Brad Alles

All worldviews have beliefs about how to live, have order, and function under law. Another term for this is ethics, the standards of right and wrong. When it comes to answering questions on how we should behave, if God doesn’t exist, there has to be another final authority. If there is no God, we could each decide what is good and bad. This is called moral relativism. The assumption that we’re qualified to do this lies in the belief that man is basically good, or neutral at worst, but not sinful as the Bible teaches.

This sounds really good. We each decide for ourselves what is okay to do. (After all, that was Satan’s temptation in Genesis 3:5, “For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil.”) However, the danger of moral relativism is that there is no such thing as wrong, since each person is declaring what they feel is right and wrong. Ultimately, there is no basis for decision making that all can agree upon since it is all based upon individual preferences. Or to reiterate what Dr. Provine stated in his debate with Dr. Johnson regarding the philosophical implications of evolution: if evolution is true, then there were no gods, no life after death, no free will, no ultimate meaning in life, and no ultimate foundation for ethics. To even debate with someone about good and evil, we must borrow from the Christian worldview!

To show how this concept fails the worldview test of relevancy, you can demonstrate how no one can actually live as a moral relativist. If someone claims that we should each decide right and wrong for ourselves, take something from them, like a pen or bottle of water. If they complain, point out the fact that you are just employing their worldview of moral relativism and decided that you wanted their item. Since there is no ultimate authority, you did nothing wrong.