That makes sense. It was just something that didnt quite make sense to me when people connected them or considered them connected. Almost felt like a leap to get there.

There is no connection either implicit or explicit in the text between what is "written on the hearts" and the image of God. The thrust of the text is that everyone stands guilty before God (Rom. 1-3). Even though the Gentiles have some knowledge of God through various natural means (the natural world and their conscience), the text declares that humanity has frustrated this purpose of God by its resistance and rejection. In so doing, it has not merely forfeited the knowledge of God accessible to it, but God has traditionally withdrawn this knowledge. God has "given them over" to a dark mind. His revelation is now that of a broken line. But they are potential he remains a relic of the direct knowledge of God through natural means, but it poses both a benefit and an indictment. The knowledge that people have does help them, but it also condemns them if they don't follow it. In other words, God has nowhere left himself without a witness, and decisions in his direction are always possible outside of special revelation, but God is now obscure to humanity.

Therefore, Paul is not specifically talking about morality, because being good is not the path to God, and Paul doesn't want to get close to suggesting anything that could be interpreted that way. On the other hand and by the same token, there any knowledge of right and wrong shows that God has put some notion of himself out there to be perceived. That they could know enough to do right some of the time render some without excuse for never doing wrong. Only when God’s law is fully written on the heart in Christ (Rom. 8.2; Jer. 31.33) will it be internalized enough for people to live out God’s righteousness.

John Aloisi explains: As Paul is intending and will later explain more fully, the conscience operates in a purely mechanical manner. It does not involve a distinct ministry of the Holy Spirit. A conscience may be educated by special revelation or weekend by faulty information. It may be pragmatically molded by social custom and civil law, and it can be seared as a result of habitual disregard (1 Tim. 4.2; Titus 1.15). People may feel guilty when they are rebuked by their conscience, but such guilt is a response somewhat like that of the tactile nerves when they cause a body to recoil from pain. The human conscience keeps people from progressing in sin as readily as they would if they never experienced guilt, but it should not be confused with the Holy Spirit’s work of conviction. Conviction is a special work of the Holy Spirit which is always performed in connection with special revelation. Conviction involved convincing sinners of things which could not be known apart from special revelation. Therefore during the current age conviction may only be experienced by those who have some contact with the Word of God.

So, yes, this phrase about "written on the hearts" does pertain to some inherent knowledge of right and wrong, but Paul's point is not morality. It's salvation. There is no connection here, however, with the image of God.

[quote="jimwalton"]1. There is no notion that the [i]imago dei[/i] (the image of God) has any relationship with morality. First, is the image [i]in[/i] us, or is it us? Second, many feel that the image of God is expressly stated in Genesis 1: to rule and subdue, i.e., that we are God's co-regents. Third, other perspectives on what that [i]imago dei[/i] is range all over the map, with speculations touching just about every area of humanity. That the [i]imago dei[/i] has anything to do with morality is simply not a position we can take any kind of firm stance on.[/quote]

Hey Jim. I was reading Romans 2 this morning and thought about this comment you made a couple weeks ago (sorry to necro the thread). In v.14&15 we see:

[quote]14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)[/quote]

I know this may not be addressing morality directly, but the idea of something being 'written on our hearts' is difficult phrasing to pin down and one I was curious about. I've heard Christians use this often when addressing morality. For instance, Frank Turek will use this phrase to talk about how we inherently know right from wrong. Is there a difference between this being written on our hearts vs being made in His image? Does/should either have a bearing on morality?

Atheists don't even mind the idea of morals, but they insist two things: (1) It just comes from within ourselves; it's individually based and individually set (what's right and wrong is up to us); and (2) society can work just fine this way.

But when I bring up examples like Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, they brush it off or don't respond. The real problem is that there is no definition of right, let alone any kind of standard, if it just comes from within ourselves. It opens the door for any horror that someone considers to be "right" and "good," like Eugenics, the Holocaust, or any genocide. By this definition, roaming gangs of looters and shooters can deface what they want, shoot whom they want, burn what they want and steal what they want because in their mind it's "good" and "right." Society can't work this way.

Thanks Jim. I generally try to get people to understand the difference in the ontological and epistemological angle. Most people usually understand or have the epistemological thought already since we discover morality through society, interactions, family, experiences, etc. But the concern is always how we know it truly exists.

I would assume a good approach is to get people to think of this reality like other known concepts that are metaphysical like math or logic right? Thats usually what I try to do since no one tries to say 2+2=5 subjectively. We all know math is real and that they are objectively wrong.

To me it seems that if morality is real in the objective sense it must be grounded. We typically ground that in God. However, morality as a concept (not real) can just be derived from our values especially if it's subjective. I would assume when an atheist goes into 'hard atheism' they are talking about morality as a real thing; not a concept. Eeven a hard atheist has values. They just likely don't use the term moral values ;)

Yes, that article is clearly in the same vein. Here are some other quotes by notable atheists:

Bertrand Russell: “The whole subject of ethics arises from the pressure of the community on the individual.”

J.L. Mackie: “If…there are…objective values, they make the existence of a god more probable than it would have been without them. Thus we have…a defensible argument from morality to the existence of a god.”

Paul Draper: “A moral world is…very probable on theism.”

Richard Dawkins: “the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference.”

Kai Nielsen: “We have not been able to show that reason requires the moral point of view or that all really rational persons, unhoodwinked by myth or ideology, must be individual egoists or classical amoralists. Reason doesn’t decide here. … Pure practical reason, even with a good knowledge of the facts, will not take you to morality.”


Here's another argument, this one from [u]An Answer to Everyone[/u], ed. By Francis J. Beckwith, William Lane Craig, and J.P. Moreland (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2004), p. 113:

"If morality is just the product of naturalistic evolution or cultural development or personal choice, then rights do not truly exist. But if they do exist and humans truly have value in and of themselves—regardless of what their culture says—, what is the basis of this value? Did this intrinsic value come from impersonal, nonconscious, unguided, valueless processes over time? The contextual fit is not a good one. A more natural fit is the theistic position.

"Given materialistic, impersonal, nonconscious, valueless, deterministic processes, the atheist is hard pressed to account for personal, self-conscious, valuable, morally responsible persons. Theism offers a better fit because personhood and morality are necessarily connected. That is, moral values are rooted in personhood. Without God (a personal being), no persons—and thus no moral values—would exist at all. The moral argument points to a personal, good Being to whom we’re responsible. Only if God exists can moral properties be realized or instantiated."

Don't expect any of these arguments to gain you traction in your discussion, though they're always worth putting out there. My experiences has been that those who argue against you will tenaciously hold to their position, despite all illogic, somehow justifying in their minds that morality is just fine as an evolved social construct and that nothing more is needed. They don't see it's simply an impossible and self-defeating position.

Very interesting stuff. I also found this article very interesting:

https://theconversation.com/morality-requires-a-god-whether-youre-religious-or-not-42411

The author of it clearly states they are not religious, but also shows how morality requires a god. I believe this is similar to Joel Marks who you referenced earlier.

There are several problems with your assumptions:

1. There is no notion that the [i]imago dei[/i] (the image of God) has any relationship with morality. First, is the image [i]in[/i] us, or is it us? Second, many feel that the image of God is expressly stated in Genesis 1: to rule and subdue, i.e., that we are God's co-regents. Third, other perspectives on what that [i]imago dei[/i] is range all over the map, with speculations touching just about every area of humanity. That the [i]imago dei[/i] has anything to do with morality is simply not a position we can take any kind of firm stance on.

2. The concept of objective morality can be defined in different ways. A moral system could be designated objective if it finds its source outside of humanity (i.e., God). Another possible definition allows that such a system could be considered objective if it attempted to derive its components objectively (i.e., from pure reason) rather than subjective (from biased reason).

3. In either case, if someone believes there is objective morality, one has to determine where to get it. One cannot derive it from the Bible, however, because the Bible never does and never claims to provide a full moral system. And if we have to pick and choose which components we use, it is not objective.

4. Furthermore, if someone believes our concept of objective morality comes from our knowledge of the nature of God, we still come up short because God's revelation of his character is not thorough enough for us to derive a full morality. Even the glimpses of moral insight that the biblical texts contain do not carry the authority of God because the Bible is teaching us something other than a full moral system. (Don't get me wrong: The Bible carries the full authority of God. What it isn't authorizing is all the information we'd ever need to understand this complete picture of objective morality.)

5. The problem with deriving morality from the inherent conscience of humans is that there are too many gaps, ambiguities, and false places. The experiences of humans cannot transcend humanity. In the end, we have to pick and choose which human insights about nature or which human experiences of conscience will get on our list, and which will not.

Yes, morality (and objective morality) is in all these places, but all of them are incomplete, and therefore they can serve as the guide we desire. Regardless, we do believe in morality, and we do believe in objective morality. Pinning the latter down, however, is trickier than we might like.

We do have moral obligations, and we have every reason to think they are grounded in the character of God. But whether we can have a distinctly "Christian" morality (the ontology of right and wrong) may not be much different than thinking we can have a distinctly "Christian" cosmic geography (the characteristics of the universe). We believe that morality is necessarily part of the reality of being, just as the structures of the universe are part of the reality of being. We Christians may generate quite respectable moral codes and moral lists, and we know they come from our biblical understanding and our perception of the character of God. And yet at the same time we [i]know[/i] we can't just study the Bible and make a [b]complete[/b] list, confident that we have it all. We all know it doesn't work that way, but if it doesn't work that way, how [i]does[/i] it work, and how do you know?

> I've always thought the data we have when viewing various civilizations and societies throughout time suggests a moral basis all subscribe to.

What data might that be, and what are those bases? If you study various civilizations and societies throughout time, what are the common elements to which you refer?

My brother makes this analogy: instead of conceiving of a moral system as analogous to laws, obedience, and crimes, it might be more helpful to conceive of morality as analogous to the category of health. In today's Western cultural river, few things are considered as important as good health, which requires vitamins, diet, exercise, nutrition, and numerous smaller factors. Doctors and researchers are constantly trying to determine what will lead to good health so they can pass those results on to a public that prioritizes that value above most others. Frustration can result when different studies produce different results. Even in today's climate of advanced research and understanding, people recognize the goal (good health) and pursue it aggressively, but it is still difficult to provide a complete list of specific guidelines for how that goal can be achieved. Furthermore, although some potential foods are universally recognized as dangerous (some poisonous mushrooms) and must always be avoided, others are dangerous to some (sugar for diabetics) but necessary for others (sugar for those who are hypoglycemic). No universal set of instructions exists that anyone anywhere could be given in order to achieve this goal of health. Further, when we visit the doctor, the doctor does not legislate how we ought to eat. The doctor will not inflict us with heart disease as punishment for failing to exercise. What the doctor does is provide us with knowledge about what we can do if we decide health is something we want. Further still, the advice the doctor gives one person may differ from the advice for another because these two people are in different contexts. Even though they are listening to the same doctor and trying to achieve the same goal of ideal health, the differing contexts may require them to go about obtaining their goal in different ways.

It would complete the matter significantly and prove utterly unreliable to try to look to the Bible to derive universally applicable principles for good health. God has offered no revelation about how to achieve good health, though no one would therefore conclude that good health was irrelevant, imaginary, or harmful.

(John H. Walton and J. Harvey Walton, [u]The Lost World of the Torah[/u], p. 163).

Morality is a worthy pursuit, and we believe that there is such a thing as objective morality, just as there is such a thing as good health. Looking to the Bible for a complete list only leads us to frustration, and while we assume God is the source of such, that doesn't help us with a list or necessarily with understanding either.

But of course God is interested in good health, just as He is interested in our morality. We have every reason to believe God is interested in our moral behavior. Of course He is—He gives us many such teachings and examples in the Bible. Finding specific Scriptures for all we want to say and for all we claim from the character of God is much more difficult not only to define but also to grasp.

Thanks Jim. Other thoughts:

I have always thought the basis for our morality is grounded by inherently knowing what is right and wrong because it is instilled in us from God (made in His image). Is this the correct way to think of morality? Or is it better to say God as the moral authority, His moral law is transcendent and we learn it from His nature and what we know of Him through history and the bible? Or do both play a part?

Also - I've always thought the data we have when viewing various civilizations and societies throughout time suggests a moral basis all subscribe to. Would that be accurate to say? I ask because people often use the case of morality becoming objective when it is shown to be effective in a society while still promoting the core ideal of being mutually beneficial for everyone. I suppose this falls more inline with the 'well-being' approach, but I just didn't know if we have data to suggest otherwise.

From a completely secular source: Robert G. Olson, [u]A Short Introduction to Philosophy[/u] (New York, NY: Harcourt, Brace & World, Inc., 1967) p. 107

THE INADEQUACIES OF MORAL RELATIVITY

Morally responsible behavior is usually defined in contemporary philosophy as behavior for which the agent may legitimately be praised or blamed. Defined like this, the concept of moral responsibility is closely related to the concept of subjective right or wrong.

But what if morality is, instead, objective? If one holds the agent morally responsible and blames him, the agent will typically have recourse to one of three types of defense:

1. He may claim ignorance. “I didn’t know.”
2. He may claim that his motives were morally acceptable. “I meant well.”
3. He may claim to have been compelled to act as he did. “I didn’t have a choice.”

It’s legitimate to ask when someone is morally responsible for their behavior. If morality is subjective, a defense can always be legitimately claimed. If a person is ignorant, he cannot be held directly responsible. If a person means well, he believed he was performing a moral good, and he cannot be held directly responsible. It must also be questioned what qualifies as good moral motives (well being? human dignity? culturally-recognized moral law? morality of the majority?), and who gets to decide. And if the person is constrained, he cannot be morally responsible—only if the act was freely performed.