Recently I posted a book review on “O God” which talks about Oprah’s spirituality. Like most of my apologetics conversations lately, the discussion quickly turned to morality. I find this phenomenon interesting and revealing. Sure, I’m still operating largely on anecdotes and personal experience, but others have attested to my theory.
No, my theory is not that German’s love David Hasselhoff (and they do, or at least some of the old female ones do). My theory is that Atheist’s love to talk about morality.
It’s true! Theists and Christians in particular seem more eager to talk about the Gospel and about sin. But I’m finding more and more atheists wanting to discuss philosophical and scientific approaches to moral systems. Last year I was on the panel for three “God-talks” at UT Arlington, UT Dallas, and Texas A&M where two atheists and two theists discussed the question of God’s existence and the relevance of that question for meaning, morality, origin and destiny. And sure enough, we spent most of the night, at all three venues talking about morality. Intelligent Design was comparatively small, as was the Problem of Evil, and other heavy topics. We instead spent most of our time talking about Objectivist ethics versus Subjectivist or Relativist ethics.
I suspect that atheists are interested in morality for the same reason creationists are interested in carbon dating–this topic could be devastating if you don’t do your homework. Some atheists try to ground ethics in objective moral values. Others bite the bullet and amputate objectivism. Moral relativism however is not an easy option though. If I can take my professor hat off for a moment, I think we have a love-hate relationship with moral relativism. We like parts of it, and dislike part of it. We hate when people are relativistic towards us, but we love to be relativistic towards others. To put it another way, moral relativisism is that girl you date or you’re friends with, but she cheats on you if you marry her. She’s fun to play with for the short-term, but there’s no hope in committment. But kept at arms length one can dance with relativism indefinitely.
Whether one is objectivist or relativist, or something in between, ethics is an inexact science. And digging out the details can take a lifetime. We sometimes have to bite our lip and just admit that some things remain unclear–no matter what side we are on. Some points of debate cannot be clarified very much at all. This means that one can easiy find “weaknesses” in any given system–whatever the sort–because none of these systems achieve the exactitude and precision we expect from math or the natural sciences.
Also, a blog site is not the right way to clarify one’s entire ethical system. But as a concession to those commentors so interested in morality. Below is a revised form of my moral argument for God, which, incidentally is an argument for objectivist ethics. What follows is only an argument, not a fully orbed explanation of Christian ethics.
Chomp away at this. . .
1) Ethics is the stuff of minds (whether minds are properties of brains or immaterial–it does not matter at this point).
2) Nature is not intelligent, does not “intend” or have “purpose”–it operates in non-mind categories. (without a God, it cannot be teleological–ie: have a telos, “end, goal, designed purpose, etc.” this incudes moral purposes/objectives such as virtues, duties, rights, etc.)
3) Yet there seem to exist moral values that non-objectivist systems are at a loss to explain. Negative evidences include: a) the problem of temporal-discrimination (calling slavery “evil” when it was “good” in its time), b) the problem of bi-culturality (people can be members of two conflicting cultures, but all ethic naturalistic systems are incomparable since there is no non-circular grounds of judging between them), c) the problem of the revolutionary (Minority ethical convictions and radicals are always immoral if “good” is a majority opinion), d) the problem of cross-cultural conflict (no culture’s ethics is better than anothers, even Hitler or Mao’s), e) the problem of subjectivism (no one can call anything anyone else does “evil” unless that person defies his/her own ethical system–even if their system is reprehensible), f) the problem of ignorance (even if many or most ethical values are subjective, there still may be objective values yet undiscovered or masked as relative values), Positive evidences include: a) Moral values are experienced by everyone reading this, b) Morality is a cultural universal, c) Our experience of morality is that there are binding rules that we should obey and others should obey even if they never get caught and even if they enjoy the contrary, d) at least some points of morality are not reducible to simple altruism and the Golden rule, e) Morality is a temporal universal (has occurred throughout time), f) our morality becomes objectivist when we are the victim.
4) but if ethics is at all objective (even in part), then the naturalistic fallacy prevents any natural grounding for ethics–ie: in human minds, or in the rest of nature. The naturalistic fallacy, also called the “Is-ought” fallacy suggests that there is some kind of circular or presumptive reasoning whenever a person argues from (non-teleological) nature that a moral ought follows from it. In other words, nature just is or is not. It knows nothing of what “ought” to be.
5) Binding moral values, which exists, requires a grounds for their existence.
6) Binding moral values then have at least some basis outside of nature.
7) This basis must be a mind sufficient to ground objectively binding moral values within our world.
8 ) By the law of conservation (ie: Ockham’s Razor) we need not postulate more than one supernatural mind to ground said ethics, unless the data set demands it.
9) We (the Christian and the Atheist) can agree from our own observations and reasoning that no other God is needed to ground ethics–so polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, animism, henotheism, finite Godism, are unwarranted insertions (we just disagree over whether A God is needed at all to ground ethics).
[10) Goodness is better explained as an attribute of God than as a command of God (since the latter would be undermined by the euthyphro dilemma).]–this is a side note for Divine Command Theorist reading this.
11) Therefore I know God is good because [see #1-10].
Judicial Activism vs. Liberty
Culture CrossExamined(This column first appeared on Townhall.com)
Elena Kagan called the military’s “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy “a moral injustice of the first order.” A moral injustice of the first order? Where on her moral hierarchy is a real “first order” injustice like murder? Not high enough. For Elena Kagan, sexual standards that protect military readiness are a moral injustice, but tearing apart a baby in the womb is a moral right.
I have little doubt that given the opportunity, Ms. Kagan would impose this kind of inverted moral reasoning in her judicial opinions. She already advocated as much when she clerked for Justice Marshall, and when she distorted information about partial birth abortion as a policy advisor to President Clinton. She wants to correct what she sees as injustices from the bench.
That should scare everyone. By whose standard is she declaring something injust?
Whenever someone talks about injustice, they are implying that there is such a thing as justice. You can’t know what is not just unless you know what is just. True justice, however, requires grounding in something other than human opinion. Otherwise, we are left with the problem of, “Who sez?”
According to our Declaration of Independence, that grounding is our Creator. “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Our founders called this “Nature’s Law” or “Natural Law”—the same Natural Law that Vice President Joe “Ted Knight” Biden pooh-poohed when he was the Senator from Delaware during Clarence Thomas’s confirmation hearings. (My money is on the intellectual firepower of our founders, not Ted Knight.)
If there is no God, then everything is just a matter of opinion—kicking out of the military people who commit homosexual acts is no better or worse than keeping them in. In fact, if there is no God, Mother Teresa was not morally better than Hitler in any objective sense. In order for Mother Teresa’s behavior to be “better” than Hitler’s, there has to be an objective standard of “best” beyond both of them by which we can measure both of them.
C.S. Lewis put it this way, “The moment you say that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are, in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are, in fact, comparing them both with some Real Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as a real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others. Or put it this way. If your moral ideas can be truer, and those of the Nazis less true, there must be something—some Real Morality—for them to be true about.”
My question for Ms. Kagan is this: What’s your standard? By what standard is “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” “a moral injustice of the first order” and abortion a moral right?
Does she appeal to the Constitution? Certainly the Constitution says nothing about homosexuality or abortion (despite what activist courts have said). But the Constitution does assign the authority to Congress (not the courts) to establish rules for a well-functioning military. That’s why Kagan’s cries of unjust discrimination by the military are false. She needs to understand that military service is not a right. As I’ve argued before, for the sake of national security, the military rightfully discriminates against numerous behaviors and conditions. Recruits can only qualify if they meet rigorous physical and mental standards and agree to give up certain behaviors (that’s why it’s called “service”). This has always been true about the world’s greatest military beginning with George Washington’s army. Since joining the military is not a constitutional right, along with these other reasons, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” is certainly constitutional.
Does Ms. Kagan appeal to God and Natural Law for her standard? I doubt she would go there. If so, she would have to make the untenable case that God believes homosexual behavior and abortion are moral rights. That’s anything but self-evident, as evidenced by the texts of all major religions, the “laws of nature,” and the design of the human body. Our founders called homosexuality a “crime against nature” for a reason.
If Natural Law and the Constitution are not standards of justice for Ms. Kagan, what is? She’s left with nothing but her own personal moral standard. “Who sez?” is not Natural Law or the Constitution, but Elena Kagan. And that’s exactly the problem with activist judges. They ignore the laws of nature and the laws of the land to legislate their own laws based on their own personal standard of morality—and in the case of liberal activists, it’s usually a very bizarre, morally inverted standard.
“But you can’t legislate morality!” Nonsense. All laws legislate morality. Each law declares one behavior right and its opposite wrong. The only question is, “Whose morality will be legislated?” Unfortunately, activist judges often ignore our common “self-evident” morality in order to legislate their own immorality on the rest of the nation.
That must stop if freedom is to survive. All freedom-loving Americans should oppose judicial activists. Even if you agree with Ms. Kagan on certain issues, you should want the people to retain the power to govern themselves. Otherwise, when she disagrees with you, you will have little practical recourse. So, if you want legal abortion or gays in the military, then persuade your fellow citizens and legislators to vote for such measures. Pass a constitutional amendment like we did with slavery and women’s suffrage. That’s what the amendment process is for!
But don’t give up your liberty and the ability to govern yourself by allowing unelected, lifetime-appointed, judges to impose their view of what’s good for America on you and the rest of the country. That’s judicial tyranny, plain and simple, and that’s exactly what we’re asking for when we put judicial activists on the Supreme Court.
“Don’t Ask Don’t Tell” is not “a moral injustice of the first order.” Giving up liberty won by the sacrifice of millions is.
Liberals Flunk Econ 101
Culture CrossExaminedJohn Zogby recently interviewed nearly 5,000 American adults and asked them eight basic questions about economics. The eight questions have easily provable answers.
Here are the bottom line results published in a Wall Street Journal article titled “Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader:” the more conservative people did the best and the more liberal people did the worst. In fact, as a group, the moderates to very liberal all failed. Out of eight questions, here is the average score of each group:
Very Conservative (1.3 wrong)=84% correct
Libertarian (1.38)= 83%
Conservative (1.67)=79%
Moderate (3.67)= 54%
Liberal (4.69)= 41%
Very Liberal (5.26)=34%
Here are the results by party affiliation:
Republicans (1.61)= 80%
Democrats (4.59)=43%
Going to college was no indicator of intelligence in this survey. On half the questions folks without a college education scored better than those that had one. In fact, in their abstract, the authors of the article wrote, “for people inclined to take such a survey, basic economic enlightenment is not correlated with going to college.”
Why then these results? Could it be that liberals and conservatives have two radically different views of human nature that influence them to answer in the way they do? Conservatives tend to understand that human nature is fallen and thus, when it comes to economics, needs incentives. Liberals tend to think against all the evidence that humans are inherently good and will do the right thing without incentives (even in the face of disincentives).
My friend Neil Mammen, who has an excellent new book, puts it this way on page 255: “Socialism depends on every man working as much as he can and only taking up as little has he needs. Yet in reality human nature is such that we work as little as we need and take as much as we can. Anybody who advocates socialism is essentially helping man continue to be mired in his sin nature.”
I used to think that many liberals were denying the facts. Now this survey makes me think that they just don’t know them. Maybe that’s because their false worldview causes them to never question what they already think is true. Sometimes it’s not the things we don’t know that cause us trouble– it’s the things we think are true but really aren’t.
Is God Good? (A Short Film)
CrossExaminedHere is animated short film called, “Is God Good?” In less than two minutes, it succinctly addresses how human freedom relates to the problem of evil (with some brilliant animated imagery).
This 2-minute video is a kind of animation known as kinetic type. This genre allows the artist to get a little crazy – words become designs, not merely carriers of information. My goal in producing this animation was to have fun – which I did – and to creatively express this idea: the presence of evil in our world does NOT mean that there is no God; rather, it means that he’s up to something. This is a short video so it only scratches the surface – but at least it introduces the concepts and, hopefully, encourages further thought on the subject.
Whenever I think about deep stuff like evil and suffering, I find it helpful to remember two aspects of God’s nature. First, he is perfectly just. So all evil will eventually be punished perfectly and appropriately. Second, he is perfectly loving. Thus, God extends himself sacrificially to forgive those who do evil (all of us) and provide an escape from punishment. What’s amazing to me is how both of these sides of God, his justice and love, collide on the cross with Jesus Christ. You know someone truly loves you if they are willing to die for you. But when God forgave us, he did not simply ignore our evil thoughts, choices, and actions. That wouldn’t be justice, would it? All of our crimes, big and small, were punished perfectly, but the punishment was re-directed toward Jesus Christ. The punishment that Jesus took upon himself demonstrate God’s love and God’s justice.
This video also touches on another cool idea: God is a gentleman. That is, he doesn’t force his love on the objects of his affection (all of us). He is persuasive – not coercive. He allows you to turn your back on him if you prefer to be the captain of your own ship. You may not want to acknowledge a higher authority to whom you must answer. You may not want to admit that you don’t have your act together. He allows you to make that choice. On the other hand, you might realize that God’s relentless love is what you’ve been searching for all of your life. It’s like this: a gentleman does not force a woman to marry him. He becomes vulnerable. He expresses his love to her by his words and actions. Then he asks her to make a decision: “Will you marry me?” At this point, the ball is in her court. She can either accept or reject his offer. In the same way, each of us can accept or reject God’s offer of a life-giving connection through Jesus Christ.
Dennis Prager on American Exceptionalism
Culture CrossExaminedWith wit, passion and clarity, radio talk show host Dennis Prager unearths one of the root problems in America today– the failure of our schools and parents to teach why America is exceptional. American exceptionalism is not elitism but the admission that certain moral values are better than others.
Note: those who say that certain moral values are not better than others are making a value judgment, thus defeating their own case. In other words, saying that we should prefer “multiculturalism” (whatever that means) to the moral values legislated in our Constitution (yes, all laws legislate morality), is itself a value judgment. On what moral grounds does one make the case that multiculturalism is better than the Bill of Rights?
The Bible: Embarrassing and True (Part 2)
4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsDo the New Testament documents tell the truth about what really happened in the first century? As I wrote in my last column, authors claiming to write history are unlikely to invent embarrassing details about themselves or their heroes. Since the New Testament documents are filled with embarrassing details, we can be reasonably certain that they are telling the truth.
Notice that the disciples frequently depict themselves as dim wits. They fail to understand what Jesus is saying several times, and don’t understand what his mission is about until after the resurrection. Their thick-headedness even earns their leader, Peter, the sternest rebuke from Jesus: “Get behind me Satan!” (What great press the disciples provided for their leader and first Pope! Contrary to popular opinion, it seems the church really didn’t have editorial control of the scriptures after all.)
After Jesus asks them to stay up and pray with him during his greatest hour of need, the disciples fall asleep on Jesus not once, but twice! Then, after pledging to be faithful to the end, Peter denies Christ three times, and all but one of them run away.
The scared, scattered, skeptical disciples make no effort to give Jesus a proper burial. Instead they say a member of the Jewish ruling body that sentenced Jesus to die is the noble one—Joseph of Arimathea buries Jesus in a Jewish tomb (which would have been easy for the Jews to refute if it wasn’t true). Two days later, while the men are still hiding, the women go down and discover the empty tomb and the risen Jesus.
Who wrote all that down? Men—some of the men who were characters in the story. Now if you were part of a group of men trying to pass off a false resurrection story as the truth, would you depict yourselves as dim-witted, bumbling, rebuked, lazy, skeptical sissies, who ran away at the first sign of trouble, while the women were the brave ones who discovered the empty tomb and the risen Jesus?
If men were inventing the resurrection story, it would go more like this:
Jesus came to save the world, and he needed our help. That’s why we were there for him every step of the way. When he was in need, we prayed with him. When he wept, we wept with him (and told him to toughen up!). When he fell, we carried his cross. The gates of Hell could not prevent us from seeing his mission through!
So when that turncoat Judas brought the Romans by (we always suspected Judas), and they began to nail Jesus to the cross, we laughed at them. “He’s God you idiots! The grave will never keep him! You think you’re solving a problem, but you’re really creating a much bigger one!”
While we assured the women that everything would turn out all right, they couldn’t handle the crucifixion. Squeamish and afraid, they ran to their homes screaming and hid behind locked doors.
But we men stood steadfast at the foot of the cross, praying for hours until the very end. When Jesus finally took his last breath and the Roman Centurion confessed that Jesus was God, Peter blasted him, “That’s what we told you before you nailed him up there!” (Through this whole thing, the Romans and the Jews just wouldn’t listen!)
Never doubting that Jesus would rise on the third day, Peter announced to the Centurion, “We’ll bury him and be back on Sunday. Now go tell Pilate to put some of your ‘elite’ Roman guards at the tomb to see if you can prevent him from rising from the dead!” We all laughed and began to dream about Sunday.
That Sunday morning we marched right down to the tomb and tossed those elite Roman guards aside. Then the stone (that took eleven us to roll into place) rolled away by itself. A glowing Jesus emerged from tomb, and said, “I knew you’d come! My mission is accomplished.” He praised Peter for his brave leadership and congratulated us on our great faith. Then we went home and comforted the trembling women.
There are other events in the New Testament documents concerning Jesus that are also unlikely to be made up. For example, Jesus:
If you’re inventing a Messiah to the Jews, you don’t say such things about him. You also don’t admit that some of you “still doubted” Jesus had really risen from the dead, especially while he’s standing right in front of you giving the great commission (Mt. 28:17-19).
Finally, anyone trying to pass off a false resurrection story as the truth would never say the women were the first witnesses at the tomb. In the first century, a woman’s testimony was not considered on par with that of a man. An invented story would say that the men—the brave men—had discovered the empty tomb. Yet all four gospels say the women were the first witnesses – all this while the sissy-pants men had their doors locked for fear of the Jews. (After I made this point during a presentation, a lady told me that she knew why Jesus appeared to the women first. “Why?” I asked. She said, “Because he wanted to get the story out!”)
In light of these embarrassing details—along with the fact that the New Testament documents contain early, eyewitness testimony for which the writers gave their lives—it takes more faith to believe that the New Testament writers were not telling the truth.
(This column was originally published at www.Townhall.com)
The Bible: Embarrassing and True (Part 1)
4. Is the NT True?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsWhat are your most embarrassing moments? You don’t want to admit them. And if you do admit them, you certainly won’t add to your shame by inventing embarrassing moments about yourself to make you look even worse. Who’s going to lie to make himself look bad? People will lie to make themselves look good (especially politicians), but no one will lie to make himself look bad.
That’s why when historical accounts contain events embarrassing to the authors (or heroes of the authors) those events are probably true. Historians call this the principle of embarrassment, and it’s one reason why I think the writers of the Bible are telling the truth. There are far too many embarrassing details about the supposed heroes of the faith to be invented.
Just take a look at the Old Testament storyline. There’s little chance the Jews would have invented it. A story invented by Hebrews would more likely depict the Israelites as a noble and upright people. But the Old Testament writers don’t say this. Instead they depict their own people as sinful and fickle slaves who, time after time, are miraculously rescued by God, but who abandon him every chance they get. For example, after witnessing miracle after miracle that frees them from slavery in Egypt, they can’t resist worshiping the Golden Calf when Moses spends a few extra nights on the mountain. Talk about ungrateful folks with short memories! (We seem to suffer from this in America too).
The Old Testament writers record a Hebrew history filled with bone-headed disobedience, distrust, and selfishness. Their leaders are all world-class sinners, including Moses (a murderer), Saul (a paranoid egomaniac), David (an adulterer, liar, and murderer), and Solomon (a serial polygamist). These are supposed to be the “chosen people”—the ones through which God brings the Savior of the world? Yes, and the Old Testament writers admit that the ancestors of this Messiah include deeply sinful characters such as David and Solomon and even a non-Hebrew prostitute named Rahab. This is clearly not an invented storyline!
While the Old Testament tells of one embarrassing gaffe after another, most other ancient historians avoid even mentioning unflattering historical events. For example, there’s been nothing found in the records of Egypt about the Exodus, leading some critics to suggest the event never occurred. But what do the critics expect? Peter Fineman imagines what a press release from Pharaoh might say:
“A spokesman for Rameses the great, Pharaoh of Pharaohs, supreme ruler of Egypt, son of Ra, before whom all tremble in awe blinded by his brilliance, today announced that the man Moses had kicked his royal butt for all the world to see, thus proving that God is Yahweh and the 2,000-year-old-culture of Egypt is a lie. Film at 11:00.”
Of course no press secretary for Pharaoh would admit such an event if he wanted to keep his head! The Egyptian silence on the Exodus is understandable.
By contrast, when the Egyptians scored a military victory, they went to press and exaggerated greatly. This is apparent from the oldest known reference to Israel outside the Bible. It comes from a granite monument found in the funerary temple of Pharaoh Merneptah in Thebes. The monument boasts about the military victory of the Pharaoh in the highlands of Canaan, claiming that “Israel is laid waste, his seed is not.” Historians date the battle to 1207 B.C., which confirms that Israel was in the land by that time. We know this account is exaggerated because, as history attests, Israel was not laid waste. Its seed lived on and sprouted into a great empire under David 200 years later. And its seed lives on to this day more than 3,200 years later.
How does the New Testament measure up to the principle of embarrassment? While embarrassing testimony is alone not enough to ensure historical reliability—early, eyewitness testimony is also necessary (which the New Testament has)—the principle of embarrassment is even more pronounced in the New Testament. The people who wrote down much of the New Testament are characters (or friends of characters) in the story, and they often depict themselves an extremely unflattering light. Their claims are not likely to be invented.
Let’s put it this way: If you and your manly friends were concocting a story that you wanted to pass off as the truth, would you make yourselves look like dim-witted, uncaring, rebuked, doubting cowards who ran away at the first sign of trouble while the women were the brave ones who remained faithful? No way! But that’s exactly what we find in the New Testament. That’s one reason why I don’t have enough faith to believe that the New Testament tells an invented story.
I’ll highlight some of the New Testament’s more embarrassing details in the next column—even a few details that some could interpret as embarrassing to Jesus. In the meantime, you can find a cumulative case for God and Christianity in the book from which this column is adapted: I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.
(This column originally appeared at Townhall.com)
God and Birth Defects
CrossExaminedAs recorded in John Chapter 9, Jesus saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, “Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?”
“Neither this man nor his parents sinned,” said Jesus, “but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.”
Australian Nick Vujicic– born without arms and legs– is a living example of that passage. We say the man has a birth defect. But after viewing this, I think I have a far more serious attitude defect.
TV Show Moving to Wednesday Night
TV ShowOur I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist TV show is moving to Wednesday night at 9 pm ET and 1 am ET (which is 6 pm and 10 pm Pacific), DirecTV channel 378. May 10th is our first showing (it will no longer be on Monday nights). Thanks to our friends at the NRB network who are giving us two showings so we cover the west coast in prime time as well. For those who don’t have DirecTV, you can watch the show live here: http://www.thestreamtv1.com/welcome_002.htm and select NRB.
Christians and Atheists Seeking the Same Thing?
Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsEvangelical author Skye Jethani makes the insightful observation that some so-called Christians and some atheists have quite a bit in common when it comes to control. While some atheists (like Hitchens and Dawkins) want control without God, some evangelicals want control over God. He writes:
Tozer said the most important thought you have is the thought you have when you hear the word “God.” Indeed, many people are worshiping or rejecting a God of their own making. They have false notions of the one true God–He’s either a finite, moral monster who needs a cause (Dawkins and Hitchens) or a cosmic candyman who owes us if we behave a certain way (the “Word of Faith” believer). They set up a straw God and then easily knock him over or loose their faith when he falls down and doesn’t come through. That’s why I often ask people who don’t believe in God, or who are disappointed with God, “What kind of God don’t you believe in?” After they describe their God, the response is often, “I don’t believe in that God either.”
Jethani’s entire article is worth the read here.
Ethics, a fad?
CrossExaminedRecently I posted a book review on “O God” which talks about Oprah’s spirituality. Like most of my apologetics conversations lately, the discussion quickly turned to morality. I find this phenomenon interesting and revealing. Sure, I’m still operating largely on anecdotes and personal experience, but others have attested to my theory.
No, my theory is not that German’s love David Hasselhoff (and they do, or at least some of the old female ones do). My theory is that Atheist’s love to talk about morality.
It’s true! Theists and Christians in particular seem more eager to talk about the Gospel and about sin. But I’m finding more and more atheists wanting to discuss philosophical and scientific approaches to moral systems. Last year I was on the panel for three “God-talks” at UT Arlington, UT Dallas, and Texas A&M where two atheists and two theists discussed the question of God’s existence and the relevance of that question for meaning, morality, origin and destiny. And sure enough, we spent most of the night, at all three venues talking about morality. Intelligent Design was comparatively small, as was the Problem of Evil, and other heavy topics. We instead spent most of our time talking about Objectivist ethics versus Subjectivist or Relativist ethics.
I suspect that atheists are interested in morality for the same reason creationists are interested in carbon dating–this topic could be devastating if you don’t do your homework. Some atheists try to ground ethics in objective moral values. Others bite the bullet and amputate objectivism. Moral relativism however is not an easy option though. If I can take my professor hat off for a moment, I think we have a love-hate relationship with moral relativism. We like parts of it, and dislike part of it. We hate when people are relativistic towards us, but we love to be relativistic towards others. To put it another way, moral relativisism is that girl you date or you’re friends with, but she cheats on you if you marry her. She’s fun to play with for the short-term, but there’s no hope in committment. But kept at arms length one can dance with relativism indefinitely.
Whether one is objectivist or relativist, or something in between, ethics is an inexact science. And digging out the details can take a lifetime. We sometimes have to bite our lip and just admit that some things remain unclear–no matter what side we are on. Some points of debate cannot be clarified very much at all. This means that one can easiy find “weaknesses” in any given system–whatever the sort–because none of these systems achieve the exactitude and precision we expect from math or the natural sciences.
Also, a blog site is not the right way to clarify one’s entire ethical system. But as a concession to those commentors so interested in morality. Below is a revised form of my moral argument for God, which, incidentally is an argument for objectivist ethics. What follows is only an argument, not a fully orbed explanation of Christian ethics.
Chomp away at this. . .
1) Ethics is the stuff of minds (whether minds are properties of brains or immaterial–it does not matter at this point).
2) Nature is not intelligent, does not “intend” or have “purpose”–it operates in non-mind categories. (without a God, it cannot be teleological–ie: have a telos, “end, goal, designed purpose, etc.” this incudes moral purposes/objectives such as virtues, duties, rights, etc.)
3) Yet there seem to exist moral values that non-objectivist systems are at a loss to explain. Negative evidences include: a) the problem of temporal-discrimination (calling slavery “evil” when it was “good” in its time), b) the problem of bi-culturality (people can be members of two conflicting cultures, but all ethic naturalistic systems are incomparable since there is no non-circular grounds of judging between them), c) the problem of the revolutionary (Minority ethical convictions and radicals are always immoral if “good” is a majority opinion), d) the problem of cross-cultural conflict (no culture’s ethics is better than anothers, even Hitler or Mao’s), e) the problem of subjectivism (no one can call anything anyone else does “evil” unless that person defies his/her own ethical system–even if their system is reprehensible), f) the problem of ignorance (even if many or most ethical values are subjective, there still may be objective values yet undiscovered or masked as relative values), Positive evidences include: a) Moral values are experienced by everyone reading this, b) Morality is a cultural universal, c) Our experience of morality is that there are binding rules that we should obey and others should obey even if they never get caught and even if they enjoy the contrary, d) at least some points of morality are not reducible to simple altruism and the Golden rule, e) Morality is a temporal universal (has occurred throughout time), f) our morality becomes objectivist when we are the victim.
4) but if ethics is at all objective (even in part), then the naturalistic fallacy prevents any natural grounding for ethics–ie: in human minds, or in the rest of nature. The naturalistic fallacy, also called the “Is-ought” fallacy suggests that there is some kind of circular or presumptive reasoning whenever a person argues from (non-teleological) nature that a moral ought follows from it. In other words, nature just is or is not. It knows nothing of what “ought” to be.
5) Binding moral values, which exists, requires a grounds for their existence.
6) Binding moral values then have at least some basis outside of nature.
7) This basis must be a mind sufficient to ground objectively binding moral values within our world.
8 ) By the law of conservation (ie: Ockham’s Razor) we need not postulate more than one supernatural mind to ground said ethics, unless the data set demands it.
9) We (the Christian and the Atheist) can agree from our own observations and reasoning that no other God is needed to ground ethics–so polytheism, pantheism, panentheism, deism, animism, henotheism, finite Godism, are unwarranted insertions (we just disagree over whether A God is needed at all to ground ethics).
[10) Goodness is better explained as an attribute of God than as a command of God (since the latter would be undermined by the euthyphro dilemma).]–this is a side note for Divine Command Theorist reading this.
11) Therefore I know God is good because [see #1-10].