Moral Argument 3.0: How Neuroscience Bolsters Objective Morality
Thinkers for centuries have strived to develop arguments to prove the existence of God.[i] Who’d have thought that neurosurgeons would find keys to rocket the traditional Moral Argument into the 21st century? The earlier moral arguments used reason, logic, and common internal thoughts and human experience to make a case for God’s existence.[ii] The Immortal Mind (2025),[iii] by brain surgeon Dr. Michael Egnor and mind researcher Denyse O’Leary, takes the venerable case to new cerebral and spiritual levels.
Argument 1.0 The Standard Moral Law Argument
The Moral Law Argument (Argument 1.0) includes three main Elements:[iv]
- Every law requires a lawgiver.
- Moral laws exist.
- Therefore, there is a moral lawgiver.
These “laws” refer to rules governing human behavior, not physical or mathematical laws. Argument 1.0 is inductive, meaning it draws from observed regularities rather than providing absolute certainty. We draw an inductive conclusion when, for example, we say “any horse-like animal with black and white stripes is a zebra,” because we have seen many zebras and every one was striped that way.
Inductive arguments also can flow from thoughts and intuitions that seem to describe reality. For example, (premise 1) “every law requires a lawgiver.” That idea comes from experience but also from the intuitions about cause and effect. There is always a cause for any effect we see. If we imagine a moral law, there must be: (1) a cause for the mental process of imagining; and, (2) a cause for formulating the moral law in the way we imagine it.
The claim that moral laws exist (premise 2) is often debated, but finds support in ideas such as the concept of a perfect moral ideal, the existence of objective moral standards, near-universal agreement on core morals, the need for external standards in moral debates, the human senses of guilt and justification, the futility of arguing right and wrong without binding rules, and the risk of societal breakdown if everyone were the final judges of their own behavior. Many find these considerations persuasive in arguing for an objective, perfect lawgiver.
Common moral laws exist in the real world. In The Abolition of Man (1943),[v] C.S. Lewis collected examples of such laws found in nearly all societies: justice, fairness, honesty, respect for human life, charity and compassion, respect for elders, sexual morality, courage and honor.
Argument 1.0 persuades many that an objective and perfect lawgiver exists, based upon reason, logic, and experience.[vi]
Argument 2.0 The Moral Laws are Designed Software
Moral Law Argument 2.0 uses computer science and technology concepts to bolster the Moral Law Argument.[vii] It starts by seeing that moral laws and their underlying moral values are non-material ideas. They are not reducible to physical materials or forces.
We cannot describe moral ideas and laws in purely material terms. But if we want to build robots who make moral decision, then we must consider how to place moral laws into concrete forms in robot technology. The problem is: how is it even possible to install into the most “intelligent” robots even basic moral laws, such as “always obey humans, do not harm humans, and protect yourself from harm”? This problem poses an overwhelming challenge to the smartest human designers using all available methods.
Some of the top challenges for programming a moral robot are: (1) making it understand the moral law involved; (2) getting all the massive information needed to decide moral questions; and (3) tracing in advance all the results of actions that produce consequences extending far and wide in many unexpected ways.
Crucially, the robot example does show that moral laws and decisions are non-material. They don’t reside in the robot’s hardware; they are in the software. Software, without exception, is ultimately sourced in a mind, having a purpose, a plan, a way to engineer the procedures, and foresight about how software and its consequences play out.
If we assume the human mind exists solely in the human brain, then comparing the brain to a robot’s computer hardware brain is plausible. In the robot, moral laws are software. By analogy, the moral laws would be software directing the human brain hardware also. As software, moral laws come from an external intelligent source of software, which we call the moral lawgiver.[viii] Argument 2.0’s objective truths about morality software establish the Moral Argument beyond what earlier thinkers considered.
Argument 3.0: Moral Laws Do Not Reside in the Brain
Argument 1.0 works with observations, logic and intuitions, while Argument 2.0 shows that if moral laws were solely within the human brain and mind, they nevertheless were designed by an outside intelligent source of moral knowledge.
Argument 3.0 adds to the Moral Law Argument’s position that a superior mind created and knows the perfect ways for humans to act and be good rather than evil. Opposing the argument is the reigning “scientific” materialist worldview that asserts everything observed is explainable as undirected interactions of matter and energy only. Scientists typically assert the human mind is identity with or at least resides in the brain, and therefore human ideas about morality exist there, too.
In The Immortal Mind, the authors explain that specific regions of the brain control distinct activities of the mind: sensory perception, physical movement, memory, and emotion. Other activities, however, including intellect, reason, abstract thought, and free will, do not appear to map so neatly.
Pioneering neurosurgeon Wilder Penfield (1891 – 1976) conducted over 1,100 ethical, painless, open skull brain operations on fully conscious patients, keeping careful notes while mapping the brain extensively using electrodes. Stimulating certain regions would spark memories or trigger emotions. After thousands of experimental probes, Penfield found he could never force a patient to reason, reflect, or choose. Abstract thought and free will never appeared on command.
Even seizures that hijack brain circuitry never produced genuine reasoning; at most there appeared only compulsions, obsessions, memories and illusions, or emotional surges. Epileptic seizures give physical and sensory experiences and can also retrieve memories – but they don’t hallucinate mathematics or logic. Similarly, they don’t expound principles of morality, fairness or law.
Neuroscience and Near Death Experience Evidence
Four other lines of mind-brain research show that crucial functions of the human mind are not contained in the brain alone. First, is the widely-known example of surgery that splits the brain’s two hemispheres to alleviate epilepsy. After the surgery, the patient’s personality and mental functions are nearly all intact. Two half-brains do not produce two personalities or two minds. Connections among neurons alone do not create the mind.
Second, and jaw-droppingly, many children are born with only part of a brain, even as little as 5% of the average brain matter of neurotypical kids. Although some die soon after birth, many not only survive but exhibit a unique personality and carry on a near-normal life. This fact shows brain matter alone does not establish the consciousness and ability to think and act.
Third, and quite astounding are the reports from conjoined biological twins who are born sharing parts of the same body and brain. Conjoined twins may share physical functions of the brain, but not the immaterial aspects of a separate personality and self-hood. They each have their own consciousness, abstract reasoning, personal identity, individuality, and free will.
Fourth and perhaps most dramatic is the overwhelming evidence of near-death experiences (NDEs). John Burke’s book, Imagine Heaven (2015), [ix] systematizes the many common features reported when individuals are as close to death as medically detectable but are later revived to consciousnesses. The experiences include out-of-body travel, feeling total peace and being overwhelmed by pure love, encountering deceased humans they knew, conversations with a being of light, and undergoing a full life-review.[x] The Immortal Mind spotlights the veridical NDEs, which occur when the revived person reports seeing and hearing things while out-of-body that the person could not otherwise have known but are independently and objectively verifiable.
The Immortal Mind declares: (1) verified NDEs confirm each human has an immaterial aspect, i.e., mind or soul, that exists despite the clinical death of the brain; and (2) all NDEs confirm the person’s immaterial mind or soul retains self-identity and its personality during and after the experience.
Moral Laws Draw from Sources Outside of the Brain
Moral laws and moral decisions flow from selfhood, logic and reasoning, and abstract ideas. They only secondarily relate to emotions, physical pain, brain size, and nerve stimulation responses. The seemingly simple concept of fairness, for example, is an abstract idea. Understanding and applying fairness gives rise to the huge discipline of law itself, with all of its defining, categorizing, analyzing, policy choices, as well as the rules and procedures to operate the legal system.
The Immortal Mind’s science-based reasoning shows the mental features such as moral laws and decisions do not reside in the brain. This conclusion supports the Moral Law Argument (1.0) by showing there do exist moral laws that human minds possess independent of their brains.
To date, none of the NDE reports that I’ve seen say the NDErs know everything about right and wrong while away from the human brain’s operation. The NDErs, instead, universally report being astounded at all they were seeing and hearing, and also knowing they have more to learn or more to do in their earthly lives. Often, NDErs are either told or decide themselves that the “right” thing to do is return their bodies. The NDErs do not claim total knowledge and wisdom of morality. If anything, the NDErs are humbled by the non-material existence they saw.[xi]
Moral Argument 3.0 thus shows that moral laws are non-material, that human understanding of moral laws is not total. Moreover, human understanding of moral laws is not a brain feature but a non-material mind feature,[xii] and human minds know them independent of their Earthly life. From these points we see that objective moral laws exist in the realm of non-material mind,[xiii] and they come from a lawgiver also in the immaterial realm. More science has thus supplied more evidence of a Creator God.
References:
[i] See J. Brian Huffling, “An Intro to Arguments for God’s Existence,” Crossexamined.org,
https://crossexamined.org/an-intro-to-arguments-for-gods-existence/
[ii] See Paul Rezkalla, “5 Common Objections to the Moral Argument,” Crossexamined.org, https://crossexamined.org/tag/moral-argument-for-gods-existence/
[iii] Michael Egnor & Denyse O’Leary, The Immortal Mind: A Neurosurgeon’s Case for the Existence of the Soul (Worthy Books, 2025), https://www.amazon.com/dp/1546006354/
[iv] J. M. Njoroge, “Must the Moral Law Have a Lawgiver?,” Christian Library, https://www.christianstudylibrary.org/article/must-moral-law-have-lawgiver
[v] C. S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (1943), Ch. 2, Appendix, https://archive.org/details/TheAbolitionOfMan_229
[vi] See Erik Manning, “Every Christian Should Begin to Master the Moral Argument Today,” Crossexamined.org, https://crossexamined.org/every-christian-should-begin-to-master-the-moral-argument-today/
[vii] Richard W. Stevens, “Objective Evidence for God,” Salvo (No. 47, 2018), https://salvomag.com/article/salvo47/moral-law-argument-20
[viii] Richard W. Stevens, “Whether Humans or Robots, We Need Moral Programming,” Salvo (No. 42, 2017), https://salvomag.com/article/salvo42/bot-behavior
[ix] John Burke, Imagine Heaven (Baker Books, 2015), https://www.amazon.com/dp/080101526X/
[x] “Can You See the Supernatural?” (Frank Turek with Lee Strobel),
https://crossexamined.org/can-you-see-the-supernatural-with-lee-strobel/
[xi] See George G. Ritchie w/ Elizabeth Sherrill, Return from Tomorrow (Chosen Books, 2023),
https://www.amazon.com/Return-Tomorrow-George-G-Ritchie/dp/0800763009/
[xii] Brian G. Chilton, “Defense of the Immaterial Soul,” Crossexamined.org,
https://crossexamined.org/defense-of-the-immaterial-soul/
[xiii] See Eben Alexander, Proof of Heaven: A Neurosurgeon’s Journey into the Afterlife, (Simon & Schuster, 2012), https://www.amazon.com/Proof-Heaven-Neurosurgeons-Journey-Afterlife/dp/1451695195/
Recommended Resources:
Why Science Needs God by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Science Doesn’t Say Anything, Scientists Do by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD, Mp3, and Mp4)
Oh, Why Didn’t I Say That? Does Science Disprove God? by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
Richard W. Stevens is a retiring lawyer, author, and a Fellow of Discovery Institute’s Walter Bradley Center on Natural and Artificial Intelligence. He has written extensively on how code and software systems evidence intelligent design in biological systems. Holding degrees in computer science (UCSD) and law (USD), Richard practiced civil and administrative law litigation in California and Washington D.C., taught legal research and writing at George Washington University and George Mason University law schools, and specialized in writing dispositive motion and appellate briefs. Author or co-author of four books, he has written numerous articles and spoken on subjects including intelligent design, artificial and human intelligence, economics, the Bill of Rights and Christian apologetics. Available now at Amazon is his fifth book, Investigation Defense: What to Do When They Question You (2024).
