Innate Morality & Godlessness

December 31, 2013 Posted by John Anthony Dunne Apologetics 11 Comments

Is there any good reason—biblical, philosophical, scientific or otherwise—to believe in innate morality?

This post is partly a sequel to my earlier response to Ray Comfort’s video, Evolution vs. God. If you haven’t seen the video or read my comments about the video, check it out here. I don’t intend to rehash that earlier post, nor do I want to address the Creation debate or the human origins debate further. Rather, after watching that video it got me thinking about other areas within apologetics, especially universal morality. It seems that one of Comfort’s major assumptions is that if evolution is true than it undermines the notion of (A) a universal law giver and (B) innate morality. As I noted in my previous article, I do not think that evolution necessitates moral relativism so I think point (A) is unaffected by the debate. What would undermine point (A) is naturalism, not evolution.

But then I got wondering about point (B) innate morality. I’ve always held to something along the lines of innate morality—the idea that everyone in the world inherits a sense of right and wrong—and I believe that the most influential thinker who impacted me the most on this issue would be C. S. Lewis. Yet I started to re-think my position after watching Comfort’s video. I don’t intend to offer any further critique of Comfort’s video, or to connect this discussion to debates about evolution. I simply want to note that listening to his apologetic approach to evangelism and to his comments about innate morality and moral relativism caused to re-think some of my uncritically held assumptions about this issue. I’d like to share some of my thoughts now, admitting that they are tentative and provisional; I’d gladly welcome feedback on my developing thoughts.

I should start by saying that I am unaware of the bulk of philosophical discussions surrounding ethics. I know some of the relevant figures, but if someone with more training in this subject than myself is reading this, please feel free to fill me in. However, after reflecting on this issue further I’m not sure that innate morality fits either my understanding of (1) biblical anthropology or (2) revelation. I will address each in turn.

1) Biblical Anthropology. My understanding of biblical anthropology is in many ways sympathetic with the Reformed tradition (see my two earlier posts on Calvinism here and here). As a Calvinist, I believe that humans are totally depraved. All human faculties are corrupted by sin, including all conceptions of morality. (One can agree with me on this issue without affirming Calvinism, I should note). So humans are neither born with a clear conception of right or wrong, nor with a Lockeian ‘clean slate,’ but rather with an inclination towards sin/evil. One does not need to teach a child to be selfish, but one does need to teach a child about sharing, not taking what does not belong to them, about being nice to other kids, etc. What needs to be taught and instilled in young ones is precisely something they do not comprehend naturally: morals. Nurture and culture play a huge role in this process. Thankfully, much of Western culture is rooted in a morality from the Judeo-Christian worldview. Morality is therefore something we learn and acquire. If this seems like it opens the door to moral relativism then consider my second point.

2) Revelation. The notion of innate morality seems to undercut the essential role of special revelation. As Christians we affirm that there is a universal moral law giver who reigns over the whole universe. Thus, what he says goes. Yet we only know the moral code of this cosmic sovereign by revelation of his commands. We do not know it inherently. In fact, I believe that we inherently resist such a moral code (going back to point #1 above). I am not here claiming that general revelation doesn’t contribute to a notion of morality, nor am I denying the possibility of a “Natural Theology” (whatever that might be, I’ll let Christopher R. Brewer set us all straight), though one form of revelation is certainly more oblique than the other. In any case, the fact that revelation is necessary—whether general, special, or both—undermines the notion of innate morality.

I suspect at this point that one or two of my readers may point to Romans 2 as a counter-argument for the claims that I’m making. You may be thinking, Hey wait a second, Paul says that Gentiles have the law written on their hearts and can do what the law requires by nature! So just in case you’re thinking along those lines, allow me to offer a few brief comments on this passage in anticipation of objections. To put it baldly, Romans 2 cannot be used to support innate morality. The Gentiles in view are most certainly Christians. This is seen in the allusion to Jer 31 and the law being written on their hearts in Rom 2:15 (in Jer 31 this refers to God’s covenant people and so it cannot be used to refer to a notion of innate morality for the average pagan). Also, I believe strongly—along with a number of exegetes, such as NT Wright, Mike Bird, etc—that the phrase ‘by nature’ (φύσει ; phusei) in Rom. 2:14 modifies ‘not having the law’ not ‘do what the law requires.’ Paul is quite clear that it is only through the Spirit that one fulfills the law (cf. Romans 8:4; Galatians 5:14), so it would make no sense—certainly no Pauline sense!—to say that Gentiles can do what the law requires by nature. This interpretation is also corroborated by the use of the same Greek word just a few verses later in Rom. 2:27 to refer to Gentiles as those who are uncircumcised ‘by nature’ or ‘naturally.’ Gentiles, as a category of people in distinction from Jews, are those who are ‘by nature’ both uncircumcised and without the law. The context of Romans 2 therefore makes clear that these Gentiles are Christians, and are in fact doing what the law requires even though they are uncircumcised (which fits perfectly as part of the indictment against certain Jewish paradigms in that chapter).

So to wrap up, I am not convinced that innate morality is worth holding on to (have I missed something?). It is appealed to quite a bit, especially among Christian apologists, but I see no reason to affirm it. It fits my assumptions of humanity better to dismiss it, but more importantly, such a notion of innate morality undermines the role of revelation in making God’s moral code known to us. It is special revelation that keeps us from delving into moral relativism, not some notion of innate morality. In fact, if humanity was truly run by its innate sense of morality, the world would be a godless place indeed.

Tags: Apologetics C S Lewis ethics Evolution moral relativism Morality oughtness ray comfort Romans 2

11 Comments

About John Anthony Dunne

John holds a PhD from the University of St Andrews, where he studied under Professor N. T. Wright. He currently serves as Associate Professor of New Testament and the Director of the Doctor of Ministry program at Bethel Seminary (St. Paul, MN).

11 Comments

Leave your reply.

Aaron Argyropoulos
· Reply

December 31, 2013 at 5:22 PM

One idea I focus on often is the concept of absolutes, and it’s definitely worth discussing when it concerns innate morality. For argument’s sake, I will only consider Arminianism and Calvinism, which both rely heavily on how one views absolutes. First, depending on where an individual is on the Arminian spectrum, absolutes can be anywhere between important to practically meaningless. I’m aware Rob Bell is one my favorite topics to discuss, but throughout his books, he constantly questions and deconstructs beliefs that would constitute a lack of absolutes. Essentially, everything is questionable and unknowable to some extent, thus absolutes are seemingly unimportant (as a disclaimer, I am only using him as an example against absolutes because he simply shouldn’t be considered an authority for innate morality). Open Theists tend to take this a bit further by questioning the omni’s of God. Classic Arminians are more partial to accepting the absolutes of God’s attributes rather than questioning them. While they aren’t the same, Calvinism and Arminianism kind of blur here.

From the Calvinist perspective, absolutes range anywhere between important to absolutes are everything. But even beyond that, it seems that the world of the Calvinist is much more black and white and tends toward the end of ‘absolutes are everything’ anyway, with little compromise towards the other end.

So, from the Arminian perspective, they can believe there is an inclination to sin, but there is a possibility not to without being taught, thus innate morality. And because absolutes are far more important in the Calvinist spectrum, believing in innate morality seemingly compromises Calvinist absolutes.

I hope that makes sense. What do you think?
- John Anthony Dunne
  · Reply
  
  Author
  
  December 31, 2013 at 6:00 PM
  
  I think I’ll need you to unpack this further. I’m not sure how absolutes are relevant here. My point is simply that morality is not innate, not that there aren’t absolute morals. For me, revelation is where one learns what the moral code of the lawgiver is. I think it is empirically the case that humans are not born with a sense of right and wrong but are selfish and self-centered (you don’t have to be a Calvinist to agree with that, but I would add that the biblical portrait of humanity corroborates the human experience).
  - Aaron Argyropoulos
    · Reply
    
    December 31, 2013 at 6:39 PM
    
    I was more concerned getting my point of absolutes across than addressing your point specifically. My point about absolutes has more to do with what you said about a child choosing selfishness first. Empirically, I would agree that that’s the case. However, my point is, depending on an individual’s theological disposition, can innate morality be summed up by questioning whether all children will absolutely turn to selfishness first? And I think if we can say that it happens absolutely all the time, then innate morality cannot be held on to.
    
    Let me finish by saying I agree with your rationalization of this topic. What I’m trying to do is give a philosophical approach, and perhaps I’m failing.
Ian Hodge
· Reply

January 2, 2014 at 5:53 PM

Hey John! Hope you’re doing well, although let me console you in advance for the clobbering the 49ers will face when (if) they meet the Seahawks!

I found your perspective on innate morality to be interesting, as I hadn’t thought about criticizing the concept due to doctrines of total depravity and revelation in the past. However, I don’t think that either or these criticisms ultimately levels a very significant challenge to the notion of innate morality.

Total depravity itself could explain what has happened to an innate morality. We may have all intuitively known the difference between right and wrong, but total depravity necessitates that we believe our intuitions, while often correct, are no longer fully reliable. Noetic effects of sin, right? Because our intuitions are no longer fully reliable, we must therefore seek knowledge to supplement and correct them, which we find in God’s revelation, particularly in His special revelation.

If I remember right, Lewis argued for innate morality largely by remarking upon the fact that human beings the world over generally call the same things right and wrong. His explanation for this observation was innate morality, which seems perfectly permissible within a Christian worldview. On the other hand, as you observed you don’t have to teach a child to be selfish. The question is open both to Lewis and to you as to what is the best explanation of these phenomena. For example, it may be that human morality is largely the same the world over because the world operates in certain ways, and the thoughtful person understands something of the operation of the world and make moral judgments accordingly. As for the child, one might conclude that the reason for universal selfishness has to do with the corruption of our innate morality, i.e., total depravity.

However you reason it out, Lewis’ point still stands. Whether our morality is innate or learned, we agree with the real moral law at least often enough to know we have broken it, leading to Lewis’ rather profound and even frightening description the terrible fix we are in.
- John Anthony Dunne
  · Reply
  
  Author
  
  January 3, 2014 at 5:21 PM
  
  Hey Ian,
  
  Thanks for your comment. Yes Lewis’ argument for the ubiquity of certain moral norms definitely influenced me for a long time but to be perfectly honest I think that assessment ignores the role of culture’s influence on the one hand and ignores the fact that some cultures that have less or no contact with the wider world don’t always have the same sense of right and wrong. If a child was raised by wolves—to use an extreme example—what morals will that child have? If the answer is none, then of course the idea of innate morality completely falls by the wayside. I think we cannot ignore the cultural shape of morality. We should be grateful that Western culture is influenced by Judeo-Christian morality and so that affects how people in the West are raised. But the most important point to make is that the ultimate guide for morality is not my innate sense of right and wrong, but the moral code of the moral lawgiver.
  
  And we’ll see about those Seahawks. Go 9ers!
  - Ian Hodge
    · Reply
    
    January 3, 2014 at 6:00 PM
    
    Hey John. The bottom line, of course, is that we agree that God’s revealed word is the primary way through which we know what is right or wrong. What I was trying to say in my prior comment was that I don’t think it will do to reject innate morality on the basis of total depravity and revelation. As a matter of fact, the person who believes that we have an innate morality will retreat to these doctrines in order to defend their position. They might say that the reason different cultures have differing moralities (to whatever degree) is because our moral intuitions have been corrupted by the fall. As a result, we require special revelation from God as part of the process of redemption.
    
    A quick note on Lewis – Lewis himself addresses the criticism (re: different cultures, not cultural influence however) that you raise. He mentions in Mere Christianity that he believes the differences between moral systems emerging from different cultures is more apparent than real. I think that, generally speaking, he is right.
    
    Now as to the child raised by wolves: I think that this example can’t do what you suggest it does. I think the problem is that it makes the assumption that immoral behavior from this person would be evidence that they didn’t have innate morality, when it may simply be evidence that whatever innate morality they had was so badly damaged by their circumstances that it is largely worthless. This seems a Biblical conclusion, as I believe we can reasonably assume that God intended human children to be raised by a human family, including taught right and wrong by a human family.
    
    Your point about cultural influences on morality is well taken. However, we still have to ask both how a culture first made moral judgments (where did they come from?), and also why people within a culture both agree and disagree with those moral judgments (why do they evolve?), once again opening the door to innate morality, though not proving it.
    
    Finally, I would argue that human conscience (innate morality, in a sense) is implied by statements like Romans 1:18-20. As human beings are part of the creation, and as we also have the image of God, it seems reasonable to assume that even within ourselves we have a testimony to God’s eternal power and divine nature, among which we might include God’s holiness, particularly in light of the statements regarding human wickedness and man’s lack of excuse.
    
    Thanks for letting me post, I enjoy the conversation and appreciate you reading my wordy replies!
    - John Anthony Dunne
      · Reply
      
      Author
      
      January 9, 2014 at 4:46 AM
      
      Hey Ian, thanks again for your second response. I hadn’t noticed it. I’m not sure that we’ll get past this point because I’m still not convinced that moral ubiquity equates to innate morality. I think we’re at an impasse, but I respect you taking the time to write and articulate your position. It gives me more to think about as I reflect on this issue further. Thanks for reading my post!
Owen Edwards
· Reply

January 28, 2014 at 3:06 PM

Hey John.

I think it too far a step to go to say that – biblically – the non-regenerate person has no access to moral instinct; Romans 7 strongly militates against that, in terms of proof texting, but more generally it seems unsatisfactory to me that our imago dei is entirely obliterated in ANY respect by sin; if we are to be glorious ruins, there must be some stones left.

So I’d propose that yes, we know what we ought to do, albeit in a dim and fractured way; we are simply unable, outside of the scope of common grace, to do as we ought.

Owen

Owen
- John Anthony Dunne
  · Reply
  
  Author
  
  January 28, 2014 at 5:27 PM
  
  Hey Owen,
  
  Thanks for reading my post and for taking the time to reply. Let me say up front that I disagree with your take on Romans 7 and with the way that you’re using the Imago Dei in this context.
  
  As for Romans 7, I hold the unregenerate view (as presumably you do), but of course the main point is that the EGO is “Israel in Adam” struggling to fulfill the law without the aid of the Holy Spirit. So yes indeed, not a regenerate person. However, this doesn’t quite relate to our discussion because knowledge of the law is assumed. I had nothing to say about whether the unregenerate can learn God’s laws or even “delight” in them. My point was that we don’t “innately” know any of that. So actually this text shows the priority of revelation—”I wouldn’t have known what it meant to covet unless the law told me!”—and proves my point.
  
  Secondly, the Imago Dei is, in my opinion, both a corporate and a functional idea. It is humanity as such that is the imago dei, and it refers to their relation to the world as the vice-regents of God (fill, rule, and subdue the earth). It is a regal and kingly idea and ANE contextual evidence makes this clear. Thus, I find no reason to think that morality, let alone innate morality, has anything to do with this.
  
  Anyways, I hope that clarifies things.
  - Owen Edwards
    · Reply
    
    January 30, 2014 at 3:39 PM
    
    Hi John – thanks for the thoughtful response.
    
    Though your points are compellingly presented, I’m not convinced, for a few reasons.
    
    One, as to Romans 7 – I entirely grant your point about the chapter’s focus on the law. I would say, however, that for the law to be able to show Paul the sin he was committing (of which he was in part ignorant, re verses 7-12 etc), he must have had the capability of knowing good from evil; the skill was rotted perhaps, but the faculty was present. (That is, unless we take the Law to be able to grant to even the non-regenerate adherent the supernatural ability to comprehend the distinction of categories)
    
    Of course, if sin lay dead without the Law in toto, no Gentile could have been condemned prior to Christ. But Paul plainly thought that at the level of the reason the Gentile might well know God – see Romans 1 or the sarcastic polemic at the Areopagus [take that as Luke’s reflection or remembrance of Paul’s theology, if you’re of that inclination; it certainly proves the existence of such an attitude in the NT either way]. I would place the failure to adhere to that (partially corrupt) reason at the level of the corrupt will. I don’t see space in Paul’s argument(s) to posit a distinction between a reasonable knowledge of God and a moral knowledge of God; why would the evidence of the heavens and earth be useful as knowledge if there was no equivalent moral faculty to act upon the knowledge? I take them in Paul’s point to be one and the same. (Obviously, I’m not suggesting even at the level of reason humanity has a perfect innate sense of good and evil – we’re still talking depraved beyond use.)
    
    But let’s go further back in our Biblical anthropology. What do the First Family get booted for? There’s a tree offering the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil; presumably this equates to something like the type of knowledge God and the Divine Council have; so certainly aetiologically post-Eden man’s pretence to be God has granted him some sort of learned sense of good and evil prior to the Law (it’s not taken back by God, after all).
    
    However, we can go even further back; there was certainly a sort of pre-Fall innate sense of whether it was proper or not to obey a command (perhaps simply as part of ‘pre-Babel’ linguistic structure), because otherwise there could be no meaningful way for Adam and Eve to respond to God’s command not to eat. Now, if they possessed that faculty before the Fall, did they lose it entirely afterwards? Well, though they began to die, they did not entirely cease to live – human beings since have lived. So the greatest curse of the Fall did not entirely strip them of the “aspect” of them affected. Why ought we to suppose that their ability to sense the properness or otherwise of something would be stripped away? Of course it was crippled; outside of direct relationship with God it would be largely useless, beyond of dimly comprehending God’s works in nature; but it would still be present.
    
    That actually stands even if we don’t read the Imago Dei into the matter – the argument can be made at simply the observable facts of the Fall story, alongside Paul’s claims about Gentile guilt. I’d extend it to the Imago Dei, though, because your counter-argument is a pretty big claim – is the ONLY thing affecting our theology of the Imago Dei ANE parallels to the Genesis story of a king sending out his representatives? At the VERY least, I hear there was this one guy who was eikon of the invisible God and all that, and (“)Paul(“) certainly doesn’t seem to just have Christ’s commission from the Father in mind. Though I definitely think the Imago is at one level corporate (indeed, properly speaking I’d suggest it’s even marital), I feel entirely comfortable with the idea it pertains to personal characteristics about humanity that distinguish us from other animals – beyond simply the vice-regal commission.
    
    (Claus Westermann also raises very cogent objections to a strictly “Royal” interpretation of the text itself, but I’m trying to stick here to a canonical view – given we’re looking for the final result of our Scriptural theology, not any one text’s view.)
    
    God bless
    
    Owen

Innate Morality & Godlessness

About John Anthony Dunne

11 Comments

Leave your reply.

Leave a Reply

Your email is safe with us.

Subscribe: The Two Cities Podcast

Facebook

Recent Comments

Search

Blog Categories

Innate Morality & Godlessness

About John Anthony Dunne

You also might be interested in

Review of The Practice of the Body of Christ by Colin D. Miller

My Dear Wormwood

Thinking Inside The Box: Theodicy & The Tree of Life

11 Comments

Leave your reply.

Leave a Reply

Your email is safe with us.

Subscribe: The Two Cities Podcast

Facebook

Recent Comments

Search

Blog Categories

Tags