to them) and there is no objectionable reason from an amoral perspective to require everyone to challenge a single person that acts to serve his best interest unless personally affected. For example (without engaging in intricacies), President George Bush acted pious and talked openly of Christianity, but defended the invasion of Iraq for imperialist benefits leading to the deaths of arguably hundreds of thousands. US leaders have no basis to question this from an amoral perspective because they directly benefit. The secular perspective is that there ought to be a basic framework for a peaceable society which protects individuals from force. However, this prospect is still only attractive to the weak or those that do not enjoy a position of power. Only people that claim there is an objective morality can consistently claim that all people ought to be governed by the same laws. Furthermore, those laws must have guidance from the morality outlined by divine words rather than subjective interpretations/creations of man. This is where there is most controversy. Laws and wars are fought based on moral beliefs, of which only one can be truly interpreted. Man’s subjective valuation of what is true creates irrevocable conflict.

Consequences of a True Morality

Finally, if there is only one morality, people must face moral judgement based on their choice to either abide by or reject the law as ascribed by the holy text which is true. The law on earth is up to man, the most powerful among him creates the rules and governs according to how he sees fit. Regardless of how powerful/rewarded/praised by man the individual actor is, he faces God rather than man and cannot circumvent that confrontation. Although infinitesimal specks within the spanse of time and space, we are each bound by the same morality and therefore, the knowledge we seek and our choice we make is the single most momentous concern of our existence and is the defining aspect of history and all people.