Is Law Truth or Truth Law?

A day or so ago I posted an article about law, that has lead to a discussion on moral absolutism. In response to my article, Paul made a thoughtful comment that included this:

Not so sure about the Moral Absolutes. Your moral absolutes are derived, or seem to be derived from a religious belief. What if we have different gods but live in the same society? And just for hypothetical example, they share some morals, but not others. Which ones get enshrined as law?

Thanks for coming past, Paul; no offense taken. I hope you take none at my response. It helps to remember that I am a rabid right-winger; I am bound to think outrageous things.

Paul is dead right. My "moral compass" is set by my religion. However, the rest of his comment rather misses the point.

My views on law are based on my views on epistemology: I believe that certain things are absolutely, objectively true (eg. that there exists a God who sets standards for human behaviour) and that therefore certain things are absolutely and objectively right or wrong (eg. that murder is wrong).

Paul however, seems to assume a relativist epistemology, and then point out that my conclusions on law are not consistent with it. This is only to be expected; we disagree on something more fundamental than which set of laws should be enacted.

Paul writes, "What if we have different gods but live in the same society?" The assumption implicit in this question (and correct me if I am wrong, Paul) is that each of those gods "exists" (for a given value of "exist") just as much as the others. That is to say, no religion is absolutely and objectively true or false; their trueness depends on who is assessing it.

As I have said before, I think this is wrong. There are many theoretical reasons to be given, but I think the most telling is a practical consideration: The central claim of Christianity is one that can be tested, and found true or false. Did Jesus Christ physically, bodily, rise from the dead?

This is a question that has a right and a wrong answer. There is no way that it can be true for me that he rose, but false for you. We are not talking about "spiritual" or "faith" truth here; we are talking about historical fact.

This is not the place to explore specific consequences. Rather, I will say that I am convinced that Christianity is true because I find the evidence in favour of it very persuasive. And if Christianity is objectively true, then other religions are necessarily objectively false, because (at least some of) their claims contradict those of Christianity.

So Paul, "What if we have different gods?" Then I am convinced that actually one of those Gods exist and the others do not; one of those Gods sets standards that are worth following and the others do not. Either you or I believe in a false god who is not worth following at all. And I think the evidence is in my favour.