This week's topic is broad and very far-reaching, but without it, any argument I make (or have made) is open to an attack which has become all too common in the past few centuries. The basic structure of this attack is as follows:
"My brain works through a series of chemical reactions. These reactions are responsible for the thoughts which I perceive, as well as emotions, instincts, and any other event which occurs primarily in my mind. Chemical reactions, by nature, occur in a very rigid way, which usually has very little to do with the external world, given the requisite conditions for the reaction to occur. Therefore, if my thoughts arise solely from a series of chemical interactions, there is nothing to say that they are trustworthy or even pertinent. Thus, human logic cannot be trusted."
This is, as best I understand it, one of the main arguments which gives rise to the philosophy of nihilism. It is the atheistic evolutionary biologist's favorite platitude and the ultimate end of the exercise in futility known as post-modernism. In an attempt to demonstrate that their philosophical outlook on the world is the best, the nihilist has done away with human logic altogether, and we have arrived at the blissfully ignorant conclusion to our sense of humanity. But does this argument make sense?
Concentrate
Of course this thinking makes sense, as long as you just accept it at face value. In fact, one wonders why it has taken this long to arrive at this conclusion in the first place. But let's take the place of the skeptic for a minute. What if this argument doesn't hold water?
I claim that the nihilistic view of the world is one of the most brazenly futile intellectual pursuits ever fabricated by man. To prove this, let us begin by assuming that nihilism is true. All right, good. We've thrown out the idea of logic altogether and embraced the fact that we're unreasoning beasts driven by Lavoisier's rules. Now, surely if this is true their must be some shred of evidence for its being true. But wait.... We've just finished ruling out the idea that we, as humans, are capable of utilizing evidence to construct a meaningful model of the world! What we are stuck with is a self-defeating argument- in fact, it is the self defeating argument: "I argue that it is impossible to make an argument." This is tantamount to the old jest, "Everything I say is a lie."
What the nihilists see as their "Get Out of Jail Free" card is in fact their red card, their ejection from the game of logic itself. The fact that men like Friedrich Nietzsche have tried to back this stance with volumes of reasoning is proof enough for me that human logic is not inherently flawed. But perhaps it is not enough for you.
What if?
This is a subject in which both sides are equally difficult to prove, because this sort of meta-cognition is necessarily inaccurate. Still, there are trends in this area that can be examined. If human logic is not trustworthy, then it follows that many things humans do will not follow sound logic. But if humans are capable of sound reasoning, then there is likely evidence to support this, as well.
By making it this far in this week's blog post, you must needs be at least somewhat pensive and studious- the reason I type these thoughts down instead of making a large discourse out of them is that many people I know would be asleep by this point in the oration. The only thing which would keep you reading (aside from feeling sorry for me) is if you enjoy thinking about the reason behind why we as humans do what we do. And I posit that you would only still be participating in this mental activity if it has yielded results in the past. Put more simply, we all know that there are reasons behind some of the things we do. And this is enough to form at least a small basis for the possibility of extant human logic.
There are other hints of the worth of rationality. The study of mathematics (one of my favorite pastimes) is a human pursuit solely based on faith in human logic. If one and one did not always equal two, then mathematics would fail as a tool. As it is, we humans have been able to utilize mathematics to help us achieve many of our most important discoveries. Furthermore, I feel as though my reasoning is worthwhile, and this in itself is meaningful. Feelings are not always misdirection, and if they are consistent with other sources of information, they can be more or less reliable.
Therefore, I suggest that the idea of sound human logic is at the very least possible. And since there is yet to be a convincing argument to the contrary, I feel fairly safe in claiming that in many cases, human reasoning is, in fact, reliable.
For those of my readers who were hoping to get more Scripture this week, I do apologize. The topic this week, in my opinion, was geared more toward people who would not consider the Bible to be inspired, so I was reduced to other means. Nevertheless, here are a few passages I find pertinent to the issue. First, I would start with the whole book of Ecclesiastes. It is one of my personal favorite books of the Bible. On this topic, it contains great lines like, "'Meaningless! Meaningless!' says the Teacher. 'Everything is meaningless!'" (1:2, 12:8) If anyone is qualified to think about thinking, it's Solomon. Also, check out 1 John. It is full of appeals to the reason of men, such as when John attests to the reliability of his Gospel account. "That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked at and our hands have touched—this we proclaim concerning the Word of life." (1 John 1:1) In general, God expects His followers to look around, examine the facts, and follow where they lead (hint: they always lead to Him).
The challenge I want to lay before you this week is to think about why you do what you do. I suspect that you will find many reasons, both good and evil. And when you figure out your motivations, spend time refining those that are good and repenting of those that are evil. Sound simple? It shouldn't. Anyway, thanks for coming with me on this rather didactic ride through the murky waters of nihilism.
Monday, July 30, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
Eyes Wide Shut
One of the heaviest charges leveled against Christianity, and religion as a whole, is that it is simply a form of escapism, a way for gullible people to ignore the harsher realities of this life. It has become popular for atheists to equate people of faith as laborers struggling to whitewash their fears with a thin and misguided sense of purpose. They love to expound upon how the universe is really a cold and dark place, devoid of concern for its inhabitants. Belief in a divine comforter and creator, they claim, is at best wishful thinking and at worst a severe misunderstanding of the cosmos.
And their argument seems at face value to have some sort of basis. Certainly, the universe seems cold enough, and I am quite sure that I draw a lot of comfort from my belief in a loving God. In fact, there are plenty of cases where people in various times and places have used religion in exactly the way the atheist describes.
Take Heart
What the atheist fails to prove, however, is that the ability to help someone cope with pain proves the futility of a pursuit. Stated differently, does the fact that my faith helps me live within a broken world imply that my faith is misguided or false? Not so! There is no logical correlation between the fact that something gives me hope and the claim that it is futile.
In fact, these same atheists who scoff so smugly at us from their crumbling ivory towers fail to realize that they are leaning on the same crutch for which they deride us. For what is atheism but a rather infantile attempt at soothing a conscience riddled with guilt? If God does not exist, then there really is no reason to worry about any moral order. If God is a myth, then we can truly embrace the mantra of Richard Dawkins and the British Humanist Association: "There's probably no God, now stop worrying and enjoy your life." (see this picture of the much discussed bus campaign)
So which is it, atheists? Is my Christianity an escapism? Or is it an encumbering dogma designed to make me miserable? As G.K. Chesterton points out in Orthodoxy, there are really only two explanations for such disparate accusations directed toward one entity. The first is that the thing in question is so incomprehensibly complex and obtuse that it confuses the attackers. I think even the atheists themselves would not claim to be so baffled. The other explanation, then, is that the entity in question is actually in the middle of two extremes, each of which is attempting an assault on it. This option, in fact, seems to fit the situation quite well. If Christianity is so easily attacked by atheists for being both too carefree and too austere, then it is logical to assume that the faith has a balance of both of those qualities.
So, before I move on, I wish to summarize this section. In short, religion's ability to help people cope with crisis is no proof against it, atheists are just as guilty of escapism as any religious adherent, and Christianity likely has a balance of escapism and pessimism, one which might just prove effectual.
More than Conquerors
With all this talk about escapism, I thought it would be prudent to take some time to address exactly what Christianity has to say about the "real world." First, escapism implies an ignorance of harsh realities and an almost psychotic refusal to face these darker aspects of the world. This is not what we find in the Bible. The words of Jesus would be a good place to start: "In this world you will have trouble. But take heart! I have overcome the world." (John 16:33) Jesus does not deny that there will be hardships for his followers. In fact, this is some of the more blunt and direct speech which He directs at His disciples (no parables or metaphors here). Or consider the poetry of David. The Psalms are full of pleas to God for relief from suffering. For me, one of the most powerful of these psalms of petition is Psalm 143, wherein David cries out to God, "The enemy pursues me, he crushes me to the ground; he makes me dwell in the darkness like those long dead. So my spirit grows faint within me; my heart within me is dismayed." (3-4) Or I could pull any number of passages out of the book of Job. I mean, there is a whole book in the Bible called Lamentations! This does not seem like a manual teaching its readers how to overlook the abuses they have endured.
Instead, what we find is that Christianity, far from ignoring the problems of the world, addresses them head-on, and proposes a solution. Heaven is not the dissolution of the natural order, it is the reinstatement of the true natural order. Faith is no longer an escape, but a redemption.
When I talked earlier of faith's ability to help me cope with my pain, I was really only telling half of the story. Because what faith actually allows us to do is surpass our trials. We are able to see the pain for what it truly is- a temporary fixture of a broken world which is swiftly passing away. And this realization allows us not just to get over our hurts, but to turn them into a source for good and joy. This is why Jesus can tell His disciples to "rejoice and be glad" when they were persecuted. (Matt. 5:12) And the disciples take this lesson to heart in a scene that would seem very out of place to the atheist (see Acts 5:17-42, esp. verse 41).
In fact, this is one of the many reasons why I believe that Christianity is a superior worldview to atheism. Atheism is the true escapism: since this life doesn't really matter, pain also must not matter- just don't worry about it. Christianity, on the other hand, is resurrection- pain used to hurt because the universe is cold, now it hurts despite the fact that the Creator of the universe is so warm. And we do see an end to it someday, but we are not escaping from reality, we're finally escaping into it. I think Paul does a pretty good job summing this up, so I'll close with his words from Romans 8:31-39:
What, then, shall we say in response to these things? If God is for us, who can be against us? He who did not spare his own Son, but gave him up for us all—how will he not also, along with him, graciously give us all things? Who will bring any charge against those whom God has chosen? It is God who justifies. Who then is the one who condemns? No one. Christ Jesus who died —more than that, who was raised to life —is at the right hand of God and is also interceding for us. Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? Shall trouble or hardship or persecution or famine or nakedness or danger or sword? As it is written:
“For your sake we face death all day long;
we are considered as sheep to be slaughtered.”
No, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him who loved us. For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Monday, July 9, 2012
Con Artists: Contracts
For the final installment in this series "Con Artists," I am discussing the false message our modern society projects with respect to contracts. Now, first it is important that I define exactly what I mean when I say "contracts." In this case, I am referring to contracts as any agreement made between two (or more) people. This could be anywhere from a simple promise to a legally binding contract witnessed by thousands of people.
For a long time, giving someone "your word" meant quite a lot. Men would fight duels based on an associate questioning his reliability. A man's good name was worth quite a lot to him. After all, if your friends cannot trust you to follow through on commitments, how could you possibly be worthy of respect? Now, this concept is not entirely lost in today's culture. There are still plenty of people today who put a lot of emphasis on being trustworthy. I know of several men in my life who have been great examples to me of exactly this, and I am very thankful for them.
But the image which the world gives to us is very different. Those who are lauded in much of the media today are those who have taken advantage of others' trust to get ahead in life. There is a whole culture of men like the infamous Bernie Madoff who ignore their obligations and responsibilities in order to pursue their greedy ends. And while Madoff and his ilk are certainly not rewarded when they are found out, an atmosphere has been created which seems to champion the old adage which says "It's only cheating if you get caught." As a result, many people nowadays act as though they consider their contracts to be binding inasmuch as they are able to benefit from them. And it is just this kind of attitude which is wrecking the relationships, both personal and corporate, in the world today.
For Better or for Worse
I am going to jump right in to the most distressing way in which I see this attitude manifest itself. This has nothing to do with corporate exchanges or business-client connections. Instead it attacks society at the most important and fundamental level- the family. I am speaking, of course, or divorce.
I should not have to try to prove that divorce is a bad thing, but I feel as though I must. The sad thing is that divorce has so pervaded our world today that we really don't even think about it at all. Perhaps I am the weird one, but it really affects me any time I hear someone talk about their parents' separation or growing up with their step-father. And I hear these stories relatively often. But the truth of the matter is that I place such a high value on marriage that hearing about even one such union which has had occasion to be dissolved causes a deep sense of remorse to rise in my spirit.
Yet I don't think I'm the crazy one. At this point, I am mainly talking about Christian marriages, because of any group of people in the world, we should be the best equipped to produce successful marriages. From many statistics I've heard, however, it seems as though the statistics on Christian divorce rates are very similar to those of secular families. This should not be. Let's meditate on some scripture on the subject for a minute. "'I hate divorce,' says the Lord, the God of Israel, 'because the man who divorces his wife covers his garment with violence.'" (Malachi 2:16, see footnote- the pre-2011 NIV used this translation, which I think gets the point across better) Paul's advice about marriage: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Eph. 5:21, but really you should just go ahead and read the rest of the chapter) And don't forget what Jesus said about divorce: "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt. 5:32) Yeah, He basically makes divorce equivalent to breaking one of the Ten Commandments (see Ex. 20:1-17).
So, why has divorce become so accepted? In secular culture I believe it is because people have begun to view marriage as more of a technicality which lets them sleep with someone without feeling guilty. This is one of the absolute worst misconceptions of marriage, but it has somehow pervaded our culture. And because of the flippant attitude with which many people regard marriage, it is no wonder so many divorces occur. The most disheartening aspect of this whole trend is that too many Christians have bought into it as well. We need to stand up for marriage, because no one else is going to.
Now, my point in this section is not to give someone an unwarranted sense of guilt (though I'd feel all right if it were warranted). I realize that divorces do happen for legitimate reasons and that you can't always control the way your life turns. Still, my convictions on marriage compel me to plead with my readership, especially if you are Christian, to place the utmost emphasis on the sanctity of marriage.
Covenant
I wanted to demonstrate one other way in which the idea of contracts should be especially powerful for the Christian. I don't know what you thought about when you read the title of this section, but for me, "covenant" is a word which sends chills down my spine just by reading it. This is one of the most powerful words in the entire Bible. In fact, the term "testament" which helps divide the Bible into its two main sections, can just as adequately be translated as "covenant."
In Hebrew culture, a covenant was one of the most powerful contracts any person could make with another. I'll hopefully delve more deeply into this topic in a later post. To "cut" a covenant usually required sacrifices, the spilling of blood from one or both parties involved, and a binding oath. To read more, read Genesis 15, Gen. 31:36-55, Joshua 8:30-35, etc. God made a covenant with Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and the entire people of Israel. The terms and conditions of this covenant are spelled out in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. But unfortunately, like modern people installing computer software, the people of Israel often neglected to read the "Terms and Conditions," and in the end, they were unable to live up to the law God had made for them, and which they had agreed to uphold. It was time for humanity to be punished.
But instead of sending His wrath, God decided to change the rules of the game. He chose to create a New Covenant with humanity. The sacrifice and blood were provided with the same body, and as a result our Savior Jesus Christ became our new Terms and Conditions. And I like this New Covenant way better than the old one. Still, there is a responsibility on my end to uphold my half of the agreement. ("Half" is a very imprecise term, God did at least 99% of the work.) This is actually what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, we Christians should have a very keen idea of just exactly what it means to be in a binding contract.
Here is where I am going to leave off for this week. But seriously, please consider the implications of your obligations and just how much your "word" is worth to others. This message is especially for the Christians reading this, because we really have no excuse for how much this misconception has infiltrated our ranks.
For a long time, giving someone "your word" meant quite a lot. Men would fight duels based on an associate questioning his reliability. A man's good name was worth quite a lot to him. After all, if your friends cannot trust you to follow through on commitments, how could you possibly be worthy of respect? Now, this concept is not entirely lost in today's culture. There are still plenty of people today who put a lot of emphasis on being trustworthy. I know of several men in my life who have been great examples to me of exactly this, and I am very thankful for them.
But the image which the world gives to us is very different. Those who are lauded in much of the media today are those who have taken advantage of others' trust to get ahead in life. There is a whole culture of men like the infamous Bernie Madoff who ignore their obligations and responsibilities in order to pursue their greedy ends. And while Madoff and his ilk are certainly not rewarded when they are found out, an atmosphere has been created which seems to champion the old adage which says "It's only cheating if you get caught." As a result, many people nowadays act as though they consider their contracts to be binding inasmuch as they are able to benefit from them. And it is just this kind of attitude which is wrecking the relationships, both personal and corporate, in the world today.
For Better or for Worse
I am going to jump right in to the most distressing way in which I see this attitude manifest itself. This has nothing to do with corporate exchanges or business-client connections. Instead it attacks society at the most important and fundamental level- the family. I am speaking, of course, or divorce.
I should not have to try to prove that divorce is a bad thing, but I feel as though I must. The sad thing is that divorce has so pervaded our world today that we really don't even think about it at all. Perhaps I am the weird one, but it really affects me any time I hear someone talk about their parents' separation or growing up with their step-father. And I hear these stories relatively often. But the truth of the matter is that I place such a high value on marriage that hearing about even one such union which has had occasion to be dissolved causes a deep sense of remorse to rise in my spirit.
Yet I don't think I'm the crazy one. At this point, I am mainly talking about Christian marriages, because of any group of people in the world, we should be the best equipped to produce successful marriages. From many statistics I've heard, however, it seems as though the statistics on Christian divorce rates are very similar to those of secular families. This should not be. Let's meditate on some scripture on the subject for a minute. "'I hate divorce,' says the Lord, the God of Israel, 'because the man who divorces his wife covers his garment with violence.'" (Malachi 2:16, see footnote- the pre-2011 NIV used this translation, which I think gets the point across better) Paul's advice about marriage: "Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ." (Eph. 5:21, but really you should just go ahead and read the rest of the chapter) And don't forget what Jesus said about divorce: "But I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, makes her the victim of adultery, and anyone who marries a divorced woman commits adultery." (Matt. 5:32) Yeah, He basically makes divorce equivalent to breaking one of the Ten Commandments (see Ex. 20:1-17).
So, why has divorce become so accepted? In secular culture I believe it is because people have begun to view marriage as more of a technicality which lets them sleep with someone without feeling guilty. This is one of the absolute worst misconceptions of marriage, but it has somehow pervaded our culture. And because of the flippant attitude with which many people regard marriage, it is no wonder so many divorces occur. The most disheartening aspect of this whole trend is that too many Christians have bought into it as well. We need to stand up for marriage, because no one else is going to.
Now, my point in this section is not to give someone an unwarranted sense of guilt (though I'd feel all right if it were warranted). I realize that divorces do happen for legitimate reasons and that you can't always control the way your life turns. Still, my convictions on marriage compel me to plead with my readership, especially if you are Christian, to place the utmost emphasis on the sanctity of marriage.
Covenant
I wanted to demonstrate one other way in which the idea of contracts should be especially powerful for the Christian. I don't know what you thought about when you read the title of this section, but for me, "covenant" is a word which sends chills down my spine just by reading it. This is one of the most powerful words in the entire Bible. In fact, the term "testament" which helps divide the Bible into its two main sections, can just as adequately be translated as "covenant."
In Hebrew culture, a covenant was one of the most powerful contracts any person could make with another. I'll hopefully delve more deeply into this topic in a later post. To "cut" a covenant usually required sacrifices, the spilling of blood from one or both parties involved, and a binding oath. To read more, read Genesis 15, Gen. 31:36-55, Joshua 8:30-35, etc. God made a covenant with Abram, Isaac, Jacob, and the entire people of Israel. The terms and conditions of this covenant are spelled out in Exodus, Leviticus, and Deuteronomy. But unfortunately, like modern people installing computer software, the people of Israel often neglected to read the "Terms and Conditions," and in the end, they were unable to live up to the law God had made for them, and which they had agreed to uphold. It was time for humanity to be punished.
But instead of sending His wrath, God decided to change the rules of the game. He chose to create a New Covenant with humanity. The sacrifice and blood were provided with the same body, and as a result our Savior Jesus Christ became our new Terms and Conditions. And I like this New Covenant way better than the old one. Still, there is a responsibility on my end to uphold my half of the agreement. ("Half" is a very imprecise term, God did at least 99% of the work.) This is actually what it means to be a Christian. Therefore, we Christians should have a very keen idea of just exactly what it means to be in a binding contract.
Here is where I am going to leave off for this week. But seriously, please consider the implications of your obligations and just how much your "word" is worth to others. This message is especially for the Christians reading this, because we really have no excuse for how much this misconception has infiltrated our ranks.
Monday, July 2, 2012
Con Artists: Conscience
Today I am examining the modern idea of a secular moral compass. It has become popular in intellectual atheist circles to claim that people are generally good. Penn Jillette (one of the most influential enemies of the Christian cause) has been a very vocal advocate of this innate human ability to do good. Call it conscience, intuition, instinct, or whatever else you like- humanity, the modern atheist claims, has an innate, yet secular, sense of right and wrong.
A group on campus here at UK has taken this idea to heart, and they have decided, like so many other people in the world, that religion is not only unnecessary but a hindrance to progress. The modern atheist argument seeks to suggest that religion has actually been a force for evil in the world. And so, this collegiate group has put up posters all around campus saying "You can be GOOD without GOD." They are wrong.
Without God
Sociobiologists such as E.O. Wilson have claimed for years that the innate sense that humans have for "right" and "wrong" is simply psychological artifact of evolution. They love to talk about how prehistoric men began treating each other well out of a well-formed sense of reciprocity. If I treat my colleague well, it is more likely that he will treat me well in the future. And the more we treat each other with this mock respect, the longer we are theoretically able to extend the life of the species. In this view, all kind acts are given a selfish root, and altruism is said to be an extension of the survival instinct.
The problem with this theory is that, while these descriptions at face value seem to prove their point, what we find is that the actions Wilson and his peers describe begin to change with each iteration of his theory into something they were not at the outset. You see, altruism which stems from selfishness is not really altruism, and so the atheist is led to believe that there is no such thing as altruism. And while unmitigated acts of altruism are certainly not very common, they do exist. One cannot visit the memorials in Washington, D.C. and leave with a sense that every single one of the men who died in the various wars of this nation's history all fought simply to keep their own genetic material alive.
In fact, it is folly to even suggest that anything resembling morality could come from solely natural causes. While I still have my doubts about speciation through natural selection on a global scale, the natural selection process certainly exists on in a small sense. And what do we call this system? "Survival of the fittest." Nature does not care for the weak or sick, does not weep for infants dying or smile when a disease is cured. In fact, it could be said that the morality of Nature is that morality which kills off the weak to preserve the strong and congratulates the virus for overcoming an immune system. This is the morality of Nature.
A Broken Compass
But this picture seems so far from what we actually see in humanity in real life that it is quite unnerving. So, it behooves us to ask, where does this human conscience come from? Again, I say, it does not come from men.
First, any morality which is derived from the mutual consent of the people is not morality at all. If I know that those rules I follow were made up by men no better than myself, I have no reason to follow those rules. Who is to say that your morals are greater than mine? We speak of a "moral compass," and indeed this is a fitting metaphor. But what good does a compass do if each of us gets to pick his own direction for North? On the contrary, it is precisely because North is defined by something much larger than any one of us (and any group of us) that my compass is a useful instrument.
It is therefore my assertion that to say that the concepts of good and evil arise from human institutions is to abolish the institution of morality as we know it. Certain atheists have embraced this concept- we call them "post-modernists." I have no qualms at all about making the following statement: The post-modern argument is one of the most foolish tenets ever conceived by mankind. Not only does its argument not make sense, its argument doesn't exist! I will attack this subject later. Let this suffice for now, or contact me if you wish to discuss it more.
What the atheist is left with, therefore, is to give some arbitrary entity the Greater Force by which they ascertain their moral North. Some men have tried letting human desires be this Force- they are called humanists. Some have attempted political parties- they are called fanatics. The modern thought is that this Force is Evolution itself. I hope I have already sufficiently answered this claim above. If not, I will attempt it again some other time. At any rate, every physical or "rational" bulwark soon proves futile or insufficient.
Good with God
What the rational thinker is left with, then, is the irrational. "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise..." (1 Cor. 1:27) The only real authority in which I can reasonably place my trust to direct my morals is one which is greater than man- no, greater than Nature itself. Herein lies the stumbling block for the atheist. But once again, religion proves the stronger argument.
And God does tell us what true morality looks like. "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good." (Micah 6:8) "You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed." (Psalm 119:4, actually just read the whole chapter some time) "I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, by which the person who obeys them will live." (Ezek. 20:11) But the God of Christianity went ever farther than that. He actually came down to earth and showed us what true morality looks like. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are —yet he did not sin." (Hebrews 4:15) "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34) "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps." (1 Peter 2:21) "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1)
Unlike all of the previous suggestions, a supernatural Creator is more than capable of determining right and wrong. And, no matter how I feel about His moral structure, I have no choice but to submit to it. When I do, however, I find that it satisfies the innate feeling I had all along.
So, I leave us with the following argument:
1. We humans have an innate sense of right and wrong.
2. Morality must be derived from a source above humanity.
3. Atheism by definition cannot provide an adequate extra-human agent.
4. Therefore, religion (specifically Christianity) provides the best explanation for this moral sense and the self-evident existence of inherent virtue.
A group on campus here at UK has taken this idea to heart, and they have decided, like so many other people in the world, that religion is not only unnecessary but a hindrance to progress. The modern atheist argument seeks to suggest that religion has actually been a force for evil in the world. And so, this collegiate group has put up posters all around campus saying "You can be GOOD without GOD." They are wrong.
Without God
Sociobiologists such as E.O. Wilson have claimed for years that the innate sense that humans have for "right" and "wrong" is simply psychological artifact of evolution. They love to talk about how prehistoric men began treating each other well out of a well-formed sense of reciprocity. If I treat my colleague well, it is more likely that he will treat me well in the future. And the more we treat each other with this mock respect, the longer we are theoretically able to extend the life of the species. In this view, all kind acts are given a selfish root, and altruism is said to be an extension of the survival instinct.
The problem with this theory is that, while these descriptions at face value seem to prove their point, what we find is that the actions Wilson and his peers describe begin to change with each iteration of his theory into something they were not at the outset. You see, altruism which stems from selfishness is not really altruism, and so the atheist is led to believe that there is no such thing as altruism. And while unmitigated acts of altruism are certainly not very common, they do exist. One cannot visit the memorials in Washington, D.C. and leave with a sense that every single one of the men who died in the various wars of this nation's history all fought simply to keep their own genetic material alive.
In fact, it is folly to even suggest that anything resembling morality could come from solely natural causes. While I still have my doubts about speciation through natural selection on a global scale, the natural selection process certainly exists on in a small sense. And what do we call this system? "Survival of the fittest." Nature does not care for the weak or sick, does not weep for infants dying or smile when a disease is cured. In fact, it could be said that the morality of Nature is that morality which kills off the weak to preserve the strong and congratulates the virus for overcoming an immune system. This is the morality of Nature.
A Broken Compass
But this picture seems so far from what we actually see in humanity in real life that it is quite unnerving. So, it behooves us to ask, where does this human conscience come from? Again, I say, it does not come from men.
First, any morality which is derived from the mutual consent of the people is not morality at all. If I know that those rules I follow were made up by men no better than myself, I have no reason to follow those rules. Who is to say that your morals are greater than mine? We speak of a "moral compass," and indeed this is a fitting metaphor. But what good does a compass do if each of us gets to pick his own direction for North? On the contrary, it is precisely because North is defined by something much larger than any one of us (and any group of us) that my compass is a useful instrument.
It is therefore my assertion that to say that the concepts of good and evil arise from human institutions is to abolish the institution of morality as we know it. Certain atheists have embraced this concept- we call them "post-modernists." I have no qualms at all about making the following statement: The post-modern argument is one of the most foolish tenets ever conceived by mankind. Not only does its argument not make sense, its argument doesn't exist! I will attack this subject later. Let this suffice for now, or contact me if you wish to discuss it more.
What the atheist is left with, therefore, is to give some arbitrary entity the Greater Force by which they ascertain their moral North. Some men have tried letting human desires be this Force- they are called humanists. Some have attempted political parties- they are called fanatics. The modern thought is that this Force is Evolution itself. I hope I have already sufficiently answered this claim above. If not, I will attempt it again some other time. At any rate, every physical or "rational" bulwark soon proves futile or insufficient.
Good with God
What the rational thinker is left with, then, is the irrational. "God chose the foolish things of the world to shame the wise..." (1 Cor. 1:27) The only real authority in which I can reasonably place my trust to direct my morals is one which is greater than man- no, greater than Nature itself. Herein lies the stumbling block for the atheist. But once again, religion proves the stronger argument.
And God does tell us what true morality looks like. "He has shown you, O mortal, what is good." (Micah 6:8) "You have laid down precepts that are to be fully obeyed." (Psalm 119:4, actually just read the whole chapter some time) "I gave them my decrees and made known to them my laws, by which the person who obeys them will live." (Ezek. 20:11) But the God of Christianity went ever farther than that. He actually came down to earth and showed us what true morality looks like. "For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are —yet he did not sin." (Hebrews 4:15) "Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me." (Mark 8:34) "To this you were called, because Christ suffered for you, leaving you an example, that you should follow in his steps." (1 Peter 2:21) "Follow my example, as I follow the example of Christ." (1 Cor. 11:1)
Unlike all of the previous suggestions, a supernatural Creator is more than capable of determining right and wrong. And, no matter how I feel about His moral structure, I have no choice but to submit to it. When I do, however, I find that it satisfies the innate feeling I had all along.
So, I leave us with the following argument:
1. We humans have an innate sense of right and wrong.
2. Morality must be derived from a source above humanity.
3. Atheism by definition cannot provide an adequate extra-human agent.
4. Therefore, religion (specifically Christianity) provides the best explanation for this moral sense and the self-evident existence of inherent virtue.
P.S.- I failed to address the mechanism by which this innate sense is incorporated into humans. For the Christian, this is definitely the Holy Spirit. For the non-Christian, it seems that even if they do not fully possess the Holy Spirit, they still have some sense (even if it is under-developed) of right and wrong. I do not profess to know exactly what the agent is which produces this. It could be a rudimentary spirit, or perhaps some elements of Nature do provide a correct sense of morality. This sense is, I remind you, incomplete, but it must exist. (see: Romans 1:20)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)