It’s a question humanity’s asked for centuries and it continues to cause debates today. We live in a world that often embraces the phrase, “What’s true for you may not be true for me.” This mindset suggests morality is wholly flexible, based on personal experiences or cultural differences. But is this really the case?

Moral absolutes are universal, unchanging truths about what is right and what is wrong. They aren’t dependent on personal preferences, shifting trends, or societal traditions. Instead, they claim that some things are always right—or always wrong—no matter the time, place, or context. This belief system, often called moral absolutism (or objective morality), is distinguished from the idea that morality is subjective or relative to a person’s beliefs, opinions, desires, or emotions.

Understanding whether morality is absolute or open to interpretation isn’t just a philosophical exercise—it’s something that impacts how we make decisions, view justice, and build relationships. Are moral absolutes essential anchors for living a meaningful life, or are they outdated ideas in a constantly evolving world?

That’s the question we’ll explore. Stay with us as we unpack why absolute morality matters and the role it plays in shaping a better, more just world.

What Is Moral Absolutism?

Moral absolutism is the idea that some moral truths are universal, unchanging, and apply to everyone—no matter the time, culture, or personal opinion. These truths aren’t made up by people or societies. Instead, they’re seen as discovered realities, rooted in something greater than humanity itself, like God’s nature and goodwill. Moral absolutes include prohibitions against actions like murder, theft, abuse, and adultery.

This doesn’t mean everyone is held to the same standard in every situation, but rather a moral principle applies when the relevant context exists. For example, “parents should feed their children” is absolute, but is binding only when someone becomes a parent.

True Freedom Through Universal Moral Principles

Moral absolutism is not about being harsh, controlling, or intolerant. It’s about anchoring justice, dignity, and truth in something solid that doesn’t shift with culture or opinion. Critics may see absolutes as restrictive, but in reality, they reflect God’s care for our well-being.

Just like traffic laws are designed not to limit our freedom but to keep us and others safe, God’s moral standards are there to guide us toward what is genuinely good and life-giving.

Far from taking away freedom, these absolutes actually point us to real freedom. The freedom to pursue what is good, beautiful, and true. Moral freedom is the power and skill to do what a person ought to do.

When we ignore this kind of morality, we aren’t gaining freedom, but falling into patterns that ultimately harm ourselves and others, even enslave us to addiction. By following what is right, we discover real purpose, direction, and peace grounded on God’s unchanging character rather than ever-changing human opinion or taste.

What Is Moral Relativism?

Moral relativism is the belief that morality is subjective and changes with culture, circumstance, or individual preference. What’s right for one person might not be right for another, and no one has the authority to say otherwise. It’s often summed up as “your truth versus my truth.” While this outlook may appear tolerant, it quickly falls apart when faced with real injustices.

If morality is only about perspective, then there’s no firm ground to say that actions like genocide, human trafficking, or child abuse are truly wrong—only that some people or cultures disapprove or condemn it. Without moral objective values and duties, we lose the ability to call anything genuinely evil, wrong, or unjust, which is why objective moral standards are essential for real justice and human dignity.

Absolutism vs. Relativism

Morality Is Absolute

As Christians, we believe that absolute moral values and duties are not human inventions but divine truths grounded in and revealed by God.

Where Did Morality Come From?

Have you ever noticed how everyone, regardless of background or belief, has a sense of fairness or justice? Certain actions are always seen as wrong. This isn’t random but points to something deeper—that we are moral beings made by a moral Creator.

According to Genesis 1:27, we are made in the image of God. This means our sense of right and wrong is embedded in us as a reflection of God’s moral character. As the apostle Paul observes in Romans 2:15, “The requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness.”

How do we explain moral conscience, moral consciousness and awareness if it isn’t grounded in a Creator? Without God, morality would shift with people’s opinions and circumstances. But because we are made by a just and merciful God, we can have confidence that he can restore our moral compass to work as he intended.

What Are Universal Moral Principles in the Bible?

The Bible teaches that moral absolutes come from God’s unchanging character, not ethereal abstract principles. Scriptures like Exodus 20 (the Ten Commandments) and Micah 6:8 provide timeless standards for life and flourishing alongside justice and dignity.

Jesus affirmed this when he said he didn’t come to abolish the moral law but to fulfill it (Matthew 5:17–19). Jesus grew our understanding of God’s standards and the value of grace. Even more, God empowers us to live morally upright lives through the Holy Spirit, so we’re not trying to follow these standards only by our own moral strength.

Unlike cultural norms that change, biblical morality is anchored in God, who is unchanging. Hebrews 13:8 says that Jesus Christ is the same yesterday, today, and forever. Similarly, Malachi 3:6 and James 1:17 press that God does not change. Because he is constant, so are his moral standards.

God’s commands express his goodness and love—guiding us away from harm and toward true freedom, peace, and a life of purpose aligned with his perfect design for us.

Can Science or Culture Define Morality?

Science is a powerful tool for understanding the created, natural world. It helps us see how things work, including human behavior. For example, science can explain how the brain reacts when someone lies or why people act certain ways when in groups.

But while science can describe what is, it can’t tell us what we ought to do. Science describes, but does not prescribe morality. Knowing how something happens doesn’t answer whether it’s morally right or wrong. Questions of morality go beyond data and experiments. They rest on deeper philosophical and theological truths about right and wrong that science alone can’t determine.

Morality Beyond Culture

Culture shapes our customs, traditions, and social norms. Different societies may express morality in unique ways. Yet, when we look closer, we find that certain moral principles, like murder or exploiting the innocent, are universal across cultures and generations.

These constants point to the reality of moral absolutes. C. S. Lewis made a helpful distinction between moral laws (the changing rules of societies) and the Moral law (the deeper sense of right and wrong that’s true for everyone). Our moral conscience reflects our commitment to moral laws yet our moral consciousness reveals our deep awareness of the Moral law.

Why Absolute Morality Matters

How do we determine what’s truly right or wrong? Without absolute morality, the foundation for justice, human dignity, and accountability begins to crumble. If morality becomes purely subjective (and relative) it changes with personal opinions and cultural trends, leaving all of us and our society on shaky, shifting ground.

The Foundation for Flourishing

Moral absolutes are the bedrock for laws, functional communities, and human flourishing. They give the framework for defining what is just and unjust to preserve the dignity of every person. Without universal moral truths, societies risk descending into chaos, where power and popularity decide what’s acceptable, rather than fairness and truth.

Imagine a world without objective morality. Would doing what’s right depend solely on majority approval or personal choice? History shows that civilizations thrive when they’re built on shared understandings of justice, accountability, and moral responsibility. The biblical book of Judges depicts the harsh reality of a society that chooses to forget, ignore, and rebel against God’s good values and duties.

A Compass in a Shifting World

We live in a rapidly changing world where opinions and cultural norms evolve at lightning speed. This can leave people feeling morally confused, lost, or unsure. Moral absolutes offer us a personal compass—a reliable waypoint that doesn’t move with the trend—to ground us in unchanging truths so we can live confidently knowing that true right and wrong are not easily dismissed.

More Than Morals: A Relationship with God

Morality is important, but Christianity offers something much greater than a set of rules. It offers a relationship with the God who is both just and merciful. This isn’t about following laws for the sake of morality itself. It’s about knowing the Creator and living in harmony with him, others, and ourselves.

Jesus Upholds Truth and Extends Grace

Jesus personifies moral truth. He upholds the highest standards while also providing grace for those who fall short—which is every single one of us. Grace is receiving what we don’t deserve, like forgiveness and love. Mercy, on the other hand, is not getting what we deserve, like judgment and its consequences. Through Jesus, we experience both.

This grace and mercy transform how we live. Instead of toiling to keep moral laws on our own and failing to follow them, we’re empowered by God’s Spirit to align with his goodness. The Holy Spirit equips us with wisdom, strength, and compassion, enabling us to do what is good and to encourage others to do the same.

Real Hope Lies in Redemption

True hope isn’t found in merely knowing right from wrong. It’s found in knowing who made us and redeems us. God’s redemptive love through Jesus Christ reminds us we’re not alone in our struggles. He offers the power to grow, change, and become the person he created us to be.

When we have a relationship with God, we find purpose bigger than ourselves. God calls us to show his goodness, share his truth, and help bring others into a life built on his love and redemption. Christianity is more than just morality—it’s about finding meaning, hope, and a future with our good, just, and loving Maker.

The post Moral Absolutes: Are They Outdated or Essential? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

For example, the same action may be morally acceptable in one society but morally wrong in another. Different cultures around the world have different moral values, and ethical relativism says that each culture’s moral code is right for that culture. Moral relativism says both views can be “right” at the same time.

You might also hear people talk about ethical relativism. This is closely related to moral relativism—both refer to the idea that there are no universal moral standards that apply to all people and cultures. While “ethical relativism” is generally used in academic settings, the term is interchangeable with “moral relativism.”

Why This Matters to You

This way of thinking frequently shows up in daily conversations, the media, movies and TV shows, books, and all over the internet. You’ve probably heard phrases like “live your truth” or “that might be wrong for you, but it’s right for me.” These popular sayings, or phrases like these, reflect a moral relativism worldview that’s becoming more and more common in our culture.

But here’s the thing—as Christians, we believe something very different, the opposite in fact. We believe in moral absolutes that come from God’s unchanging character that are exclusively rooted in him.

What Is Moral Relativism?

Let’s break down moral relativism in the simplest terms possible.

Moral Relativism in Simple Terms

Moral relativism means there are no universal rules for what’s morally right or wrong. Instead, what’s considered right or wrong is relative—it changes depending on cultural beliefs, social context, or (in some versions) personal preferences. According to moral relativism, no single moral code applies to all people everywhere.

Something that’s considered wrong by one group of people might be perfectly fine in another. Moral relativism says both views can be correct at the same time as there’s no single standard that everyone must follow.

For example, in some cultures, physical subjugation of a man’s wife is considered normal and acceptable. In others, it is domestic violence, punishable by law. Ethical relativism would say both approaches are equally valid because each culture decides what works for them.

This way of thinking puts individuals or societies in the driver’s seat when it comes to determining right and wrong.

The Opposite View: Moral Absolutism

Moral absolutism takes a completely different approach. It says there are universal rules about what’s morally right and wrong that never change, no matter where you live or what people around you believe—they are objective, meaning they do not depend on human opinion.

As Christians, we hold to absolute moral beliefs. We believe God’s truth about right and wrong applies to everyone, everywhere, at all times.

Take the Ten Commandments in Exodus 20:3–17. God didn’t ask for our opinions about whether murder or theft is wrong. He didn’t say, “Well, maybe with some people these things are okay.” He gave clear, unchanging standards that apply universally.

Why This Difference Matters

Moral relativism says, “People or cultures decide what’s morally right for themselves.”

Moral absolutism says, “God has already decided what’s morally right for everyone.”

The difference isn’t just a philosophical debate. It affects how we make decisions, treat other people, and understand our relationship with God. When we believe in moral absolutism, we have a solid foundation for making tough choices and standing up for what’s truly right.

Human opinions can change and vary with the wind. But God’s character, and his standards, remain the same yesterday, today, and forever.

Moral Relativism as a Worldview

Moral relativism isn’t just an ideology. It shows up in everyday conversations and decisions more than you might think. Let’s look at some examples of moral relativism and see how they play out in real life through some common expressions that people often use to justify their choices. You’ve probably heard the following phrases before—maybe you’ve even used them yourself.

“Live Your Truth”

This popular phrase sounds empowering and authentic. But when you dig deeper, it’s pure moral relativism in action.

Here’s what it looks like. A person decides to pursue an extramarital affair because they believe authenticity means following their internal feelings. Or someone chooses to transition genders, arguing that being true to themselves matters more than external consequences or biblical standards.

The problem? “Living your truth” makes your internal feelings the ultimate guide for right and wrong—it makes you the final authority on morality.

But what happens when your truth conflicts with someone else’s truth? Or when your truth leads to real harm? Who really is the final authority?

“That Might Be Wrong for You, But It’s Right for Me”

This is also moral relativism at its center. It sounds tolerant and respectful, but it actually removes any real standard for right and wrong.

Imagine a student cheating on a test and saying, “You might think it’s wrong, but I didn’t really need that class and I had to pass.” Or someone lies to avoid consequences, claiming, “As long as no one gets hurt, it’s not really wrong.”

Instead of measuring actions against a fixed moral standard, decisions are based on feelings, convenience, or social approval. With this example, personal preference becomes the measuring stick for morality.

“As Long as It Makes You Happy”

Happiness has become one of the greatest goals in our culture. And while there’s nothing wrong with being happy, making it your moral compass can lead to serious problems.

For example, an unmarried couple cohabitates because “it feels right” and “we’re happy together”—treating personal feelings as more important than God’s design for sex and marriage. Or an employee pads the expense report at work to fund a personal luxury vacation–justifying theft by saying the company is rich and the vacation is a “deserved treat.”

This approach treats temporary feelings as more important than God’s design for human flourishing or standards for true worth, joy, or fulfillment. Unlike fleeting feelings, God’s morals are the path to genuine happiness, human dignity, and the fullness of life he intends for us.

“Don’t Judge Me”

This phrase often comes up when someone feels challenged about their behavior. It’s usually not about avoiding judgment, but about avoiding accountability.

When a Christian friend lovingly challenges harmful behavior, the response is often, “You’re not supposed to judge.” The person interprets accountability, discernment, or prudent moral consideration as hate or legalism, rather than caring concern for others and the truth.

Moral relativism often uses this phrase to shut down any moral conversation before it can begin.

“Only God Can Judge Me”

This one’s tricky because it sounds spiritual. But often, people who use this phrase aren’t actually submitting to God’s authority; they’re using it to avoid accountability from others.

For example, a college student finds herself accidentally pregnant and chooses abortion because having a baby would interfere with her career plans and personal happiness. When she encounters a prolife advocate at a campus booth, she argues that her decision is “between her and God.” The other person has no right to judge her choices.

It’s a way of saying, “I don’t want to hear what you think is right or wrong.” The phrase becomes a shield against moral correction rather than a humble acknowledgment of God’s authority.

“As Long as It Doesn’t Hurt Anyone”

This approach to morality sounds reasonable on the surface. If no one gets hurt, what’s the problem?

Someone might view porn, lying, or gossip as morally okay because they don’t see any immediate harm. But that overlooks the deeper spiritual and relational damage sin always causes. God’s moral standards exist to protect us from that damage.

It also assumes we can always see the full consequences of our actions—which we can’t.

The Pattern Behind the Phrases

Notice the common thread? Each of these statements puts the individual in charge of determining moral right and wrong. They reject the idea that there might be a higher standard that applies to everyone, let alone to themselves.

Moral relativism sounds freeing, but it actually leaves people without a firm foundation for making tough moral decisions. When everything is relative, nothing is truly right or wrong—and that creates moral chaos rather than moral freedom.

Cultural Moral Relativism vs. Individual Moral Relativism

While these two ideas sound similar, they differ in who makes the final decision about moral right and wrong.

Individual vs. Cultural Authority

Individual moral relativism (also called moral subjectivism) appoints each person as judge. You get to decide what’s right and wrong for yourself based on your feelings, experiences, or circumstances.

Cultural moral relativism hands the authority over to entire societies or cultures. Whatever a group of people deems acceptable becomes morally right for that group—even if other cultures disagree.

How Cultural Moral Relativism Shows Up

You’ve probably heard these kinds of statements before:

• “In their culture, it’s okay, so we shouldn’t judge.”
• “We can’t force other cultures to accept our values.”
• “If that society allows multiple wives, then it’s right for them.”

Cultural relativism sounds respectful. It seems to honor different ways of life around the world. But the problem is that it makes entire cultures the endpoint on morality, removing any higher standard on true right or wrong—which, historically, has been used as a stepping stone toward moral atrocities.

The Key Difference

Individual moral relativism says: “I decide what’s right for me.”

Cultural moral relativism says: “We decide what’s right for us.”

Both approaches reject the same fundamental truth—that there are universal moral standards that apply to everyone, everywhere.

Why Both Fall Short

Whether it’s an individual or an entire culture making moral decisions, both views have the same flaw. They deny that objective moral truth exists.

This ideology stands in sharp contrast to the biblical worldview. Scripture teaches that God’s truth applies to all people, in all places, at all times. His moral standards don’t change based on personal preferences or cultural acceptance.

Arguments Against Moral Relativism

Moral relativism might sound open-minded, but when we examine it closely, it creates serious problems. Let’s look at three major issues that show why, in the end, this worldview fails to provide a solid foundation for human flourishing.

Truth Needs a Fixed Standard

If morality is just a matter of opinion, then it’s impossible to say anything is truly right or wrong. Perhaps take some time to think about the potentially dangerous implications of this.

• Under moral relativism, one person might say physical abuse is terrible, while another could argue it’s acceptable. Both views would be equally valid because there’s no objective standard to determine which is correct.
• If truth were relative, then someone arguing that rape or murder is wrong couldn’t claim it’s actually wrong for everyone. Why? Because there’s no higher standard to judge it by.

This creates an impossible situation. We all know deep down that some things are genuinely wrong, regardless of what people think about them.

Christianity offers a better answer. Real moral truth flows from God’s unchanging character, not just human opinion. When we say something is wrong, we’re measuring it against God’s perfect standard—not the shifting opinions of people or cultures.

Ethical Relativism Removes Accountability and Undermines the Gospel

Ethical relativism has another serious flaw. It removes true accountability.

Without a higher standard beyond culture or personal preference, ethical relativism removes accountability to God. If good and evil are determined by societies or individuals rather than divine truth, then sin becomes a matter of cultural acceptance or personal preference instead of a real offense that separates us from God

But the Bible teaches something very different. Romans 3:23 tells us that everyone is accountable to God for their actions. Sin isn’t based on human beliefs—it’s a real problem that affects our relationship with our Creator.

This is how ethical relativism undermines the entire gospel message. If there’s no absolute standard of right and wrong, then there’s no need for forgiveness or salvation through Christ.

Think about it:

• Why would Jesus need to die for the forgiveness of our sins if sin is just personal opinion? 
• Why would we need a Savior if there’s nothing we actually need to be saved from?

Ethical relativism doesn’t just weaken the gospel—it erases its very reason for existing. If there’s no objective right or wrong, then there’s no sin. And if there’s no sin, there’s no need for forgiveness, no need for a Savior, no need for the cross. The death and resurrection of Jesus only make sense in a world where morals are absolute, grounded in God’s character and revealed by him.

It Opens the Door to Injustice

History shows us the dangerous consequences of ethical relativism on a larger scale.

Ethical relativism creates a logical problem. It eliminates any basis for calling another culture’s practices wrong. Take the Holocaust as an example. If each society determines its own moral standards, then we have no standing to declare that Nazi Germany’s genocide was objectively evil. We might personally dislike it, but we couldn’t say it violated any universal moral principle because under ethical relativism, no such principles exist.

The same logical trap applies to every historical injustice—slavery, ethnic cleansing, oppression of women, and many other evils. Ethical relativism doesn’t simply fail to prevent such atrocities. It takes away our ability to identify them as atrocities in the first place. We’re left saying, “I don’t like what you’re doing,” but we can’t say, “What you’re doing is morally wrong.”

Christians have a different starting point. God’s moral character sets unchanging standards that apply to all people in all times and places. God’s moral truths stand above every culture, including our own. Only on this basis can we consistently oppose injustice.

Christianity Protects Human Dignity

Christianity teaches that there are moral truths because God is the authority who determines them. Following God’s moral standards protects human dignity from the injustice that moral relativism creates. When we recognize that all people are made in God’s image, we have a secure ground for defending human rights and confronting wrongdoing.

Moral relativism may sound appealing because it promises freedom from judgment. But in reality, it erodes any basis for justice and leaves us without the hope of redemption and ultimate restoration that the gospel promises.

The Ultimate Source of Morality

The Bible teaches that morality flows from who God is holy, just, loving, and unchanging. As Psalm 119:68 says, “You are good, and what you do is good.” James 1:17 reminds us that God “does not change like shifting shadows.”

This makes all the difference. Unlike human standards that shift with culture and time, God’s character provides a changeless standard for determining right and wrong.

When we call something “good,” we’re ultimately measuring it against God’s own perfect nature. Jesus—God in human form—embodied that perfection. He didn’t merely teach what goodness is, he lived it flawlessly.

Jesus Reveals True Righteousness

Jesus shows us what God’s moral standard looks like in real life. His teachings in Matthew 5–7 give us clear guidance that goes beyond cultural trends or personal preferences.

Jesus modeled the highest moral standard which is loving God and loving others. He showed mercy to those who were hurting. He stood for truth even when it was unpopular. And he confronted sin with both grace and clarity.

In his encounter with the woman caught in adultery in John 8:11, Jesus showed mercy— “Neither do I condemn you”—and at the same time gave moral direction: “Go now and leave your life of sin”. This wasn’t moral relativism saying, “Do whatever feels right.” It was perfect love expressing both forgiveness and truth.

Scripture Provides a Clear and Timeless Moral Framework

The Bible gives us reliable guidance for how to live, regardless of what’s popular in our culture. As 2 Timothy 3:16–17 says, “All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness.”

Scripture isn’t just human wisdom or cultural preference. It’s divine guidance that helps us know what’s truly right and wrong as life changes around us.

Psalm 19:7–11 tells us that God’s instructions are perfect, trustworthy, and bring joy to those who follow them. Rather than relying on moral relativism or cultural opinions, Christians look to the Bible because God himself reveals what leads to true human flourishing.

A Foundation You Can Build On

Ethical relativism might sound freeing, but it creates impossible contradictions. If your truth says stealing is acceptable and mine says it’s wrong, ethical relativism offers no way to resolve the conflict—both are equally valid. When you face real moral dilemmas, “live your truth” is no foundation for making difficult choices.​

But when morality flows from God’s eternal character, you have an objective standard that resolves moral conflicts. God’s nature sets clear boundaries between right and wrong—boundaries that don’t bend with feelings or culture. His wisdom gives real answers to moral dilemmas.

Choose Carefully

Moral relativism promises freedom but delivers confusion. It leaves us adrift when we need to make wise, confident decisions about right and wrong.

But God offers something better: objective truth flowing from his eternal character. You don’t have to face your hardest moral decisions alone or rely on thin feelings.

Choose Carefully—Because Truth Has a Name

Jesus says, “I am the way, the truth, and the life.” Moral relativism may sound liberating, but it misses the truth. So choose carefully—not just what you believe, but who you trust. Ground your convictions in the one who never changes. Let his Word form your decisions, your values, and your life.

The post Moral Relativism & “Live Your Truth” Worldview appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The Bible says God made human beings in his image (Genesis 1:26–27).

Think about that—you bear the image of the Creator of the universe!

This foundational truth sets humans apart from every other creature. We are not just physical beings but spiritual ones, too. Even people who don’t have a high regard for the Bible agree there is something more to us than what meets the eye. Altogether, this means our lives have intrinsic value and purpose.

But what does being made in God’s image truly mean? And how do we live out this identity in a world filled with competing views on humanity?

We’ll explore these questions together.

Definition of Being Human

To Be Human Is to Reflect God’s Image

To be human means more than having certain physical traits or biological markers. For Christians, it starts with the value-rich idea that we are created in the image of God—unique among all physical life-forms.

Still, defining what it means to be human isn’t straightforward and it’s a topic of scientific and theological debate.

Scientific Ambiguity and Definitions of “Human”

In science, the definition of being human depends on the context. Sometimes, it refers to all hominin (humanlike) species in the fossil record, like the genera Ardipithecus and Australopithecus. Other times, it is narrowed to the Homo genus, such as Homo habilis, Homo erectus, and Neanderthals. At its most refined, it refers to anatomically and behaviorally modern humans: Homo sapiens sapiens (us).

The Evolutionary View of Humanity

The ambiguity continues when we look at the evolutionary view, where humans are the result of natural selection operating over millions of years. This view, however, has no means of explaining consciousness and morality—inarguable truths known to poke holes in evolutionary, atheistic worldviews.

People who support this idea think the different early human species were like stepping stones that eventually led to modern humans.

But this view raises an important question: What makes us unique from other creatures? Is it just biology? Or is there something more?

A Biblical View on Being Human

The Bible provides clarity to this question. Being human means:

(Genesis 1:27).

Evangelical and conservative Christians widely agree that humans are image-bearers. However, debates begin over which ancient humanlike beings, if any, also carried this image.

At Reasons to Believe, we hold that modern humans, both anatomically and behaviorally, are the true image-bearers of God.

Unlike other hominins, our ancestors Adam and Eve were true image-bearers.

RTB’s View on Hominins and the Image of God

Hominins were fascinating creatures that showed intelligence and culture but didn’t share the spiritual qualities that come with being made in God’s image. They were designed by God with behavioral qualities similar to the great apes—remarkably complex—but not like ours.

Some Christians believe certain hominins such as Neanderthals may have also been made in God’s image. However, because of their cognitive limitations and biological differences, particularly their brains, RTB firmly rejects this view. We uphold the position that only modern humans are specially created by God to bear his image..

Why This Question Matters

What does it mean to be a human? This question brings us face-to-face with a profound truth that stretches beyond mere biology. This question invites us to consider not just how, but why we are made.

The answer rests in the meaning of our role as God’s image-bearers.

God’s Good Design: Made in His Image

The divine imprint of being made in God’s image is what sets us apart and shapes our consciousness, morality, creativity, and free will. It’s a gift that defines who we are and why we exist.

Theological Debate on the Image of God

The Bible says humankind was made “in the image of God.” But what does that mean?

For centuries, scholars have wrestled with this question. The traditional way of understanding the image of God, called the resemblance view, suggests our spiritual and moral traits reflect God’s, though in a finite way.

Recently, two other ideas have emerged:

• The relational view sees God’s image as our ability to have a relationship with him.

• The representative view sees God’s image as our responsibility to act as his representatives on Earth.The representative view sees God’s image as our responsibility to act as his representatives on Earth.

While theologians may debate its meaning, RTB scholars believe the image of God includes all of the above. Because we resemble God in part, we’re able to enjoy a relationship with him and fulfill our role as stewards of his creation.

Characteristics of God’s Image

When we include the characteristics of the three viewpoints, we find that human beings have four characteristics that reflect God’s image:

*/adam-eve/first-humans/ancient-cave-art-strengthens-evidence-for-the-image-of-god

Your True Purpose as a Human

Being made in God’s image gives our lives ultimate meaning and purpose. Our true purpose is to form a relationship with God, reflect his nature, and glorify him through our actions. Jesus explained this beautifully when he said we must love God with all our heart and love others as ourselves (Matthew 22:37–39).

The Role of Humans in Life on Earth

Our purpose goes beyond love as a feeling: true love is active. We’re called to care for the earth and each other and to thrive as human beings. Genesis 1:28 tells us to multiply, rule over creation, and subdue it.

This calling reflects responsible care, not exploitation. Protecting the planet advances human well-being, as caring for creation and human flourishing go hand in hand.

How Science Affirms What Being Human Means

Science offers compelling clues on the age-old question of what it means to be a human. When considering the concept of imago Dei, or being created in God’s image, modern science highlights how exceptional human beings truly are, in part, based on the design of our brains. The evidence sets us apart from other creatures, including our closest hominin relatives the Neanderthals.

The Complexity of Human DNA

Human DNA reveals an amazing design that speaks of plan and purpose. DNA in all living things is complex. Some of our genes (found in DNA) contain information that uniquely directs our cognitive development. The information in human DNA forms our biology and is responsible for our unique creativity, morals, and cognitive skills. It’s as if DNA was designed to reflect a higher purpose—a fingerprint of a higher power.

Unique Brain Structure of Humans vs. Neanderthals

Scientists have noted key differences between modern human and Neanderthal brains. Modern humans have a globular skull with enlarged thinking areas, while Neanderthals had longer skulls, impacting advanced cognition. The cerebellum in modern humans is larger and more symmetrical, enhancing skills like language, memory, and social abilities. Additionally, the modern human parietal lobe is more developed, supporting self-awareness, planning, coordination, and symbolic thought.

A Scientific Case for Human Exceptionalism

Advances in artificial intelligence and bioengineering highlight humanity’s uniqueness. AI may be powerful but it can’t replicate our morality, creativity, or relational depth, showing that being human means more than biology. Far from contradicting the idea of the imago Dei, science supports it—our DNA, brains, and behaviors align with how the Bible explains humanity. Modern science, far from lessening our place in creation, reinforces that we truly are fearfully and wonderfully made.

What Defines You as a Human Being?

What defines us as human beings? We are more than our actions, achievements, or circumstances. The Bible says we are created in God’s image with special worth and purpose. But as Adam’s descendants, we also bear the consequences of humanity’s fall. This sinful state means humans are a mix of greatness and brokenness—able to love and create, yet prone to sin and rebellion against God’s will. Sin infiltrates our nature, and we are unable to overcome it without God’s grace.

Nonbiblical Views on Humanity

In some evolutionary views, humans are seen as material beings shaped by natural selection, with concepts like good and evil viewed as societal constructs. Human actions stem from instincts, not divine purpose, making sin natural behavior rather than moral failure.

Others argue that humans are inherently good and do wrong only out of desperation or lack of resources. However, this view struggles to explain the deep cruelty and selfishness seen throughout history, even among the privileged.

Humanity’s Problem—and God’s Solution

The Bible paints a different picture. It tells us humans are sinners, separated from God, from others, and from creation itself. This reality is echoed in Romans 3:10–12, “There is no one righteous, not even one,” and “there is no one who does good, not even one.”

Our separation from God is stark. Though we were created to have a relationship with him, our sin creates a sinkhole we cannot escape on our own.

Yet, in our hopelessness, God provided a way out. Romans 6:23 reminds us, “For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.” Through the cross, Jesus paid the penalty for our sins and made reconciliation with God possible.

The True Definition of Humanity

The meaning of being human lies not in our brain structures, what we accomplish, or even how society defines us. Our identity is rooted in God’s image, dependent on Jesus for forgiveness and restoration, and maintained with all creation through the Holy Spirit. By God’s design, we are given a purpose far greater than anything we could reach on our own.

You are fearfully and wonderfully made, redeemed by God’s love, and meant to live for his glory. This is what being truly human means.

Jesus: The Perfect Human

Jesus Christ, fully God and fully human, perfectly reflects God’s image and reveals humanity’s true purpose. Colossians 1:15 calls him “the image of the invisible God,” exemplifying holiness, righteousness, and love. Through his life, death, and resurrection, Jesus made a way to restore the image of God that had been tarnished by sin. That restoration comes by the power of the Holy Spirit (called sanctification), who transforms us to become more like Christ and live out our purpose as God’s children.

To Live Is Christ

The ultimate goal of humanity is realized in Christ. To be a human is not about moral perfection or worldly accomplishments, it’s about finding our identity in Jesus—the perfect human who invites us into a relationship with God. Through him, we embody everything we were created to be.

The post What Does It Mean to Be Human? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

In my recent book, Jesus Is God and Savior, I explain and critique what naturalists affirm about important existential questions. In this post, I will briefly discuss six things naturalists affirm and show how the evidence and reasoning contradict these views.

Figure 1: Complex aquatic creatures of the Cambrian period appeared without signs of evolution from previous animals. Image credit: Wikimedia Commons

Naturalist Affirmation 1: God does not exist.
In Does God Exist? philosopher William Lane Craig presents several arguments for God’s existence.

Craig casts the teleological argument in terms of the fine-tuning that is observed in the universe. What is the source of the fine-tuning? Is it necessity, chance, or design? Craig concludes that the fine-tuning is not due to necessity since the physical constants of the universe could be other than they are.³ Astrophysicist Hugh Ross has shown that the probability that the constants of the universe could be set as they are on a random basis is virtually zero. Ross writes, “Unless the number of electrons is equivalent to the number of protons to an accuracy of one part in 10³⁷ or better, electromagnetic forces in the universe would have overcome gravitational forces so that galaxies, stars, and planets would never have formed.”⁴ Yet the probability of finding a life-supporting planet in the entire universe is even more remote. Ross has compiled a list of 676 parameters that must be fine-tuned to permit life on a planet. He estimates that the probability of finding a life-permitting planet, apart from divine intervention, is one in 10⁵⁵⁶.⁵

Thus, necessity and chance are ruled out and design emerges as the only reasonable explanation for the fine-tuning of the universe. The Designer (God) must be immensely powerful and knowledgeable. If God exists, it cannot be the case that only the universe exists.

Naturalist Affirmation 2: Life arose by naturalistic means.
In a now-famous letter from February of 1871, Charles Darwin wrote to Thomas Hooker and suggested that the production of a living organism might have taken place “in some warm little pond with all sorts of ammonia & phosphoric salts,—light, heat, electricity” present.⁶ Darwin’s letter to Hooker fanned the flames of the chemical evolution movement, asserting that the origin of the first living cell was the result of random and chemical processes. Without the first living cell, evolution by natural selection (ENS) could not commence. But did the first living cell arise by chemical evolution? According to Nobel laureate Jack Szostak and Harvard-affiliated researcher Alonso Ricardo, “It is virtually impossible to imagine how a cell’s machines, which are mostly protein-based catalysts called enzymes, could have formed spontaneously as life first arose from nonliving matter around 3.7 billion years ago.”⁷

Stephen Meyer, philosopher of science and author of Signature in the Cell, estimates the probability of a minimally complex cell arising by random chance and chemical evolution is one in 10^41,000.⁸ Thus, Meyer concludes, “The probability of producing the proteins necessary to build a minimally complex cell—or the genetic information necessary to produce those proteins—by chance is unimaginably small.”⁹

Naturalist Affirmation 3: The present diversity of life is the result of evolution by natural selection.
If the theory of evolution by natural selection is correct, the present observed diversity of life should be preceded by almost countless transitional forms as mutations gradually accumulated to form new species. Perhaps the most conspicuous failure of ENS is the rapid speciation during the Cambrian era recorded in the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies. The Cambrian explosion of life began about 540 million years ago and, by one estimate, lasted only 410,000 years.¹⁰ During this period, most of the 30 animal phyla present today appeared in a period too short to allow for the gradual ENS envisioned by Darwin. Cambrian-era creatures contained trillions of cells. In contrast, Harvard paleontologist Stephen Jay Gould noted that the creatures of the Precambrian period found just below Cambrian shale layers were mere bacteria and blue-green algal cells devoid of nuclei and mitochondria.¹¹ In recognition of the Cambrian fossil problem, evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins opines, “the only alternative explanation of the sudden appearance of so many complex animal types in the Cambrian era is divine creation.”¹² Dawkins rejects that alternative without providing rationale for his rejection.¹³

Naturalist Affirmation 4: The mind is a product of the brain which ceases to exist upon death.
Naturalists often argue that the mind is a product of the brain and the physiological processes in the central nervous system. Thus, they would affirm that when the body dies, the mind dies, and no afterlife is possible. However, evidential near-death experiences (NDEs) show that the mind continues to function even after clinical death (pulse and breathing have stopped) or brain death (flat-line EEG). In contrast to heavenly NDEs (in which the person claims they saw heaven), evidential NDEs take place on Earth, as those who are resuscitated from clinical and brain death provide verifiable and correct information regarding the events occurring during their incapacitated state.¹⁴ According to the radiation oncologist and recognized NDE researcher Jeffrey Long, “Near-death experiences (NDEs) are reported by about 17% of those who nearly die.”¹⁵

In their book, Beyond Death: Exploring the Evidence for Immortality, professors Gary Habermas and J. P. Moreland give numerous examples and reference large studies of corroborated evidential NDEs occurring in individuals who were comatose, clinically dead, or had flatline EEGs. Yet, upon resuscitation, these individuals are often able to provide details of their treatment, events in the hospital outside of the treatment setting, and sometimes events occurring in their homes or elsewhere. Evidential NDEs demonstrate that the mind can function apart from the body, showing that the mind is distinct from the body.¹⁶

Naturalist Affirmation 5: Humans are the ultimate source of morality.
Christian thinkers such as C. S. Lewis and William Lane Craig have defended the moral argument for the existence of God, stating that humans are imbued with a universal moral code or objective moral values that transcend time and location. Societies in recorded history have prohibited stealing, the murder of innocents, rape, bearing false witness, and other injustices. If God does not exist, there are no objective moral values. In the Darwinian framework, survival of the fittest is incompatible with the altruism and longing for justice found in all human beings. But in a theist framework, altruism and a desire for justice make perfect sense. If there are universal moral laws, there must be a universal moral Lawgiver (God) who is the source of morality. Some have argued that the universal moral code is a result of ENS. Yet, if that were the case, there would be morals, but not objective morals. That is to say, under different evolutionary pressures, a culture might have evolved where the murder of innocents, rape, and injustice were viewed positively, which is hard to conceive.¹⁷ 

Naturalist Affirmation 6: Jesus was a mere mortal.
Finally, contrary to naturalists’ skepticism, the best explanation for the historical events which occurred in the first century is that Jesus rose from the dead. Resurrection scholars Gary Habermas and Michael Licona defend the resurrection on the basis of four minimal facts. Their argument does not presume the truth of the Bible since it only uses facts accepted by virtually all New Testament scholars—conservative, liberal, skeptical, and agnostic. The facts are as follows:

1. Jesus died by crucifixion.
2. Jesus’s disciples believed he rose from the dead and appeared to them.
3. The church persecutor Paul was suddenly converted.
4. The skeptic James, the brother of Jesus, was suddenly converted.

A fifth fact would be affirmed by about 75% of the same group of scholars: The tomb of Jesus was empty on Sunday morning.¹⁸ In The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus, Habermas and Licona consider all naturalistic explanations for the minimal facts and they show, one by one, why they all fail. Thus, they conclude that the best explanation for the minimal facts is that Jesus rose from the dead. Since a dead man could not raise himself, the minimal facts point to a transcendent God who controls natural processes and Jesus as his divine agent who entered space-time.

Naturalism Is a Failed Worldview
This brief presentation of evidence and reasoning contradicts six naturalists’ affirmations while affirming the Christian theist worldview. How many strikes must naturalism be afforded before it is ruled out as a viable worldview? Insight into the lengths that atheists and naturalists will go to preserve the possibility of a purely material world is found in Thomas Nagel’s candid revelation.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.¹⁹ 

The retreat from the Christian theist worldview has been hasty and ill-founded in light of the evidence. As Paul writes in Romans 1:18, men suppress the truth in unrighteousness. One day, all the unrighteousness and desires of humans will be swept aside as Jesus, the King of kings and Lord of lords (Revelation 19:11–16), returns on the clouds of heaven with power and great glory (Matthew 24:29–31). Thus, the urgency to the share the gospel of Jesus Christ has never been greater.

Endnotes

1. Steven Schafersman, “Naturalism is Today an Essential Part of Science,” Conference on Naturalism, Theism and the Scientific Enterprise, accessed August 14, 2022, https://holtz.org/Library/Philosophy/Metaphysics/Naturalism%20by%20Schafersman%201997.html.
2. Thomas Nagel, Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature Is Almost Certainly False (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012), 4.
3. William Lane Craig, Does God Exist? (Pine Mountain, GA: Impact 360, 2014), 496-704, Kindle.
4. Hugh Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos (Covina, CA: RTB Press, 2018), 170.
5. Ross, The Creator and the Cosmos, 216–218.
6. Darwin Correspondence Project, “Letter no. 7471,” accessed March 4, 2023, https://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/letter/?docId=letters/DCP-LETT-7471.xml.
7. A. Ricardo and J. W. Szostak, “Origin of Life on Earth,” Scientific American, September 1, 2009,  https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican0909-54.
8. Stephen C. Meyer, Signature in the Cell: DNA and the Evidence for Intelligent Design (New York: Harper One, 2009), 213.
9. Meyer, Signature in the Cell, 213.
10. Ulf Linnemann et al., “New High-Resolution Age Data from the Ediacaran-Cambrian Boundary Indicate Rapid, Ecologically Driven Onset of the Cambrian Explosion,” Terra Nova 31, no. 1 (February 2019): 49–58, doi:10.1111/ter.12368.
11. Stephen Jay Gould, The Panda’s Thumb (New York: Norton, 1980), 139.
12. Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (New York: Norton, 1996), 230.
13. Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker, 230.
14. Daniel Cote, Jesus Is God and Savior: How Prophecy, Science, and History Affirm the Truth of Christianity (Watertown, CT: Multimedia Apologetics, 2022), 193.
15. Jeffrey Long, “Near-death Experience. Evidence for Their Reality,” Missouri Medicine 111, no. 5 (September–October 2014): 372–380, doi:.
16. Gary R. Habermas and J. P. Moreland, Beyond Death (Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 1998), 155–172; Cote, Jesus Is God and Savior, 193–200.
17. Cote, Jesus Is God and Savior, 31–34.
18. Gary R. Habermas and Michael R. Licona, The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus (Grand Rapids, MI: Kregel, 2004), 48–76.
19. Thomas Nagel, The Last Word (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997), 130.

The post Is Scientific Naturalism Dead? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

Human rights are grounded in the fact that every human has inherent dignity. When we deny people their rights or extend those inherent rights to only some, we fail to respect that dignity. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. pointed out that racial discrimination degrades human personality by not treating people with dignity due to the color of their skin. He shared in “Letter From a Birmingham Jail” that his daughter cried when he had to tell her that she could not go to an amusement park because of racial discrimination.¹

Philosopher Joel Feinberg imagined a world in which people are virtuous and adhere to moral duties, but in which there is no ability to claim when one’s rights have been violated. Feinberg argued this world would be morally flawed as it failed to recognize human dignity.² The ability to claim that one’s rights have been violated recognizes human dignity. When we point out that the rights of other people have been abused, and work to vindicate and protect their rights, we treat that person with dignity. We treat them as if they matter—which they do.

The global community has recognized the importance of human rights and their grounding in human dignity. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted in the wake of World War II and its horrors, states that “recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world.”³

However, some thinkers, like philosopher Charles Taylor, point out that relying on one’s rights can be problematic because it is based on individualism.⁴ For example, we have a right to control our property. If I have an assigned parking spot where I live, I can be indignant if someone parks in my spot. They violated my right to park there, I pay for the right to park there. How dare they! However, say an elderly neighbor is on their deathbed with people coming to visit them before they pass. There’s a limited number of parking spaces. If I insist no one can park in my spot, I am within my rights to do so. But it would be selfish of me not to surrender my right in this situation.

It’s often argued that we have a strict moral duty not to infringe on others’ rights (negative duties) but we are not morally obligated to help people in need if we have not violated their rights.This means that positive duties to help people are—as German philosopher Immanuel Kant called them—imperfect duties.⁵ This essentially means that we use discretion when choosing to help people and are not obligated to help everyone. Many people may see someone in need of help and not come to their aid, comforting themselves with the fact that since they didn’t cause this person’s suffering, they do no wrong by not helping them.

This means I have a moral duty not to park in someone else’s parking spot. However, I’ve no moral duty to give up my parking spot to someone else and, therefore, I’m not violating their rights by not giving them my spot. 

So, on the one hand, human rights recognize and, when enforced, protect the dignity of all people everywhere. However, on the other hand, focusing on my rights alone can cause me to be self-absorbed and selfish. How can these two things be reconciled? It is vital to recognize the importance of individuals. Yet a community of people focused solely on their own rights does not lead to a flourishing society. Is the solution to abandon the concept of human rights because it is based on individualism and can be used to justify selfishness? No, there is a model of treating individuals with dignity and, in doing so, protecting their rights while avoiding selfishness in the process.

Christianity, like Judaism, explains that all humans have dignity because we are created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26–27). Therefore, to respect the dignity of all people, we should protect human rights. But Christianity also supports giving up one’s rights in order to love others. For example, the Good Samaritan risked his physical safety and used his personal property to help the injured traveler. If the Good Samaritan held to the theory that he just had negative moral duties he could have walked by and not been compelled to help because he was not the one who attacked and robbed this poor man (Luke 10:25–37). Jesus pointed to this as the way we should love our neighbors—not claiming we have a right to absolute physical safety and an absolute right to use our personal property as we wish.

Moreover, Jesus is God and gave up his right to be treated as equal with God in order to show the depth of God’s love for humanity. Paul writes that Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God, did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage; rather, he made himself nothing by taking the very nature of a servant, being made in human likeness. And being found in appearance as a man, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to death—even death on a cross! (Philippians 2:6–8)

There is no question that Jesus’s rights were grossly violated in the crucifixion. But he considered the worth of his sacrifice to be greater than the violation of those rights because his sacrifice meant the salvation of all humans who believe and follow him. This shows how Jesus valued the dignity of people.

The protection of human rights recognizes the immense value of people and leads to human flourishing, but we also need to recognize that our rights are not an excuse to focus solely on ourselves. Sometimes we need to give up our rights in order to love other people. Christianity provides us a perfect model in Jesus who surrendered himself as an act of love for us. We don’t have to abandon human rights as a way to avoid risking being self-absorbed. To do so would be a great loss.

Endnotes

1. Martin Luther King Jr., “Letter From a Birmingham Jail,” African Studies Center, University of Pennyslvania (April 16, 1963).
2. United Nations, “Universal Declaration of Human Rights,” un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights.
3. Joel Feinberg and Jan Narveson, “The Nature and Value of Rights,” Journal of Value Inquiry 4 (December 1970): 243­–260, doi:10.1007/BF00137935.
4. Charles Taylor, “A World Consensus on Human Rights,” Dissent, Summer 1996, dissentmagazine.org/article/a-world-consensus-on-human-rights.
5. Immanuel Kant, Grounding for the Metaphysics of Morals, 3rd ed., trans. James W. Ellington (Indianapolis: Hackett Publishing, 1993).

The post Christianity and Human Rights: When Giving Up Our Rights Shows Love to Others appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post How Christianity Best Explains Human Equality appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post AI Investigations: Philosophy Is Not Dead appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Star Wars Apologetics appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post What in the World Is a Worldview? appeared first on Reasons to Believe.

The post Interpreting Creation, Part 2: Science-Faith Models appeared first on Reasons to Believe.