By Ryan Leasure
Do objective morals exist? That is to say, are certain actions right or wrong irrespective of what people think? Philosphers and moral scientists have wrestled over the question of objective morality for centuries. Prior to the Enlightenment, objective morality was a given. The foundation for which was the nature of God himself.
Since the Enlightenment, however, brilliant minds have sought to find other explanations for objective morals using only the natural world, and this pursuit has proven to be quite difficult. As a result, naturalism — the belief which denies any supernatural or spiritual realities — has bred scores of moral nihilists. Contemporary atheist Richard Dawkins sums up this view nicely when he writes, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”[i]
Many skeptics, on the other hand, wish to avoid such a depressing outlook. After all, human experience seems to suggest that some actions are objectively good or evil. Therefore, instead of adopting moral nihilism, other naturalists adopt the view known as moral realism seeking to maintain objective moral values and duties.[ii] But can this view hold up to scrutiny? Have philosophers and scientists been able to ground morality in some place other than God?
In this article, I will demonstrate that theism provides the only basis for objective morality. I will support this thesis in two ways. First, I will evaluate the different explanations naturalists have used to ground morality and show them to be wanting. Second, I will substantiate the claim that theism accounts for objective morals despite skeptics’ objections.
Naturalism and Morality
In Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris remarks, “Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering… To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply.”[iii] A self-described atheist, Harris adopts a totalitarian approach which argues that we can ground morality in the pleasure or misery of individuals.
In his more critiqued book, The Moral Landscape, he defines the “good” as that which supports the well-being of “conscious creatures.”[iv] But why, given atheism, should we think that the flourishing of human beings is objectively good? Where, exactly, in the natural world do we learn this objective truth? Harris fails to provide an explanation for this assertion. He simply equates “good” with “human flourishing” without any justification in what amounts to equivocation and circular reasoning.
Is/Ought Fallacy
Harris’s attempt to ground morality in human flourishing fails on at least two additional fronts. First, Harris is guilty of committing the is/ought fallacy. Generally speaking, someone commits the is/ought fallacy when they attempt to make value judgments using science.[v] Science, after all, only explains what “is,” not how things “ought” to be. For example, science tells us how us how to make an atomic bomb. It cannot, however, tell us whether we ought to use it. Harris believes he can prove his point by demonstrating that science tells us how to make life more conducive. But what exactly does this prove?
Of course advancements in science have aided in human flourishing. Science also tells us how to make life more conducive for corn and rabbits. But that does not mean it is morally evil to prohibit the flourishing of corn. Because Harris cannot ground objective morality as the term is philosophically understood, his only recourse is a semantic sleight of hand in which he redifines the word “good” to mean human flourishing. Even still, though science tells us how to promote human flourishing, it does not tell us that we “ought” to promote human flourishing.
Naturalistic Determinism
The second fatal error to Harris’s argument is his commitment to naturalistic determinism. As someone who affirms objective morality, Harris affirms that we “ought” to act a certain way. Yet he rejects the notion of free will at the same time.[vi] He goes so far as to state that free will is merely an “illusion.”[vii] As a naturalistic determinist, Harris holds to the view that every event is the result of a chain reaction which has been causally determined by the laws of physics and chemistry. In essense, humans act in robotic fashion and possess no volitional control over of their actions.
This position is paramount to agreeing with Richard Dawkins when he states, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[viii] We expect Dawkins to make a statement like this since he denies objective morality. We would not, however, expect Harris to affirm determinism since it undercuts his moral argument. After all, he notoriously condemns religious people for their agregious actions. But given Harris’s determinism, can he really blame them? Does he not believe that their actions were spring loaded at the Big Bang and carried out by the inflexible laws of physics and chemistry?
Naturalistic Reasoning?
The problem for Harris’s determinism runs even deeper. For if naturalism is correct, and human beings are mere matter and nothing else, then rational thought becomes impossible. Rationality is, after all, the ability to adjudicate between arguments and evidence. But how do atoms, molecules, and physical laws make concious decisions? Years ago, C. S. Lewis recoginzed this fatal flaw. He remarks, “A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished.”[ix] In other words, if Harris is right on naturalistic determinism, it follows that we have no grounds for even knowing if naturalism is true.[x]
In the end, while Harris’s desire to affirm objective morality is commendable, he simply has no rational basis for his claims. He not only commits the is/out fallacy, he also undercuts his position by categorically denying free will of any kind. For these reasons, Harris’s view has failed to attract many suitors. Naturalists, though, have not bailed on the enterprise altogether. Most naturalists aim to ground morality another way — through evolutionary biology.
Morality from Evolution?
Standard Darwinian evolution asserts descent with modification. This process of natural selection acting on random mutations has been the standard view among naturalists for quite some time. And on the surface, this model seems to contradict our modern understanding of morality. For if Darwin was right, then for millions of years, creatures scratched and clawed their way to the top, sometimes killing and eating each other. We can understand, then, how natural selection explains features such as sexual drive, hunger, and fear since these qualities aided in preservation. But how does natural selection explain the phenomenon of altruism? How does sacrificing one’s self for the good of others aid in survival?
Naturalists typically offer two explanations — kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Kin selection theory suggests that species behave altruistically in ways that benefit the rest of their families at their own expense. For example, a monkey might cry out a warning to her relatives if she sees a leapord coming. This cry results in the leapord focusing its attention on her, decreasing her survivability. This sacrifice, however, ensures that the family genes — the same genes shared by the altruistic monkey — will survive and pass on to the next generation.[xi]
Naturalists also argue that altruism arose through reciprical relationships. In what amounts to “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours,” reciprical altruism is similar to bartering where assymetrical species help each other out by providing services that the other cannot provide for themselves. Bees need nectar and flowers need polinating. Or in some cases, animals need bugs and dirt removed from their fur, so another animal will do it for them when they could be out searching for food or a mate. Natural selection, therefore, favors the species that provide services for other species.
Evolution’s Failure
Even if we granted that evolution explains the rise of altruism, that does not solve the naturalist’s problem for a few reasons. First, as one considers the evolutionary rise of altruism, it becomes clear that altruism — especially on the reciprical model — is performed for selfish reasons. In other words, the theory suggests that species do “nice” things for other creatures only because it benefits them in the long run. But now we are talking about self-centeredness — the exact opposite of altruism.
A second critique of the evolutionary model is that it makes morality arbitrary. That is to say, it reaches ad hoc conclusions about the value of human beings. For if Darwin’s theory is correct, all living species descended from a single-celled organism and now form the different branches on Darwin’s tree of life. With this model in mind, who is to say that humans should be treated differently than crickets, rats, or cows? William Lane Craig refers to this inconsistency as “specie-ism,” in that people are showing unjustified bias towards their own species.[xii] Craig is right on this. Given naturalism and the Darwinian model, humans are just one branch of many. Nothing about Darwinism tells us that we ought to act differently from the other species in the animal kindgom.
Take the black widow, for example, who often eats her male counterpart during the mating process. Or consider male sharks who forcibly copulate with female sharks. Do either of these creatures commit moral evils? If not, why would these same actions be wrong for humans since we all belong to the same tree of life? We can certainly appreciate the secular humanists who wish to maintain that humans are intrinsically valuable, but they have no way of grounding this position given their naturalism. Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse admits as much when he writes, “I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves… Nevertheless… such reference is truly without foundation.”[xiii]
Evolutionary morality is on even shakier ground when we consider that evolution is, by definition, the unguided process of natural selection. Meaning, if we were to rewind back the time to the very beginning and start over, morality could have evolved quite differently. Human morality could have evolved like black widows and sharks and we would not know any difference.
A third and most damning critique of the evolutiony model is that it cannot even begin to explain why anything is objectively right or wrong. Even if we granted that evolution adaquately explains how species began to act morally, it does not begin to explain why acting in those ways is objectively good. Similarly, naturalists also think that because they can discern morality means that they have solved the problem. Again, William Lane Craig points out this fatal flaw when he exclaims, “I have been astonished at the confusion of moral ontology with moral epistemology on the part of prominent moral philosophers.”[xiv]
In the end, naturalists who attempt to ground objective morals in the natural world fail in their attempt. They might be able to explain the origins of altruism. And they might even know objective morals. But they cannot account for the existence of the moral standard itself and why humans ought to follow it.
Based on the above observations, naturalism cannot ground objective morality. At the same time, however, humans experience a certain “oughtness.” They feel like they ought to love rather than hate, and that they ought to show courage rather than cowardice. These “oughts” are epistemically surprising given naturalism. Yet, they correspond nicely with another worldview.
Theism and Morality
The “oughtness” humans experience fits nicely with a theistic worldview. And while the argument does not hinge on which theistic worldview one embraces, this section will approach the argument from a Christian worldview.
Christians maintain that objective morality is grounded in God himself. Seeing the failings of naturalists to ground morality in the natural world further substantiates the Christian’s claim that the moral law must derive from a different source — namely, a supernatural one.
Dealing with Euthyphro
One popular objection to the Christian position is commonly referred to as the Euthyphro Dilemma. This dilemma was first raised in Plato’s dialogue and goes like this: either something is good because God willed it or else God wills something because it is good.
Notice the dilemma these alternatives raise for the theistic view. For if something is good because God willed it, then it follows that the whatever is good is arbitrary. On the other hand, if God wills something because it is good, then the moral standard exists independent of God.
The problem with this objection, however, is that the skeptic presents the theist with a false dilemma. Meaning, a third option exists which asserts that God wills because he is good. This view argues that far from God’s commands being arbitrary, they are rooted in his perfectly good nature. Or to put it another way, God’s commands are “necessary expressions of his just and loving nature.”[xv] C. S. Lewis was also insightful in this regard. He declared, “God’s will is determined by His wisdom which always perceives, and His goodness which always embraces, the intrinsically good.”[xvi] In the end, the Euthyphro Dilemma is not much of a dilemma after all.
Relativism
Another popular objection to the theist view is that moral truths are relative. Relativists agree that naturalism cannot ground objective morality, but they go one step farther by suggesting that objective morality does not exist at all. To support this claim, relativists point to what they perceive as different moral standards in different cultures. Yet the relativist position fails on multiple fronts.
First, relativists often confuse objective morality with changing behavior. For example, they argue that since Western culture used to think slavery was acceptable, but now it does not, morality then must have changed. This argument, though, is not too different from the is/out fallacy Sam Harris committed. Merely describing the change in human behavior in no way demonstrates that objective morality changed. This view is tantamount to suggesting that the laws of physics changed after Newton because we now have a more enlightened view.
A second objection revolves around moral disagreements. As the argument goes, if there is such a thing as a moral law, why is there so much disagreement on moral issues? Again, the relativists objection is weak here.
Consider the modern debate over abortion. One view believes it is a moral crime since it believes aborition is the murder of an innocent child. On the other hand, those who are pro-choice think abortion is acceptable if that is what the mother chooses. The pro-choice tactic, however, is to redefine what exists in the mother’s womb. They use euphemistic phrases such as “clump of cells” rather than “baby” to justify killing it. What this change in terminology suggests is that both sides agree on the basic moral principle that murder is wrong. One position, though, has changed terminology to justify their view.
This change in terminology is not so different from how the Nazis justified the Holocaust or how Colonial Americans justified slavery. In both cases, they convinced themselves that they were not dealing with human beings of equal value in an attempt to assuage their consciences. So, while on the surface it appears that wide moral disagreements exist among people and cultures, a closer examination shows that root moral issues are pretty similar. Lewis remarks, “If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.”[xvii] This common understood morality explains why legal codes and religious codes share much in common across all times and cultures.
Image Bearers and Free Will
Given the Christian position, how does one explain this common sense of morality? The answer is rooted in God’s creation of human beings. In the first chapter of the Bible, we read that God made human beings in his image as the peak of his creation (Gen 1:26-27). As image-bearers of God, humans share certain characteristics in common with the Divine. Since Classical Theism asserts that God is a maximally great being, and part of his maximal greatness is his perfect goodness, we are not surprised that humans desire to do good.
Additionally, the perpetual wrestling over ethical issues also coincides with theism. For example, if naturalism is true, humans would simply act upon their strongest impulse brought about by the laws of chemistry in their brain. But humans do not do act this way — or at least they know they should not. Even naturalists recognize we should not act on our strongest impulses when those impulses would lead us to murder, rape, or steal. Yet, this ability to refrain from acting on one’s strongest impulses would be impossible given naturalism. But if God made people as both material and immaterial, it follows that they could adjudicate between competing desires.
While contemplating this very issue, C. S. Lewis suggested, “If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.”[xviii]
Lewis recognized that there is more to people than mere physical chemistry. People possess the ability to make volitional decisions contrary to their strongest impulses. And as Lewis suggests, people do so because they are inherantly aware of the moral law. For him, the feeling that we ought to behave a certain way along with the guilt that follows when we fail to meet that moral standard suggests that both a moral law exists, and we were hardwired to live in light of that law.[xix]
Moral Law
These feelings are shared by all people, because all people are made in the image of God, irrespective of their faith. The apostle Paul recognizes as much when he wrote, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Rom 2:14-15).
According to Paul, Gentiles — those without the written law — are still accountable for their sin for two distinct reasons. First, God has implanted his moral law within them. And second, he has given everyone a conscience by which they can discern if they are living in accordance with that moral law. It is crucial to distinguish between the two. With respect to the moral law, New Testament scholar Douglas Moo contends, “Paul is almost certainly pressing into service a widespread Greek tradition to the effect that all human beings possess an ‘unwritten’ or ‘natural’ law — an innate moral sense of ‘right and wrong.’”[xx] In other words, the moral law is not a Christian invention, but a concept that was easily discernable by Greek philosophers.
Moo goes on to argue that the conscience is the “a reflective mechanism by which people can measure their conformity to a norm.”[xxi] Thomas Schreiner agrees with this assessment. He argues that to “identify the conscience and law, so that both are understood as the source of moral norms, is mistaken. The conscience is not the origin of moral norms but passes judgement on whether one has abided by those norms.”[xxii] Therefore, the reason people experience “oughtness” is twofold. First, God has implanted his moral law within all people. And second, he has instilled in everyone a conscience which either accuses or excuses their actions.
Therefore, theism gives us a sound foundation for objective moral values. It explains the objective moral standard which exists in our universe — rape is evil — and it explains why people feel as if they ought to act a certain way.
Conclusion
As this article demonstrates, theism provides the only basis for objective morality. Since naturalism fails to provide an objective foundation for morality, the only options remaining are moral nihilism or belief that God grounds morality. Atheists who wish to deny God’s existence, therefore, must resort to radical nihilistic positions, even denying the objective evil of events such as the Holocaust.
Experience tells us, though, that this perspective is unliveable. For if those same relativists had been forced into those gas chambers, they would quickly embrace objective morality. In fact, people can usually discern objective morals based on how others treat them. If someone rapes their daughter or burns down their house, they will say things like, “that’s not right” or “that’s not fair” without thinking through the worldview implications of those statements. While many skeptics assert that our perception of reality is merely an illusion, the best recourse is to adopt the worldview that best explains our experiences.
Footnotes
[i] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (New York: Basic Boosk, 1995), 133.
[ii] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2003), 492.
[iii] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2008), 8.
[iv] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010), 12.
[v] James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky, Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 18.
[vi] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, 104.
[vii] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, 112.
[viii] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 133
[ix] C. S. Lewis, Miracles (), 21-22.
[x] See a more recent development of this argument in Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 227-240.
[xi] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2008), 247.
[xii] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 175.
[xiii] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwin Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 268-269.
[xiv] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 176.
[xv] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 182.
[xvi] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 100.
[xvii] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 5-6.
[xviii] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Harper One, 1952), 10.
[xix] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 8.
[xx] Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 150.
[xxi] Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans, 152-153.
[xxii] Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans: Baker Exegetical Guide on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 123.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3f7ToQE
Cómo tener una conversación desafiante con un ser querido
EspañolPor Jason Jiménez
Seamos honestos. Nadie busca tener una conversación desafiante con un amigo o familiar. La mera idea de decir algo que pueda herir sus sentimientos provoca escalofríos. Y así, en lugar de afrontar el problema, sigues evitando la conversación y acabas tirándolo a un lado con los demás asuntos sin resolver.
Pero pregúntese: ¿evitar las conversaciones difíciles con un ser querido mejora o perjudica mis relaciones?
Como cristiano, no es sabio reprimir tus sentimientos o evitar expresar lo que sientes sobre algo con alguien que amas, especialmente si hay un problema que obstaculiza tu relación. Una relación auténtica es la que se construye sobre la base de la honestidad y una actitud abierta.
Así que, sea cual sea el reto o la dificultad que tengas con un ser querido, aquí tienes cinco prioridades a seguir que te motivará a tener esa conversación incómoda.
Primera prioridad: orar antes de la charla difícil
Quizá pienses que la primera prioridad parece un poco obvia. Y tienes razón. La oración es evidente porque es esencial. Sin embargo, muchos cristianos se saltan la oración y se meten de lleno en lo que les preocupa. Sin embargo, la Biblia dice muy claramente: “Por nada estéis afanosos; antes bien, en todo, mediante oración y súplica con acción de gracias, sean dadas a conocer vuestras peticiones delante de Dios” (Fil. 4:6 LBLA). Cuando tú y tu amigo (o familiar) se reúnan para hablar de algún asunto delicado, orar juntos ayudará a calmar los nervios y a trasladar el foco de atención al Señor. También es importante que se expresen mutuamente su gratitud y pidan a Dios que les dé sabiduría y entendimiento para solucionar las cosas.
Segunda prioridad: conversar, no dar lecciones
Cuando alguien te hace daño, lo natural es atacar a la persona que te ha herido. Pero, según 1 Pedro 3:8, como cristiano debes ser “…de un mismo sentir, compasivos, fraternales, misericordiosos y de espíritu humilde”. Por lo tanto, lo último que quieres hacer (no importa lo inocente que te sientas) es adoptar un tono acusador con tu amigo. Tu enfoque es honrarlo como una persona hecha a la imagen de Dios, no despreciarlo si no se ajusta a tu punto de vista. Tu punto de partida no es “voy a ponerte en tu lugar por hacerme daño”. Debería ser: “quiero entender por qué hiciste lo que hiciste porque te amo”.
Tercera prioridad: mostrar respeto
Como seres humanos, anhelamos el respeto. Una buena técnica cuando se entabla una conversación difícil es centrarse en honrar a la otra persona por encima de uno mismo. Cuando honras a alguien (1 Pe. 2:17), eso no sólo actúa como difusor sino que también invitará a la otra persona a dirigirse a ti con respeto. Piénsalo así, honrarse unos a otros lleva a un diálogo respetuoso.
Cuarta prioridad: ser abierto y honesto
De ello se desprende que, si se emplean adecuadamente las tres primeras prioridades, la cuarta probablemente se acomodará. Sin embargo, hay muchas perspectivas aterradoras que pueden obstaculizar la vulnerabilidad: inseguridades, fracasos, miedo al rechazo y problemas de confianza. Sin embargo, ambos tienen que estar dispuestos a expresar una emoción real y la voluntad de resolver las cosas para que los dos puedan progresar. Esto llevará tiempo, así que asegúrate de no apresurarte ni fingir.
Quinta prioridad: pedir perdón
Jesús dice a sus seguidores: “Por tanto, si estás presentando tu ofrenda en el altar, y allí te acuerdas que tu hermano tiene algo contra ti, deja tu ofrenda allí delante del altar, y ve, reconcíliate primero con tu hermano, y entonces ven y presenta tu ofrenda” (Mt. 5:23-24). La palabra “reconcíliate” transmite una respuesta inmediata para hacer las paces con la persona ofendida. En lugar de excusarse por sus acciones, siempre es mejor asumir la responsabilidad de cualquier mala acción y resolver rápidamente los asuntos antes de que se vayan de las manos.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Jason Jiménez es el fundador de STAND STRONG Ministries y miembro de la facultad de Summit Ministries. Es un pastor, apologista y orador nacional que ha ministrado a las familias durante más de veinte años. En su extensa carrera ministerial, Jason ha sido pastor de niños, estudiantes y universitarios, y es autor de cerca de 10 libros sobre temas relacionados con la apologética, la teología y la crianza de los hijos.
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3DBp0Gy
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
Is a Perfect Being Possible?
1. Does Truth Exist?, 2. Does God Exist?, AtheismBy Al Serrato
Many atheists claim that the God described in the Bible is not possible. They raise philosophical challenges meant to show that inherent in the very nature of God are contradictions which make belief in him foolish. One such challenge I encountered went like this:
Challenges like these can be daunting, especially for someone not interested in philosophy. On its face, the challenge appears to have validity, reasoning to a conclusion about God. But in fact what is at play here is the “straw man” fallacy. The challenger sets up a God whose attributes are not those of the true God, as described in the Bible, and then argues from this mistaken depiction that the God we worship could not exist.
Notice what is implicit in the challenge: the skeptic seems to be acknowledging God as an eternal being, but his questions assume that God has no power to control time. Time becomes a force over God, and not one that God created and controls. Consider: the challenger asks “what compelled God to create?” as if God is sitting around for eons wondering what to do. He uses words like “bored,” “lonely,” “needs,” and “desires.” Each of these concepts is temporally based: “boredom” means an awareness that one’s present circumstances lack sufficient stimulation and an anticipation of changing this condition by engaging in some future activity; “lonely” means an awareness of the lack of others to help bring meaning, activity or joy into one’s life; “desires” means an awareness of something lacking and the formation of a plan to acquire that thing in the future. Each of these concepts necessarily implies a limited being, a being who lacks something necessary for fulfillment and who is seeking to remedy this lack.
With each question, the skeptic betrays that he has not grasped the attributes of the God we worship. The God of the Bible describes himself as the “I am.” In the beginning, he created “the heavens and the Earth.” Interestingly, modern science has confirmed that in the distant past there was a singularity, a point at which both matter and, more importantly for this discussion, time came into existence from absolute nothingness. Though we cannot, in our limited present circumstances, ever fully grasp all this entails, it is apparent that God, as an eternal being who created time as we experience it, is not himself limited by time. All times, as we perceive them, are in an eternal “present” to him. He was never “alone.” Composed of three persons in one being, God is in an eternal loving relationship and has no needs, fulfills all desires and lacks no stimulation. In fact, these concepts are nonsensical to such a being, examples of a category error, because each of these concepts makes sense only if viewed from the perspective of a being that is limited or controlled or defined by time.
So, to specifically answer the questions: Nothing “disturbed” the eternal equilibrium. Time was not flowing “against” God and no force can disturb him. Nothing “compelled” him to create, because a compulsion would require a source greater than God and there is no such force. God created the universe and this timeline because he chose to for reasons of love. The love he exercised was in the agape sense, love for the sake of love and with the goal of seeking the good of the one loved. He was not seeking gain, nor was he motivated by desiring something in return. God was not bored or lonely and is and always was complete. There was no disequilibrium. How that plays out in God’s perception is something, again, we could not expect to fully grasp, just as the whale, if conscious, could not know what living on land would be like, even if he understood that it involved breathing air, living in houses, and walking. In other words, our lack of detailed and specific knowledge does not prevent us from drawing conclusions from what we do know.
The challenger might respond by saying that God somehow added to his distinctiveness when he created us. He went from a “before” to an “after.” In so doing, he “changed,” and because he changed, he cannot be “perfect.” But this challenge again fails to recognize that God is not trapped by time, but instead was the creator of time. There was no “before” and “after,” as those concepts apply only to temporal beings living within the flow of time. To an eternal being, all is eternally in the present. While we, as mortal and limited beings, cannot truly understand what an eternal present would be like, we can conclude that a being not bound by the movement of time would experience all events without having to resort to memory or wait for the future to arrive. Moreover, the challenge fails to fully consider what “infinity” involves. As an infinite being, God added nothing to himself by creating, for it is not possible to “add” to infinity. This concept was fleshed out by a mathematician named David Hilbert, who asked the reader to imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms, all of which are filled. An infinite number of new guests arrive seeking lodging. What does the innkeeper do? Is he not “full up?” No, actually, at least not when infinity is involved. The innkeeper simply moves everyone from the room he or she is in to the room whose number is two times the original room number. By so doing, the innkeeper opens up an infinite number of new rooms – all odd numbered – for his new guests. The point is that when you are dealing with infinity, limitations simply do not exist.
In the end, though, I would submit that the challenger’s most glaring error is the claim “A God who is perfect does nothing except exist.” This would seem to reduce God to nothing more than a jellyfish – alive, perhaps, but showing few signs of it and simply existing. This seeks to reduce God’s infinite perfection to a limitation, when it is quite literally the opposite of any limitation. This attribute of infinite perfection does not constrain God, and to suggest that it leaves him essentially powerless – he simply “exists” – is, in my view, to get things precisely backwards.
I have seen this challenge in various permutations, but they almost always stem from a misunderstanding – intentional or otherwise – of the actual attributes of the God worshipped by Christians. Next time you confront something similar, it’s worth taking a moment to tease out the unspoken assumptions that are leading the skeptic astray.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is the Bible True? by Frank Turek (Mp3), (Mp4), and (DVD)
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Al Serrato earned his law degree from the University of California at Berkeley in 1985. He began his career as an FBI special agent before becoming a prosecutor in California, where he worked for 33 years. An introduction to CS Lewis’ works sparked his interest in Apologetics, which he has pursued for the past three decades. He got his start writing Apologetics with J. Warner Wallace and Pleaseconvinceme.com.
The College Scam | with Charlie Kirk – Plus Q&A
PodcastShould you send your kids to college? Should you spend hundreds of thousands of dollars on a potentially useless degree while your child gets indoctrinated by those who are hostile toward the Christian faith? That’s the BIG question a lot of parents face today. But thankfully, our friend Charlie Kirk is here to help!
Charlie Kirk is the Founder and President of Turning Point USA, and his new book, The College Scam: How America’s Universities Are Bankrupting and Brainwashing Away the Future of America’s Youth, gives us a well-documented ten-count indictment of why academia has lost all credibility. It’s a must-read for every student, parent, and concerned citizen!
In this episode, Charlie shares with Frank what he sees happening at college campuses across the country and why every Christian parent should think twice before sending their high school graduate to a secular university. They also discuss the truth about some of the statistics being shared by the college industry (do graduates REALLY make more money?) and how to succeed in life without getting a college degree. Charlie is living proof that it’s possible!
Frank also takes the time to answer some viewer questions, including those on studying philosophy and logical fallacies as Christians and how to respectfully push back against woke ideology in public schools.
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST with Frank and Charlie, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians (including me) while simultaneously providing financial support for our ministry.
Resources mentioned during the show:
Charlie’s book: https://amzn.to/3DCg4lI
Charlie’s website: https://charliekirk.com/
Turning Point USA Faith: https://tpfaith.com/
America Fest: https://www.amfest.com/
Greg Koukl’s letter to the school board: https://bit.ly/3D9lxyI
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
¿En qué se diferencia el cristianismo de otras religiones en cuanto a la homosexualidad?
EspañolPor Terrell Clemmons
Probablemente no es lo que tú piensas.
Salvando la verdad sobre la sexualidad humana
“Perdonen si esto se sale del tema”, tartamudeó la joven por el micrófono, “pero he buscado respuestas y no encuentro ninguna, así que pensé en venir esta noche a preguntarles a ustedes. ¿En qué difiere el cristianismo, si es que lo hace, respecto a la homosexualidad en comparación con otras religiones, y si es así, cómo?” Sus labios estremecidos y sus manos temblorosas revelaron la magnitud de la lucha que le había costado expresar la pregunta.
El auditorio se quedó en silencio cuando todas las miradas se dirigieron a Abdu Murray, que acababa de participar en un foro abierto de la universidad sobre las principales religiones del mundo.
Abdu guardó silencio por un momento. Se dio cuenta de que ella no solo buscaba otra opinión. Necesitaba una respuesta que la validara como ser humano. ¿Qué podía decir que no comprometiera la sexualidad bíblica y que, al mismo tiempo, le mostrara que Dios se preocupaba por ella sin medida?
“Es solo que hay tantas cosmovisiones para elegir”, comenzó. Y ninguna de ellas podría dar una respuesta que validara incondicionalmente su humanidad. Es decir, ninguna, excepto una. Pero antes de llegar a esa, examinó las demás.
Consideremos el ateísmo naturalista, la cosmovisión que impulsa el secularismo progresista. Según el secularismo naturalista, el ser humano es un animal altamente evolucionado. Esta cosmovisión es doblemente deshumanizadora con respecto a la homosexualidad. En primer lugar, según la narrativa evolutiva darwiniana, no hay nada especialmente significativo en los seres humanos. “Una rata es un cerdo es un perro es un niño”, en palabras de Ingrid Newkirk, fundadora de People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), de modo que lo único que nos distingue de las moscas de nuestra ventana es que estamos por encima de ellas en la cadena alimenticia. En segundo lugar, si, como se nos dice, la evolución darwiniana prosigue a través del proceso evolutivo, entonces la homosexualidad fracasa evolutivamente porque el sexo entre personas del mismo sexo no se reproduce. Por lo tanto, en una cosmovisión naturalista, las personas que practican el sexo entre personas del mismo sexo no son, al igual que todos los demás, nada especial, y además son fallas darwinianas.
¿Qué hay de los sistemas panteístas orientales, como el hinduismo o el budismo, o una espiritualidad al estilo de Deepak Chopra? Pues bien, los fundamentos éticos de estas cosmovisiones son, en el mejor de los casos, ambiguos, ya que enseñan que la moral es relativa. Por lo tanto, ninguna de ellas proporciona una base objetiva para el valor o la identidad humana. Y lo que es peor para el que busca respuestas sólidas, sostienen que el sufrimiento es una ilusión, lo que es un insulto a la persona que sufre. No ofrecen nada más allá de la charlatanería autorreferencial para quien lucha con su identidad.
¿Y el islam? Aunque ofrece solidez, con su fundamento monoteísta y sus claras normas que circunscriben el comportamiento sexual, el islam es abiertamente hostil a la homosexualidad. En algunos países islámicos, los actos homosexuales se castigan con la cárcel, la flagelación y, en algunos casos, la muerte.
Finalmente, entonces, Abdu entró en el cristianismo. Hizo dos observaciones al respecto. En primer lugar, todos sabemos intuitivamente que hay algo en el sexo que lo hace más que un simple acto físico. ¿Por qué se trata la agresión sexual de forma diferente a la mera agresión física? Porque, dijo, hay algo sagrado y frágil en la sexualidad, y las cosas sagradas son tan especiales que merecen ser protegidas. Dios quiere proteger el carácter sagrado de la sexualidad para que no se convierta en algo común, y los límites establecidos por la ética sexual bíblica protegen el carácter sagrado de la sexualidad.
Pero, admitió, eso no explica la proscripción que limita el sexo al matrimonio entre personas del sexo opuesto. Ese fue el tema de su segundo punto. Para abordar el principio del matrimonio entre hombres y mujeres, se refirió al relato bíblico de la creación en el Génesis, donde se nos dice que Dios creó al hombre y a la mujer a imagen de Dios. Que el hombre y la mujer hayan sido creados a imagen y semejanza de Dios es un concepto blasfemo para el islam, un concepto extraño en cualquier panteísmo y un absurdo en cualquier secularismo naturalista. Solo la cosmovisión bíblica, que sostiene que todos los hombres y todas las mujeres son portadores de la imagen divina de Dios, ofrece una base objetiva para la dignidad y el valor humanos inherentes.
Y esto nos lleva a la razón por la que vale la pena limitar la sexualidad humana al matrimonio hombre-mujer: Es porque el sexo es la forma en que la vida humana viene al mundo. “El sexo entre un hombre y una mujer es el único medio por el que viene al mundo un ser tan precioso”, dijo. “Y como un ser humano es el producto sagrado del sexo, el proceso sexual por el que esa persona se hace es también sagrado”. La ética bíblica limita la expresión sexual al matrimonio monógamo, hombre-mujer, porque “Dios está protegiendo algo sagrado y hermoso”. Al someternos a la guía de la creación, “Se nos concede el honor de reflejar un aspecto del esplendor divino”.
Concluyó su respuesta a la joven atribulada diciéndole que Dios ancla toda la dignidad humana, incluida la suya, y la sacralidad en su naturaleza inmutable y eterna. Se nos concede la altísima dignidad de reflejar la gloria de Dios en ese mundo.
Entonces, ¿en qué se diferencia el cristianismo de las demás religiones en lo que respecta a la homosexualidad? Resulta que difiere profundamente de todas las demás, pero no de la forma en que las voces culturales dominantes dicen que lo hace. Abdu relata esta escena en su libro recientemente publicado, Saving Truth: Finding Meaning and Clarity in a Post-Truth World. Aunque tiene mucho más que decir sobre la naturaleza singularmente sublime de la sexualidad dentro del matrimonio natural, Saving Truth no trata solo de la sexualidad. Ese es solo el tema de un capítulo, pero espero que te dé una idea de la belleza que la claridad bíblica puede aportar a un área llena de confusión.
Saving Truth examina todo un paisaje de confusión cultural, ofreciendo refrescantes dosis de claridad para que podamos dar sentido a muchas otras confusiones:
Abdu nunca dio el nombre de la joven que hizo la profunda pregunta sobre la sexualidad, pero sí concluyó el relato señalando que, después de que él respondió a su pregunta, “ella pareció saber que era ‘comprendida’. Las lágrimas comenzaron a fluir, y me concedió el honor de orar con ella”. La verdad tiene una forma de calmar el clamor y provocar momentos profundos. Espero que le des un vistazo al nuevo libro de Abdu, Saving Truth, y aún más, espero que busques la verdad allí donde te encuentras. Te cueste lo que te cueste, las lágrimas que te provoque, busca la claridad, busca la verdad. Ahí es donde encontrarás tu propósito.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Terrell Clemmons es una escritora y bloguera independiente que escribe sobre apologética y asuntos de fe.
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/2LZrSFp
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
Can Atheism Account for Objective Morality?
1. Does Truth Exist?, Atheism, Legislating Morality, Culture & PoliticsBy Ryan Leasure
Do objective morals exist? That is to say, are certain actions right or wrong irrespective of what people think? Philosphers and moral scientists have wrestled over the question of objective morality for centuries. Prior to the Enlightenment, objective morality was a given. The foundation for which was the nature of God himself.
Since the Enlightenment, however, brilliant minds have sought to find other explanations for objective morals using only the natural world, and this pursuit has proven to be quite difficult. As a result, naturalism — the belief which denies any supernatural or spiritual realities — has bred scores of moral nihilists. Contemporary atheist Richard Dawkins sums up this view nicely when he writes, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”[i]
Many skeptics, on the other hand, wish to avoid such a depressing outlook. After all, human experience seems to suggest that some actions are objectively good or evil. Therefore, instead of adopting moral nihilism, other naturalists adopt the view known as moral realism seeking to maintain objective moral values and duties.[ii] But can this view hold up to scrutiny? Have philosophers and scientists been able to ground morality in some place other than God?
In this article, I will demonstrate that theism provides the only basis for objective morality. I will support this thesis in two ways. First, I will evaluate the different explanations naturalists have used to ground morality and show them to be wanting. Second, I will substantiate the claim that theism accounts for objective morals despite skeptics’ objections.
Naturalism and Morality
In Letter to a Christian Nation, Sam Harris remarks, “Questions of morality are questions about happiness and suffering… To the degree that our actions can affect the experience of other creatures positively or negatively, questions of morality apply.”[iii] A self-described atheist, Harris adopts a totalitarian approach which argues that we can ground morality in the pleasure or misery of individuals.
In his more critiqued book, The Moral Landscape, he defines the “good” as that which supports the well-being of “conscious creatures.”[iv] But why, given atheism, should we think that the flourishing of human beings is objectively good? Where, exactly, in the natural world do we learn this objective truth? Harris fails to provide an explanation for this assertion. He simply equates “good” with “human flourishing” without any justification in what amounts to equivocation and circular reasoning.
Is/Ought Fallacy
Harris’s attempt to ground morality in human flourishing fails on at least two additional fronts. First, Harris is guilty of committing the is/ought fallacy. Generally speaking, someone commits the is/ought fallacy when they attempt to make value judgments using science.[v] Science, after all, only explains what “is,” not how things “ought” to be. For example, science tells us how us how to make an atomic bomb. It cannot, however, tell us whether we ought to use it. Harris believes he can prove his point by demonstrating that science tells us how to make life more conducive. But what exactly does this prove?
Of course advancements in science have aided in human flourishing. Science also tells us how to make life more conducive for corn and rabbits. But that does not mean it is morally evil to prohibit the flourishing of corn. Because Harris cannot ground objective morality as the term is philosophically understood, his only recourse is a semantic sleight of hand in which he redifines the word “good” to mean human flourishing. Even still, though science tells us how to promote human flourishing, it does not tell us that we “ought” to promote human flourishing.
Naturalistic Determinism
The second fatal error to Harris’s argument is his commitment to naturalistic determinism. As someone who affirms objective morality, Harris affirms that we “ought” to act a certain way. Yet he rejects the notion of free will at the same time.[vi] He goes so far as to state that free will is merely an “illusion.”[vii] As a naturalistic determinist, Harris holds to the view that every event is the result of a chain reaction which has been causally determined by the laws of physics and chemistry. In essense, humans act in robotic fashion and possess no volitional control over of their actions.
This position is paramount to agreeing with Richard Dawkins when he states, “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music.”[viii] We expect Dawkins to make a statement like this since he denies objective morality. We would not, however, expect Harris to affirm determinism since it undercuts his moral argument. After all, he notoriously condemns religious people for their agregious actions. But given Harris’s determinism, can he really blame them? Does he not believe that their actions were spring loaded at the Big Bang and carried out by the inflexible laws of physics and chemistry?
Naturalistic Reasoning?
The problem for Harris’s determinism runs even deeper. For if naturalism is correct, and human beings are mere matter and nothing else, then rational thought becomes impossible. Rationality is, after all, the ability to adjudicate between arguments and evidence. But how do atoms, molecules, and physical laws make concious decisions? Years ago, C. S. Lewis recoginzed this fatal flaw. He remarks, “A theory which explained everything else in the whole universe but which made it impossible to believe our thinking was valid, would be utterly out of court. For that theory would itself have been reached by thinking, and if thinking is not valid, that theory would, of course, be itself demolished.”[ix] In other words, if Harris is right on naturalistic determinism, it follows that we have no grounds for even knowing if naturalism is true.[x]
In the end, while Harris’s desire to affirm objective morality is commendable, he simply has no rational basis for his claims. He not only commits the is/out fallacy, he also undercuts his position by categorically denying free will of any kind. For these reasons, Harris’s view has failed to attract many suitors. Naturalists, though, have not bailed on the enterprise altogether. Most naturalists aim to ground morality another way — through evolutionary biology.
Morality from Evolution?
Standard Darwinian evolution asserts descent with modification. This process of natural selection acting on random mutations has been the standard view among naturalists for quite some time. And on the surface, this model seems to contradict our modern understanding of morality. For if Darwin was right, then for millions of years, creatures scratched and clawed their way to the top, sometimes killing and eating each other. We can understand, then, how natural selection explains features such as sexual drive, hunger, and fear since these qualities aided in preservation. But how does natural selection explain the phenomenon of altruism? How does sacrificing one’s self for the good of others aid in survival?
Naturalists typically offer two explanations — kin selection and reciprocal altruism. Kin selection theory suggests that species behave altruistically in ways that benefit the rest of their families at their own expense. For example, a monkey might cry out a warning to her relatives if she sees a leapord coming. This cry results in the leapord focusing its attention on her, decreasing her survivability. This sacrifice, however, ensures that the family genes — the same genes shared by the altruistic monkey — will survive and pass on to the next generation.[xi]
Naturalists also argue that altruism arose through reciprical relationships. In what amounts to “you scratch my back and I will scratch yours,” reciprical altruism is similar to bartering where assymetrical species help each other out by providing services that the other cannot provide for themselves. Bees need nectar and flowers need polinating. Or in some cases, animals need bugs and dirt removed from their fur, so another animal will do it for them when they could be out searching for food or a mate. Natural selection, therefore, favors the species that provide services for other species.
Evolution’s Failure
Even if we granted that evolution explains the rise of altruism, that does not solve the naturalist’s problem for a few reasons. First, as one considers the evolutionary rise of altruism, it becomes clear that altruism — especially on the reciprical model — is performed for selfish reasons. In other words, the theory suggests that species do “nice” things for other creatures only because it benefits them in the long run. But now we are talking about self-centeredness — the exact opposite of altruism.
A second critique of the evolutionary model is that it makes morality arbitrary. That is to say, it reaches ad hoc conclusions about the value of human beings. For if Darwin’s theory is correct, all living species descended from a single-celled organism and now form the different branches on Darwin’s tree of life. With this model in mind, who is to say that humans should be treated differently than crickets, rats, or cows? William Lane Craig refers to this inconsistency as “specie-ism,” in that people are showing unjustified bias towards their own species.[xii] Craig is right on this. Given naturalism and the Darwinian model, humans are just one branch of many. Nothing about Darwinism tells us that we ought to act differently from the other species in the animal kindgom.
Take the black widow, for example, who often eats her male counterpart during the mating process. Or consider male sharks who forcibly copulate with female sharks. Do either of these creatures commit moral evils? If not, why would these same actions be wrong for humans since we all belong to the same tree of life? We can certainly appreciate the secular humanists who wish to maintain that humans are intrinsically valuable, but they have no way of grounding this position given their naturalism. Atheist philosopher Michael Ruse admits as much when he writes, “I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves… Nevertheless… such reference is truly without foundation.”[xiii]
Evolutionary morality is on even shakier ground when we consider that evolution is, by definition, the unguided process of natural selection. Meaning, if we were to rewind back the time to the very beginning and start over, morality could have evolved quite differently. Human morality could have evolved like black widows and sharks and we would not know any difference.
A third and most damning critique of the evolutiony model is that it cannot even begin to explain why anything is objectively right or wrong. Even if we granted that evolution adaquately explains how species began to act morally, it does not begin to explain why acting in those ways is objectively good. Similarly, naturalists also think that because they can discern morality means that they have solved the problem. Again, William Lane Craig points out this fatal flaw when he exclaims, “I have been astonished at the confusion of moral ontology with moral epistemology on the part of prominent moral philosophers.”[xiv]
In the end, naturalists who attempt to ground objective morals in the natural world fail in their attempt. They might be able to explain the origins of altruism. And they might even know objective morals. But they cannot account for the existence of the moral standard itself and why humans ought to follow it.
Based on the above observations, naturalism cannot ground objective morality. At the same time, however, humans experience a certain “oughtness.” They feel like they ought to love rather than hate, and that they ought to show courage rather than cowardice. These “oughts” are epistemically surprising given naturalism. Yet, they correspond nicely with another worldview.
Theism and Morality
The “oughtness” humans experience fits nicely with a theistic worldview. And while the argument does not hinge on which theistic worldview one embraces, this section will approach the argument from a Christian worldview.
Christians maintain that objective morality is grounded in God himself. Seeing the failings of naturalists to ground morality in the natural world further substantiates the Christian’s claim that the moral law must derive from a different source — namely, a supernatural one.
Dealing with Euthyphro
One popular objection to the Christian position is commonly referred to as the Euthyphro Dilemma. This dilemma was first raised in Plato’s dialogue and goes like this: either something is good because God willed it or else God wills something because it is good.
Notice the dilemma these alternatives raise for the theistic view. For if something is good because God willed it, then it follows that the whatever is good is arbitrary. On the other hand, if God wills something because it is good, then the moral standard exists independent of God.
The problem with this objection, however, is that the skeptic presents the theist with a false dilemma. Meaning, a third option exists which asserts that God wills because he is good. This view argues that far from God’s commands being arbitrary, they are rooted in his perfectly good nature. Or to put it another way, God’s commands are “necessary expressions of his just and loving nature.”[xv] C. S. Lewis was also insightful in this regard. He declared, “God’s will is determined by His wisdom which always perceives, and His goodness which always embraces, the intrinsically good.”[xvi] In the end, the Euthyphro Dilemma is not much of a dilemma after all.
Relativism
Another popular objection to the theist view is that moral truths are relative. Relativists agree that naturalism cannot ground objective morality, but they go one step farther by suggesting that objective morality does not exist at all. To support this claim, relativists point to what they perceive as different moral standards in different cultures. Yet the relativist position fails on multiple fronts.
First, relativists often confuse objective morality with changing behavior. For example, they argue that since Western culture used to think slavery was acceptable, but now it does not, morality then must have changed. This argument, though, is not too different from the is/out fallacy Sam Harris committed. Merely describing the change in human behavior in no way demonstrates that objective morality changed. This view is tantamount to suggesting that the laws of physics changed after Newton because we now have a more enlightened view.
A second objection revolves around moral disagreements. As the argument goes, if there is such a thing as a moral law, why is there so much disagreement on moral issues? Again, the relativists objection is weak here.
Consider the modern debate over abortion. One view believes it is a moral crime since it believes aborition is the murder of an innocent child. On the other hand, those who are pro-choice think abortion is acceptable if that is what the mother chooses. The pro-choice tactic, however, is to redefine what exists in the mother’s womb. They use euphemistic phrases such as “clump of cells” rather than “baby” to justify killing it. What this change in terminology suggests is that both sides agree on the basic moral principle that murder is wrong. One position, though, has changed terminology to justify their view.
This change in terminology is not so different from how the Nazis justified the Holocaust or how Colonial Americans justified slavery. In both cases, they convinced themselves that they were not dealing with human beings of equal value in an attempt to assuage their consciences. So, while on the surface it appears that wide moral disagreements exist among people and cultures, a closer examination shows that root moral issues are pretty similar. Lewis remarks, “If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own.”[xvii] This common understood morality explains why legal codes and religious codes share much in common across all times and cultures.
Image Bearers and Free Will
Given the Christian position, how does one explain this common sense of morality? The answer is rooted in God’s creation of human beings. In the first chapter of the Bible, we read that God made human beings in his image as the peak of his creation (Gen 1:26-27). As image-bearers of God, humans share certain characteristics in common with the Divine. Since Classical Theism asserts that God is a maximally great being, and part of his maximal greatness is his perfect goodness, we are not surprised that humans desire to do good.
Additionally, the perpetual wrestling over ethical issues also coincides with theism. For example, if naturalism is true, humans would simply act upon their strongest impulse brought about by the laws of chemistry in their brain. But humans do not do act this way — or at least they know they should not. Even naturalists recognize we should not act on our strongest impulses when those impulses would lead us to murder, rape, or steal. Yet, this ability to refrain from acting on one’s strongest impulses would be impossible given naturalism. But if God made people as both material and immaterial, it follows that they could adjudicate between competing desires.
While contemplating this very issue, C. S. Lewis suggested, “If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature’s mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.”[xviii]
Lewis recognized that there is more to people than mere physical chemistry. People possess the ability to make volitional decisions contrary to their strongest impulses. And as Lewis suggests, people do so because they are inherantly aware of the moral law. For him, the feeling that we ought to behave a certain way along with the guilt that follows when we fail to meet that moral standard suggests that both a moral law exists, and we were hardwired to live in light of that law.[xix]
Moral Law
These feelings are shared by all people, because all people are made in the image of God, irrespective of their faith. The apostle Paul recognizes as much when he wrote, “For when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them” (Rom 2:14-15).
According to Paul, Gentiles — those without the written law — are still accountable for their sin for two distinct reasons. First, God has implanted his moral law within them. And second, he has given everyone a conscience by which they can discern if they are living in accordance with that moral law. It is crucial to distinguish between the two. With respect to the moral law, New Testament scholar Douglas Moo contends, “Paul is almost certainly pressing into service a widespread Greek tradition to the effect that all human beings possess an ‘unwritten’ or ‘natural’ law — an innate moral sense of ‘right and wrong.’”[xx] In other words, the moral law is not a Christian invention, but a concept that was easily discernable by Greek philosophers.
Moo goes on to argue that the conscience is the “a reflective mechanism by which people can measure their conformity to a norm.”[xxi] Thomas Schreiner agrees with this assessment. He argues that to “identify the conscience and law, so that both are understood as the source of moral norms, is mistaken. The conscience is not the origin of moral norms but passes judgement on whether one has abided by those norms.”[xxii] Therefore, the reason people experience “oughtness” is twofold. First, God has implanted his moral law within all people. And second, he has instilled in everyone a conscience which either accuses or excuses their actions.
Therefore, theism gives us a sound foundation for objective moral values. It explains the objective moral standard which exists in our universe — rape is evil — and it explains why people feel as if they ought to act a certain way.
Conclusion
As this article demonstrates, theism provides the only basis for objective morality. Since naturalism fails to provide an objective foundation for morality, the only options remaining are moral nihilism or belief that God grounds morality. Atheists who wish to deny God’s existence, therefore, must resort to radical nihilistic positions, even denying the objective evil of events such as the Holocaust.
Experience tells us, though, that this perspective is unliveable. For if those same relativists had been forced into those gas chambers, they would quickly embrace objective morality. In fact, people can usually discern objective morals based on how others treat them. If someone rapes their daughter or burns down their house, they will say things like, “that’s not right” or “that’s not fair” without thinking through the worldview implications of those statements. While many skeptics assert that our perception of reality is merely an illusion, the best recourse is to adopt the worldview that best explains our experiences.
Footnotes
[i] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden (New York: Basic Boosk, 1995), 133.
[ii] J. P. Moreland and William Lane Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Press, 2003), 492.
[iii] Sam Harris, Letter to a Christian Nation (New York: Vintage Books, 2008), 8.
[iv] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape: How Science Can Determine Human Values (New York: Free Press, 2010), 12.
[v] James Davison Hunter and Paul Nedelisky, Science and the Good: The Tragic Quest for the Foundations of Morality (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2018), 18.
[vi] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, 104.
[vii] Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape, 112.
[viii] Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden, 133
[ix] C. S. Lewis, Miracles (), 21-22.
[x] See a more recent development of this argument in Alvin Plantinga, Warranted Christian Belief (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000), 227-240.
[xi] Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion (New York: Mariner Books, 2008), 247.
[xii] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics, 3rd ed. (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2008), 175.
[xiii] Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwin Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), 268-269.
[xiv] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 176.
[xv] William Lane Craig, Reasonable Faith, 182.
[xvi] C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain, 100.
[xvii] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 5-6.
[xviii] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity (New York: Harper One, 1952), 10.
[xix] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, 8.
[xx] Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans: The New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 150.
[xxi] Moo, Douglas, The Epistle to the Romans, 152-153.
[xxii] Schreiner, Thomas R. Romans: Baker Exegetical Guide on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 123.
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Is Morality Absolute or Relative? by Frank Turek (DVD/ Mp3/ Mp4)
Was Jesus Intolerant? (DVD) and (Mp4 Download) by Dr. Frank Turek
Jesus vs. The Culture by Dr. Frank Turek DVD, Mp4 Download, and Mp3
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Ryan Leasure holds a Master of Arts from Furman University and a Masters of Divinity from the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Currently, he’s a Doctor of Ministry candidate at the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. He also serves as a pastor at Grace Bible Church in Moore, SC.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3f7ToQE
Got Doubts? Stop Doing This!
Atheism, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Erik Manning
From working in public apologetics ministry for a few years now, one common mistake I see from Christians struggling with their faith is that they try and prematurely flex their apologetic muscles by spending tons of time listening to atheist YouTubers, podcasts or reading blogs but they don’t get the bulk of the Christian evidences strong under their belt first. When they come across a few things that stump them, they get troubled, anxious, or even set aside their faith altogether. This is falling prey to what the great English logician Richard Whately called “the fallacy of objections.”
Whately defined the fallacy of objections[i] as “showing that there are objections against some plan, theory, or system, and thence inferring that it should be rejected; when that which ought to have been proved is, that there are more, or stronger objections, against the receiving than the rejecting of it.”
I understand that you want to mitigate against your biases by listening to the other side. However, until you yourself can articulate a robust, positive case for Christianity, I don’t recommend that you do that. At all.
If the Bible is correct by describing faith as a “precious” thing (2 Peter 1:1[ii]) and you’re throwing your weak faith into the fires of criticism without understanding the shape of the argumentative landscape first, you’re not being “wise” by trying to minimize your biases, you’re being careless. And no, I’m not saying you should Pascal’s Wager yourself into faith or “lower the epistemic bar”, either. But I will say that you are not performing your duty of inquiry properly and you’re going to end up being another statistic, or worse, if you’re not cautious.
Regarding the Fallacy of Objections, Whately went on to write:
Whately is spot on. The reason why I can read Bart Ehrman books, listen to secular historical Jesus classes online, or watch YouTube counter-apologists and be untroubled isn’t simply because I’m just so biased towards Christianity but because I have, for the most part, firmly in place the bulk of the evidence on the subject. Furthermore, I’m aware that everything doesn’t depend on whether I can answer this or that objection when I happen to stumble on something novel.
For example, over and over again, I have seen arguments against the Gospels be based on an over-reading, an argument from silence, or ignoring the possibility of real, independent access to events etc. I also know that even if I don’t know why Jesus said X or Leviticus says Y, or how to resolve that apparent contradiction, it doesn’t mean that my entire edifice is collapsing. The evidence for Christianity is a lot tougher than that, as Whately indicates. The same kind of thing holds true for many well-established scientific theories. We don’t toss out a good theory based on some counter evidence we don’t quite understand yet.
If you are easily shaken and troubled by pop counter-apologists online (and I don’t care if they have a PhD and have published dozens of books), here’s my advice: Stop listening to them. At least for a season. Learn the positive case for Christianity first. And here I’m not talking about a handful of philosophical arguments for the existence of God and some minimal facts argument for the resurrection.
At this point, I’m sure the skeptics would say that I’m just circling the wagons and saying “indoctrinate” yourself first. But that’s just not true. What I’m saying is this: Don’t act like “if Christianity is true, it can take the heat.” Christianity can take the heat, but an unprepared mind can’t. And investigation of the evidence for Christianity does not mean digging into everything anyone has ever said about or against it and having to give an answer. Skeptics can confidently assert a ton of (ultimately unpersuasive) objections as though they were real problems. But think about your approach to other issues. According to some theories, Jesus was invented by the Romans to pacify the people into being OK with slavery. How thoroughly do you investigate the “hoax” side of that argument? Wouldn’t an good informed atheist who believes in the historicity of Jesus recommend someone uninformed and confused about this issue read a good book or two on the existence of Jesus first before they get too muddled? Of course they would.
Again, once you have the bulk of the Christian evidences in place and you understand what the general argumentative landscape looks like, you don’t need to waste your precious time looking into everything that every dude with an internet connection and some video editing software has said against it. And when you stumble across them, you should be able to see the predictable patterns their arguments fall into.
In this context the words of George Horne, another 18th apologist, has some sage advice:
As Horne implies, Christians have answered the same tired objections over and over, yet that won’t stop an “exvangelical” with a TikTok or YouTube account from saying it triumphantly as if no one has ever responded to it before. Furthermore, answering objections often takes a lot longer than a short statement of them, even if the objections themselves are based upon “pertness and ignorance.”
And finally, for goodness’ sakes, stop looking at all apologists as defense attorneys or God’s public relations firm doing “damage control.” This is what many counter-apologists have claimed, but it just poisons the well. Maybe consider that at least some apologists are defending their faith after scrutinizing it for years; they are not just trying to defend their predetermined conclusion and soothe their cognitive biases. Don’t fall for this bulveristic, pseudo-psychoanalytical trash. According to the website Logically Fallacious[iv], bulverism is “the assumption and assertion that an argument is flawed or false because of the arguer’s suspected motives, social identity, or other characteristic associated with the arguer’s identity.”
The more apt parallel for a good apologist is to an investigative journalist, reporting for popular consumption the results of a fair and balanced inquiry. These same skeptics often also seem to think that honesty in investigation requires that we start off in disbelief. In response to that, here’s one last awesome quote from another one of those amazing 18th-century apologists, John Leland:
Leland hits the nail on the head. If you listen to many of the counter apologists, it’s as if they’re saying that the Christian is obligated, in the name of fairness and honest examination, to set aside their faith while looking into it and that the questioner should spend most of their time listening to their negative case. (And often they themselves cannot give you a steelman argument for Christianity upon request.) But honest inquiry and the acquisition of knowledge can continue while still following Jesus. Setting aside your faith while you are investigating it would be a crazy thing to do if Christianity is true. Consider that you might have a lot more evidence for Christianity than you may realize that you’re just not recognizing.
Finally, If you don’t know what the evidence looks like, ask me or others and I can recommend some resources. Avail yourself of talkaboutdoubts.com [v]and talk to some scholars and experts 1-on-1. Find a community of apologists more experienced than yourself.
Then you can consider diving into the counter apologists’ material, one resource at a time, one objection at a time, rather than overwhelming yourself. Otherwise, consider that you’re probably being like an overconfident fool who, after learning a few fighting moves, tries to jump in the ring with more experienced fighters. You’re going to look foolish and get hurt.
Now again, lest I be misunderstood, I am speaking to less experienced Christians. For the more seasoned believer, I think that we should let the critics speak. Often they are in a good place to discover flaws in our own reasoning, which may be invisible to us. We ignore them at our peril. I believe in that and practice that.
We should be able to identify who the best critics against our view are and regularly seek out what they have to say. It is wise to step outside your echo chamber and recognize that smart people can argue in good faith and yet disagree with you. But I wouldn’t throw a novice a Bart Ehrman or a Sam Harris book and say “sink or swim, dude.” If one is going to read atheist apologists, one should read them with guidance from people who really do know how to answer them. But our highest priority should be showing the untrained believer how much good evidence there is for Christianity.
Footnotes
[i] https://historicalapologetics.org/richard-whately-the-fallacy-of-objections/
[ii] https://biblia.com/bible/nkjv/2%20Pet%201.1
[iii] http://books.google.com/books?id=eLgIAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA144
[iv] https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Bulverism
[v] http://talkaboutdoubts.com/?fbclid=IwAR278dE8CFdCYKbsT-bLD3fsnOPHW6jTq0wyIaqDLqbvQ2Ewh658SaJxHYY
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Counter Culture Christian: Is There Truth in Religion? (DVD) by Frank Turek
When Reason Isn’t the Reason for Unbelief by Dr. Frank Turek DVD and Mp4
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Erik Manning is a Reasonable Faith Chapter Director located in Cedar Rapids, Iowa. He’s a former freelance baseball writer and the co-owner of a vintage and handmade decor business with his wife, Dawn. He is passionate about the intersection of apologetics and evangelism.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3smfZMp
Live Your Truth and Other Lies | with Alisa Childers
PodcastWe’ve all seen the memes that populate the internet: “live your truth”, “follow your heart”, and “authenticity is everything”. Sounds great, right?! Many come from mainstream authors and influencers with millions of followers. But what if these slogans are really just deceptions that unhinge us from reality and lead to our spiritual decline?
In this episode, the one and only Alisa Childers joins Frank to discuss her brand new book, Live Your Truth and Other Lies: Exposing Popular Deceptions That Make Us Anxious, Exhausted, and Self-Obsessed. In it, Alisa delivers an apologetic response to mainstream Progressive Christianity and the self-help industry, explaining that being the captain of our own destiny is a huge burden that we were never meant to bear because real freedom can only be found by choosing to live GOD’S TRUTH, not our own! You’ll also hear about Alisa’s life-changing experience visiting a women’s prison in Ecuador and a special offer just for our listeners if you order the book!
To view the entire VIDEO PODCAST, be sure to join our CrossExamined private community. It’s the perfect place to jump into some great discussions with like-minded Christians without fear of being canceled by your friends, family, co-workers, or boss!
Alisa’s book: https://a.co/d/3Ll1qoz
If you would like to submit a question to be answered on the show, please email your question to Hello@Crossexamined.org.
Subscribe on Apple Podcast: http://bit.ly/CrossExamined_Podcast Rate and review! Thanks!!!
Subscribe on Google Play: https://cutt.ly/0E2eua9
Subscribe on Spotify: http://bit.ly/CrossExaminedOfficial_Podcast
Subscribe on Stitcher: http://bit.ly/CE_Podcast_Stitcher
La redefinición del amor como resultado de la pérdida de la verdad
EspañolPor Rich Hoyer
La mayoría de la gente está de acuerdo en que debemos amarnos unos a otros. Pero ¿Qué significa amar a los demás?
Amar no puede ser lo que nuestra cultura dice que es. Tampoco puede estar desconectado de un estándar moral y trascendental (por ejemplo, la Palabra de Dios y las Leyes naturales) dejando que nuestros sentimientos lo definan subjetivamente, darle la forma que las tendencias sociales actuales le den. El ciudadano promedio en los Estados Unidos de América es un Secularista Popular[i] y ha aceptado la definición de amor dada por el Secularismo Popular. Cuando se habla de amor hoy en día, se hace referencia a “amar a otros” y decir esto parece tener el siguiente significado. “Deseo que obtengas aquello que anhelas; y que supones que te hará feliz.” En estos tiempos el amor es entendido desde los principales valores del Secularismo Popular que son la comodidad y la felicidad y se han desechado los valores tradicionales de la bondad y la verdad. Asi, en nuestra cultura actual, ser incapaz de amar o ser cruel está relacionado con interponerse entre las personas y su elección de un estilo de vida el cual consideran que les brindará felicidad y satisfacción, basta con decirles que lo que anhelan es “equivocado” desde cierta perspectiva e invitarles a que por voluntad propia se abstengan de ciertos anhelos y deseos. Hoy en día a eso se refiere nuestra cultura Secularista Popular con ser “incapaz de amar.”
Cuando el concepto de verdad moral comprensible (una norma para diferenciar lo bueno de lo malo y el bien del mal cuyo origen se encuentra fuera del ser humano y de la opinión social) es rechazado por una cultura, nos quedamos sin una norma confiable para medir nuestros anhelos y deseos. Se vuelve imposible decir, “Mi deseo hacia esa persona es incorrecto,” o “Mi anhelo de hacer esto es dañino para mí y para la sociedad. “Lo único que queda es que la gente y la sociedad expresen su opinión. Sin embargo, muchos de los integrantes de nuestra sociedad actúan sin considerar que su definición de amor es una opinión más. Algunos se esfuerzan por imponer sus opiniones sobre quienes están en desacuerdo con la perspectiva socialmente aceptada a pesar de que carecen de fundamentos filosóficos sólidos para sostener sus afirmaciones. La sociedad aún delibera sobre varios conceptos como el amor, pero se ha perdido la definición tradicional del amor que firmemente se vincula con la Verdad.
Todo esto deja al amor en la misma situación de un bote que carece de amarras y va de aquí para allá de acuerdo con el viento y las olas de las pasajeras modas sociales.
No obstante el amor y la Verdad van de la mano. Sin la Verdad, cualquier cosa que se afirme del amor es falso —muy parecido a lo que sucede cuando una persona confunde enamoramiento con amor. Amar a otro implica el deseo de todo tipo de bien en la vida del otro. Siendo más específico, amar a alguien es esforzarse por traer el bien a la vida del otro. Sin embargo para medir “el bien” es indispensable una norma que provenga de una fuente que no sea la opinión de la sociedad con esta norma podremos examinar cada opción que se presente. Afortunadamente, tenemos una verdadera vara de medir el bien en la forma de la revelación de Dios que se nos da a través de la Biblia y de la Ley natural.
Los cristianos deben saber qué es el amor y cómo se manifiesta. No debemos dejarnos engañar y aceptar la definición cultural del amor que se basa en los sentimientos y no en la verdad. De hecho, podemos aprender mucho acerca del amor simplemente observando los aspectos que están en juego en la conversación cuando Jesús respondió a la pregunta de un fariseo en Mateo 22:36 (LBLA), “Maestro, ¿cuál es el gran mandamiento de la ley?” La respuesta de Jesús la encontramos en los versos 37-40:
Jesús dijo que amar a Dios y amar a los demás como a ti mismo es el mayor de los mandamientos, la mayor responsabilidad del ser humano.Es en este punto donde el secularista popular podría estar de acuerdo en decir: “¡Sí, el AMOR es el mayor valor! Observa, que aún Jesús dijo eso. Ustedes los cristianos deberían mostrar más amor a la gente. Deberían aprobar lo que otros hacen y no criticar su estilo de vida ni sus creencias solo porque son diferentes a las suyas.” Tristemente, cada vez vemos a más y más cristianos aceptar estilos de vidas inmorales bajo el nombre de ser inclusivos, accesibles y de mostrar más amor ¡incluso en el espíritu del Amor del propio Cristo! i
Sin embargo aquellos que adoptan esta postura han fracasado en considerar el contexto y LAS RAZONES IMPLÍCITAS tanto en la pregunta del fariseo como en la respuesta de Jesús. Ambos están de acuerdo en que la verdad moral PUEDE CONOCERSE… Ambos basan su definición de amor, no en la subjetividad de los sentimientos, sino en la clara revelación de la Verdad moral que proviene de Dios mismos. Después de todo, la pregunta era, “¿Cuál es el mayor mandamiento de la Ley?” Así que debemos hacer la siguiente pregunta, “¿De qué Ley se refieren ambos?” La respuesta, es clara, ¡es la Ley que fue dada por Dios al pueblo de Israel! ¿Y de dónde vino esa Ley? ¡De Dios! En otras palabras, si tú deseas amar a Dios y amar a los demás, debes cumplir con las cosas que Dios mandó en la Ley que le entregó a Israel.[ii]Tal como dijo Jesús en el versículo 40, “Toda la ley de Dios está hecha para ayudarte a amar a Dios y a amar a los demás” (el parafraseo es mío). Esto no es otro concepto subjetivo del amor, sino que está basado en clara capacidad de acceder y conocer la revelación de Dios hacia hombre. En pocas palabras amar a Dios y amar a los demás implica obedecer la Ley de Dios.
Esta misma revelación hacia el hombre es la que se niega en la cosmovisión de los Secularistas Populares. De acuerdo con el Secularismo Popular, puede que Dios exista o puede que no, pero estamos completamente seguros que no podemos decir “quién” es Dios, y mucho menos qué es lo que Dios quiere. Por lo tanto, el concepto del amor está a la deriva para ser definido por cualquier ola y viento de doctrina que la sociedad esté promoviendo en ese momento. Este amor se parece a un bote que por no estar amarrado anda de aquí para allá sin un rumbo fijo.
No nos sorprende que los no cristianos, como los Secularistas Populares adopten este punto de vista, lo que nos debería sorprender es cuando los que profesan la fe cristiana acepten este mismo punto de vista. Y se debe en parte a que muchos cristianos no conocen las Escrituras porque no leen la Biblia, por ello son fácilmente arrastrados por los “vientos y olas” de falsas doctrina que nace de la cosmovisión de los Secularistas Populares. Algunos se dicen cristianos, yo me atrevería a decir que son, desde el fondo de su corazón Secularistas Populares aunque afirmen creer en Jesús. Sus acciones y actitudes, al igual que las de los demás, nacen de sus convicciones más profundas, que se alinean más con la cultura en general que con el cristianismo. Pero como cristianos, si en verdad lo somos, debemos aceptar las enseñanzas de la Biblia, las palabras del propio Jesucristo, en vez de adoptar las convicciones de la cultura en la que vivimos. Debemos medir cada cosa que vemos y oímos con la norma que Dios nos ha revelado. Si no hacemos esto, no seremos transformados a la imagen de Cristo y nos conformaremos a todo tipo de falsas nociones —incluyendo distorsiones de conceptos fundamentales, como el amor.
Notas:
[i] El Secularismo Popular es la cosmovisión dominante en el Occidente de hoy en día. El Secularismo Popular sostiene las siguientes suposiciones sobre la realidad:
En la mente de aquellos, solo las personas realmente malas van al infierno, si tal lugar existe.
[ii] Hoy en día, no hay que instituir inmediatamente todas las leyes del Antiguo Testamento a la ligera. Debemos reconocer que existe una revelación progresiva de Dios. El Código Moral lo volvemos a encontrar en el Nuevo Testamento y aún es válido, mientras que las leyes Ceremoniales y Civiles están obsoletas porque han sido cumplidas por Cristo.
Recursos recomendados en Español:
Robándole a Dios (tapa blanda), (Guía de estudio para el profesor) y (Guía de estudio del estudiante) por el Dr. Frank Turek
Por qué no tengo suficiente fe para ser un ateo (serie de DVD completa), (Manual de trabajo del profesor) y (Manual del estudiante) del Dr. Frank Turek
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Rich Hoyer es el Ministro Principal de la Iglesia Cristiana Lyndon en Louisville, Kentucky. También es presidente del consejo administrativo de la Reveal Conference, la cual se esfuerza por educar a la gente del área de Louisville en las evidencias y verdades del cristianismo. Rich obtuvo su título de maestría en religión de la Universidad Cristiana de Cincinnati. La apologética cristiana es la pasión más grande de Rich.
Fuente Original del blog: https://bit.ly/3EYaMC1
Traducido por Jennifer Chavez
Editado por Monica Pirateque
Why Most People Would Rather Be Right Than Find the Truth
1. Does Truth Exist?, Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Mike Taylor
Can we be honest with each other for a minute and admit that being right feels good?
It makes you feel powerful. When you’re right, it implies that someone else is wrong, which feels like you have a higher social standing than the other person. There’s a moment of elevation that happens in our minds when we feel like we’re right.
Most of the time, the facts don’t matter. We’ll throw out research and data for the sake of feeling right. It doesn’t even necessarily matter if we’re right or not just as long as we feel right.
But why is that?
The Science Behind Why Being Right Feels So Good
When you feel as though you’re right or that you’ve won an argument[i], your brain is flooded with adrenaline and dopamine[ii]. This chemical cocktail causes you to feel like you’re on top of the world. We feel in control, dominant, and powerful. That feeling becomes something we can easily become dependent on for self worth. Before we know it, we’re addicted to being right.
This is why some people poke and prod just to get a reaction out of someone. This is why people jump into an argument on social media to bicker over a point that is essentially meaningless. It’s because they’re addicted to the feeling of being right. And in a world where there are hundreds of micro moments where we can feel right on social media, we find ourselves in a digital buffet of vices that feed our addiction.
This is why the feeling of certainty can also become an addiction. Whenever we feel like what we’re doing is not 100% right or 100% certain, then we start missing our adrenaline and dopamine hits because we’re not feeling like we’re “right”. That’s when we’re likely to switch gears or change directions to find that ever-elusive high.
One study[iii] found that “a rush of dopamine accompanies fresh experiences of any kind.” Dopamine is a neurotransmitter that helps us feel pleasure, and anytime we find something new or feel like we’ve won an argument, that dopamine makes us feel important and victorious.
So we switch from one fleeting moment of feeling right, certain, and confident for the next exciting moment rather than doing the hard work of digging in, pushing through conflict, and dealing with the friction of uncertainty. And we wonder why we don’t see progress in our personal and professional lives – but it’s because we’ve become addicted to chasing “right” rather than the pursuit of what’s true.
How to Overcome the Addiction to Being Right
The first step to overcome the desire to be right is to understand what’s happening in your brain. Whenever you get into an argument with someone, your body is automatically sending signals to release cortisol, which is your stress hormone. Cortisol causes your thinking, reasoning, and compassionate side of your brain to go off-line.
When this happens, you go into what you’ve probably heard referred to as “fight or flight“ mode. Your body is in “lizard brain” and its only goal is to survive. It’s in that moment that we begin the hunt for dopamine through some sort of victory. That’s why most people’s reaction to conflict is to fight.
But if you can understand and harness how your body responds to conflict, then you can start to put measures into place that keep you from doing something that damages a relationship.
For example, one of the most effective things you can do when you’re in an emotionally charged situation is to take yourself out of that situation momentarily. You have to do what could be referred to as “emotionally sobering up”.
Whenever you’re in conflict, your brain naturally becomes emotionally drunk, and it can literally feel intoxicating to attempt to shut down the other person’s argument. But now that you know what’s happening, you can take a step away, take a breath, and give yourself the space you need to make a reasonable and compassionate choice rather than fighting for a dopamine hit.
An effective way to bring your thinking brain back online is to bring yourself to the present moment. Box breathing techniques[iv] are particularly helpful to bring your mind to the present moment. You can also take notice of the objects around you or start counting your fingers and toes. The goal of this is to engage the part of your brain that thinks rationally and compassionately so your survival-mode lizard brain can take a break.
Another effective way to bring yourself out of your emotions is to simply read something that isn’t emotionally charged. Take 15 minutes and read a boring article about something you’re mildly interested in. Read part of a chapter in that book you’ve been neglecting. Count to 100 backwards while you brush your teeth. Whatever it takes, do not ruminate on the situation, and don’t formulate potential responses.
Ruminating and dwelling on conflict only feeds your brain‘s desire to be right. Then, whenever you see the person you’ve been in conflict with, all of those built-up scenarios and emotions will overflow on them (and not in the way you pictured it in your mind when you were ruminating) and you’ll be right back in the same unhealthy conflict.
Once you’ve given yourself some space and brought your thinking brain back online, start thinking empathetically. In other words, put yourself in the other person’s shoes without defaulting to putting your desires over theirs.
Think about why they’re so adamant about their position. Chances are, they have a good reason. What were their expectations that were not met? What were your expectations that weren’t met? These unmet expectations are at the heart of all of our conflict, so getting down to that will do wonders for driving healthy conversations going forward.
Next time you feel the need to be right, remember it’s probably your brain craving the comfort of another hit of dopamine. Instead of giving into the craving, give yourself room to sober up emotionally, bring yourself back to the present moment so you’re thinking rationally again, then let empathy drive your thinking going forward.
If you do these things, you’ll find that conflict actually becomes productive, the truth becomes more apparent, and everyone will be better off for it – including you.
Footnotes
[i] https://www.mikeptaylor.com/personal-growth/how-to-win-an-argument/
[ii] https://hbr.org/2013/02/break-your-addiction-to-being
[iii] https://brainworldmagazine.com/the-importance-of-novelty/
[iv] https://www.webmd.com/balance/what-is-box-breathing
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
What is God Like? Look to the Heavens by Dr. Frank Turek (DVD and Mp4)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Mike P. Taylor is an author from Nashville, TN who writes at mikeptaylor.com about biblical, practical, and relevant content that re-shape how modern culture understands the goodness of God.
Tweets Against Christianity
Theology and Christian ApologeticsBy Tim Stratton
Scott Clifton is a Hollywood actor who has gained fame as a soap opera star (One Life to Live, General Hospital, and The Bold and the Beautiful). He has also gained the respect of both sides of the aisle in the “God vs. atheism” debate.
Clifton is an ardent, but philosophically inclined atheist who goes by the moniker “Theoretical BS” (TBS). He recently tweeted out an argument against Christianity that left the Church scrambling. Indeed, many Christians did not know how to respond to Clifton’s logically deductive argument. Moreover, and sadly, many Christians who did respond to his tweet, provided reason to place one’s face in one’s palm.
Consider TBS’s tweet raised against the knowledge of God:
I must admit, Clifton provided a good argument for all to consider. It is based upon premises that many Christians affirm. Indeed, Theoretical BS was on his A-game to craft this argument, which, at the least, exposes the inconsistency of many churchgoers.
This led my friend Benjamin Watkins, who is also an avid atheist on Twitter, to Tweet the following:
To be clear, we are “born sick” and offered the cure. Each person is free to take the “red medicine” Christ offers, or to reject his love and grace. With that said, I was disheartened to see the lack of good responses from my fellow Christians on Twitter. I saw Calvinists suggesting that the first premise is false, and that “ought does NOT imply can.”
That’s a horrible move!
Discussing Premise (1)
Think about it: if someone says, “You really ought to fly like Superman and save the woman trapped on the 50th floor of a burning skyscraper.” You would look at him as if he were an idiot. Since you cannot fly like Superman, it makes no sense to say “you ought to fly like superman.” Now, if someone tells the trained lifeguard, “You ought to save the child struggling to keep her head above water in the 3-foot,” we know exactly why that makes sense — because the lifeguard has been trained and *CAN* help the child before she drowns.
Moreover, if you were in a boat and your wife said, “You really ought to walk on water,” you would not take her seriously because you can’t walk on water. However, if Jesus commanded you to get out of the boat and walk on water with Him, the reason why it would make sense for you to get out of the boat and run toward Him is because He would use His divine power to make it possible for you to walk on water. Thus, if Jesus says that you *ought* to walk on water, then it follows that you *can* walk on water.
Yes, the first premise of Clifton’s argument is intuitively obvious and true: “ought implies can.” To deny this premise makes Christians look foolish.
Discussing Premise (2)
Some Christians were trying to reject the second premise: “If Christianity is true, we ought to live without sin.”
Oh my! Whatever you do, do not reject premise (2). Think of all the commands to live a holy life and to avoid sin. Here is a small sampling:
This list could go on and on, but TBS’s second premise is supported via ample biblical data. Christians ought to avoid sin.
Discussing Premise (3)
Some might try to reject Premise (3) which reads: “From (1) and (2), if Christianity is true, we can live without sin.”
I agree with TBS. That is to say, regenerated Christ-followers can live without sin. Indeed, with the first two premises supported, it makes no sense to deny (3). We can avoid sin. That is to say, through God’s love, grace, and regenerating power, all Christians can live a holy life.
Discussing Premise (4)
This leaves only one premise remaining before we reach the dreaded death-blow of a deductive conclusion, “Therefore, Christianity is not true.” The fourth premise reads as follows:
“We cannot live without sin.”
I was shocked to see so many Christians in the Twitter-verse accept this premise. Indeed, many Calvinists (who affirm exhaustive divine determinism) advance this premise because if God determines all things, then when God determines a Calvinist to cheat on his wife (for example), it is impossible for the Calvinist to do otherwise. I was screaming at my iPhone as I was scrolling through the comments. Indeed, here’s a counter-factual:
Because of the lack of proper responses, IF I had hair, I WOULD have pulled it out!
I could not take it any longer. So, finally, I tweeted my own reply:
Only three “likes”? What’s up with that?
Anyway, because the Apostle Paul rejects the fourth premise, so do I. Indeed, based upon Paul’s words in his first letter to the Corinthians, it is possible for a Christian to avoid any sin. Consider this important passage of Scripture:
Consider this awesome promise: every time you are tempted to sin, God provides a “way of escape” so that you do not have to sin. Thus, when you sin, do not say that “the devil made me do it,” and whatever you do, do not say that “God determined me to commit this sin.” No! That response is downright blasphemous. Instead, take responsibility for your actions. You chose to fall into temptation, but you did not have to. You could have done otherwise and taken the way of escape God provided.
This also means that you possess libertarian freedom.
Now, some might respond and say that no one has ever gone the rest of his life free from sin. Really? Is that true? What about the guy who only had five minutes left to live and he spent every remaining second of those five minutes praying and praising God? It seems that this person avoided sin for the “rest of his life.”
So, if it is possible for a Christian to resist temptation for five minutes, is it possible for ten minutes? If not, why not? Is it possible for 24 hours? If not, why not? Is it possible for for a week, a month, a year, or fifty years? If not, why not?
It seems that if one grants that a regenerate Christ follower does possess the power to “take the way of escape” for the last five minutes of his life, then asserting that it would be impossible to refrain from sin for any longer period of time is just plain arbitrary and ad hoc. Indeed, if Paul is right, and in every circumstance when we are tempted to sin God also provides a way of escape so that we do not have to sin, then it is possible (it is not impossible) that a Christian who has been transformed by God’s amazing grace can live the rest of his life always choosing the way of escape God provides (again, by His grace).
Discussing the Conclusion
In conclusion, TBS’s conclusion does not follow. This is the case because the fourth premise is false. Therefore, not only does the conclusion not follow, the cumulative case of arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity suggest the exact opposite of what his failed argument concludes:
Therefore, Christianity is probably true!
Thus, it makes great sense to choose to put your faith in Christ alone.
Stay reasonable (Isaiah 1:18),
Dr. Tim Stratton
Recommended resources related to the topic:
Stealing From God by Dr. Frank Turek (Book, 10-Part DVD Set, STUDENT Study Guide, TEACHER Study Guide)
I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Paperback), and (Sermon) by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
How Can Jesus be the Only Way? Mp4, Mp3, and DVD by Frank Turek
Jesus, You and the Essentials of Christianity by Frank Turek (INSTRUCTOR Study Guide), (STUDENT Study Guide), and (DVD)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Timothy A. Stratton (PhD, North-West University) is a professor at Trinity College of the Bible and Theological Seminary. As a former youth pastor, he is now devoted to answering deep theological and philosophical questions he first encountered from inquisitive teens in his church youth group. Stratton is founder and president of FreeThinking Ministries, a web-based apologetics ministry. Stratton speaks on church and college campuses around the country and offers regular videos on FreeThinking Ministries’ YouTube channel.
Original Blog Source: https://bit.ly/3gi0ann