By Mark W. Christy
Across the world, most people regard Hitler as synonymous with evil. Not only is this true for Westerners, it also seems to be the prevailing view among those in the East, though I cannot confirm this. Nevertheless, I can attest it is true for many Chinese people after having many conversations on this topic while serving in China. During these conversations, I found it strange that many Chinese felt comfortable labelling Hitler as evil since most of them maintain an atheistic worldview which inherently lacks an objective moral framework.
When questioned on this matter, the typical response was total confusion. To help them understand, I would follow up with a question concerning how one knows the difference between right and wrong. In response, it was quite common to point to the government as the arbiter of truth. Along with this response, others might point to laws or even their parents as the source. Unfortunately, these sources are subjective in nature. To put this another way, truth built on a subjective foundation in the end becomes simply mere opinion. After carefully explaining this, I would repose the question concerning their objective moral framework for morality and strive to help them reach a more intellectually satisfying (though arguably not emotionally gratifying) conclusion.
In China, science is portrayed as the ultimate, if not exclusive, means for knowledge acquisition. This, of course, fits well into the government supported, atheistic and materialistic worldview. Unfortunately, it leaves a glaring whole in the moral foundation which undergirds their society. Of course, science has provided the world with many tools to acquire knowledge of the world which in turn has led to a renaissance of technological innovation. Its strength, however, is limited to the external world in which we live as persons. While it certainly can provide knowledge about our physical bodies, it fails to address the inner reality of our personhood.
Within one’s inner person, one has a multitude of desires. Some of these may indeed afford an explanation that is scientific in origin, but others greatly resist naturalistic overtures. For example, science can not explain love, hope, or the desire to be trusted. Moreover, it offers no framework for offering kindness and concern for others as these require the warmth of a person, and this lies beyond the sort of cold, hard science which postulates a naturalistic, impersonalized reality where only the fittest survives irrespective of the presence of anything that be construed to be moral fiber.
In this impersonalized understanding of the world, science leaves the individual with only his/her subjective opinion of ultimate reality and morality even while failing to explain personhood itself. With this erosion in the foundation of personhood, people are abandoned to the absurdity of assigning moral absolutes founded on subjective and individual opinions. In this context, any questions about Hitler being evil create quite a conundrum for the thinking person trapped in an atheistic and naturalistic worldview.
Should they ponder on the matter and hold to their framework, they could argue Hitler is evil in their opinion. But then, they would have to consider what it means to be evil. Since their worldview lacks an objectively moral foundation, even the meaning evil becomes a matter of mere opinion. The problem worsens as one considers how this could play out in a conversation when the meaning of terms employed to express one’s view are ultimately defined by the opinion of the person. This, of course, leads to a breakdown in conversation.
This crack in the foundation of materialistic worldviews renders them impotent when discussing the morality of Hitler. To properly assess Hitler’s character, one must uphold an objective moral framework. For this to occur, one must postulate an autonomous and personal being beyond themselves who has the desire and the power to project its moral standards upon the world. Such a person can certainly be found in Christianity.
For the Christian, Hitler could most certainly be called evil if for no other reason than Jesus Himself labels all people this way (Matt 7:11). Beyond this, Hitler was evil because he was born a sinner (Ps 51:5). Despite being a sinner, Hitler chose to continue sinning instead of repenting and allowing God to make him righteous in Christ (cf. 1 John 3:4-9). After considering this outline of thought, my Chinese listeners were essentially stuck between a rock and a hard place. They could continue to hold to their atheistic and naturalistic worldview which relieved them of any personal demands from an objective reality. But to do so, they also had to deny their very personhood and surrender to the absurdity that such a denial creates. If they chose to instead embrace the truth of their personhood, which should be readily apparent since they experience this reality directly, they had to consider the basis of morality which undergirds one’s personhood. To put this another way, they had to consider the moral rules (along with the giver of these rules) which govern the various aspects of one’s personhood just as physical laws (in general) govern the physical realm.