A Letter to the Editor

This week I wrote a letter to the editor of the USA Today opinion section in response to an article by Dr. Jerry A. Coyne of the University of Chicago.  I do not know if it will be published, but I had a great time writing it.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Dr. Jerry A. Coyne

I found Dr. Coyne’s article, As Atheists Know, You Can Be Good Without God, to be a fascinating and engaging read.  His story about instinctively helping the Federal Express delivery man was instructive as well as heartwarming.  The article was articulate and I found much of it impressive.

However, I do not think Dr. Coyne has adequately critiqued the theist’s view of morality.  While much of what he writes is emotive and seems to be true at first glance, he has either chosen to ignore, or has not fully understood the theist’s true position.  Either way, the position he has so thoroughly knocked down has turned out to be a straw-man, while the true nature of the theist’s argument is alive and well.

A Misunderstanding of the Theist’s View

Coyne begins by explaining that many theists point to instinctual morality as evidence for God’s existence.  He then argues the theist says evolution could not give instinctual morality, “for if we were merely evolved beasts, we would act like beasts.”  He explains how many theists believe immorality is “laid at the door of Charles Darwin.”

While Coyne is right in his assertion that theists believe morality comes from God, I think he has attacked a straw man in saying theists believe immorality is the fault of Darwin, and that beasts would act like beasts.  Some theists may believe that people would behave as beasts without God, and that may be true, but Coyne has taken on a very weak position here.

Thinking theists do not argue that atheists, like Charles Darwin, are immoral, but instead that if they are right that there is no God, that everyone, atheist and theist alike, is ammoral.  See, our view is that there is no such thing as morality if there is no transcendent grounding for these things we call morals.  It is not that all atheists are bad, or that we would behave immorally if we evolved from beasts, but instead that none of us would have a standard to argue about what is right and wrong and wouldn’t know the difference between behaving “red in tooth and claw” and not, because there would not be any standard to differentiate between the behaviors without God.  

A False Dichotomy

Dr. Coyne uses a familiar example in his attempt to show God is not necessary for the existence of morality.  Plato’s Euthyphro Dilemma, as it is often called, tries to show a problem in God’s commanding of morality.  One side of the dilemma is that if God arbitrarily picks how we should behave, then he can change this anytime, meaning the good behavior was never truly good to begin with. On the other hand, if the morals we should follow are truly good and even God himself is subject to them, then they are to be followed, not God.  According to Coyne, this dilemma shows that God cannot be the ground of morality.  At first glance, his idea seems to be hard for the theist to overcome.

However,  Plato’s dilemma is a false dichotomy.  There are more than just the two options Plato has given us.  A third option is that God has given these moral commands, not arbitrarily, and not because he is subject to them, but instead because morality is completely wrapped up in his character and personality.  In other words, morality is the way it is, because God is essentially the way he is.  Morals cannot change because they are an essential part of his nature, nor are these morals more important or essential than he, because they are wrapped up in his existence.

Dr. Coyne also accuses the Christian and Jewish God of sanctioning, even ordering, “immoral acts in the Old Testament.”  He furnishes numerous examples of God’s immorality.  Lack of space and time prevent a thorough defense of all of these examples, but it is not true that “Christians and Jews pass over” these passages with “judicious silence.”  There have been numerous Christians who have endevoured to answer these types of objections.  Not the least of which is the recent work by Paul Copan in Is God a MoralMonster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God.  I refer Dr. Coyne to this work for many of these answers.

In response to Dr. Coyne’s idea that “religiously based ethics have changed profoundly over time,” I fail to see this as evidence for his point.  The followers of God can be wrong about ethics just as much as anyone else, thus when someone misinterprets the Bible to defend immorality, it is not the ethics that have changed, but instead our understanding.  Thus, when God’s people truly follow God’s moral system, many of them fought to see justice (i.e. William Wilberforce and others in regards to slavery).  Coyne then makes the assertion that “secular improvements” forced religion to “clean up its act.”  What were these improvements?  It is easy to assert this, but he does not provide any evidence of such occurances.

A Rocky Conclusion

In conclusion, Coyne explains that evolution and secular reasoning aresupposedly enough to account for the morals we exhibit and follow.  He explains our “big-brained” animals have reasons to behave nicely towards other like minded, bodied, and specied individuals.  He explains that we need to throw out trivial ideas about what we “eat, read or wear,… or whom we  have sex with” for more important “matters of genuine moral concern, like rape and child abuse.”  After all, “isn’t it better to be moral because you’ve worked it out for yourself—in conjunction with your group—the right thing to do?”

Unfortunately, Coyne has fallen into a very common problem here.  He has confused epistemology and ontology/metaphysics.  He has explained very well that we can know what needs to be done, and that there are certain things that are really wrong (rape and child abuse), but he has not given a satisfactory reason for why this is the case.

I agree, rape and child abuse are wrong.  However, Coyne has said we get it by evolutionary genetics, and maybe by figuring it out in conjunction with our group.  While these explainations might be adequate in explaining how we know what is right and wrong, they are woefully inadequate in explaining why these actions are actually right and wrong. In other words, while he has shown reasons we might recognize rape and child abuse as wrong, he has not given us a reason that this recognition is the truth. 

The examples of evolution and secular reasoning are not capable of grounding true morality.  For example, if my group comes to the conclusion through secular reasoning that rape is wrong, but another group decides it is not only ok, but a preferred action to propagate their lineage, how can I argue against their idea?  I might just be able to say “my group does not prefer rape,” but can I actually argue that it is wrong according to evolution or group consensus?

On the other hand, if rape is wrong because it contrary to the way God created the world, in accordance with his nature, then we have a universal grounding as the source for the knowledge that rape is actually wrong.  The idea that we can figure this out apart from some such source is wrong.

Because God is needed as the ultimate ground for morality, if he does not exist it is not clear that anyone, atheist or theist, can be good without God. 

A Great Opportunity-- What is Truth?

As I wrote earlier, I was given the opportunity to write three short blurbs for the Smart Faith Apologetics conference.  I had an amazing time writing these, and have said I would post them here.  The last question asked "What is Truth?"  My response is below:

What is Truth?

Truth is when a statement corresponds with reality.  Or, in other words, truth is the way things really are.  Finding out the truth is one of the most important things anyone can ever do.  No one wants to live in a lie.  If you were really (I mean REALLY) dumb, would you want everyone to pretend you were the smartest person in the world?  Even if this wasn’t true?  Wouldn’t it be hurtful that they didn’t want to help you become smarter, but they instead lied to you about life? When we know the truth, we can determine the best way to live.

But doesn’t everyone have different truths?  What if I think one thing is true and you think another thing is true?  Can’t we just believe what we want?

Actually there are two different kinds of truth.  There is subjective truth and objective truth.  Subjective truth is truth inside of me.  It is about preferences.  I prefer chocolate, you prefer strawberry ice cream.

Objective truth is truth outside of ourselves.  It is about the way the world is.  It isn’t about preference, it doesn’t change no matter what anybody thinks about it.  The earth is round even if I pretend or don’t believe it isn’t.

Claims of religions are claims about objective reality.  These claims may be true or false, but they are claims about the real world.  For example, Christianity claims Jesus Christ is God.  Well, he may or may not be God, but this fact doesn’t change based on my like or dislike of him.  Or, Mormonism claims there are many gods, and this does not change based on my preferences either.

Since religions make objective claims about the world, evaluating the evidence for and against each religion becomes very important.  If there is a God who loves you and me and he asks us to live in a certain way, there may not be a more important journey for anyone’s life.  To understand and know the truth is the most important thing in the world.

When Things Take the Place of People, Or How to Suppress the Truth In Unrighteousness pt. 2

A little while ago, I commented on an article by Al Mohler about the gender-neutral leanings of many universities in the United States today.  I suggested this was a clear case of exchanging the truth of God for a lie as we are told happens in Romans 1:18-32.  When people stop recognizing God's created order, even though it is plain to see we can tell they are suppressing the truth in their unrighteousness.

Well, add another example to the list!  Today, Robin Phillips of Signs of the Times, has found another way our society has decided to believe a lie.

The debate about global warming has been pretty heated for quite a while now.  Often I have wondered if proponents of the climate change phenomenon care more about the environment than people.  Well, it seems as though we have confirmation of this.  At least one global warming/enviro friendly person does care about trees and Mother Nature more than he does about his fellow man.

It seems as though Bill Gates has decided we need to decrease the human population, in order to ensure the survival of the planet.  In fact, he is advocating the use of vaccines to help achieve this goal!

I want to be clear, I recycle (sometimes because my wife makes me), I do care about the world we live in.  It seems clear to me we are supposed to be stewards of our environment.  This world is not ours to destroy, it is God's and he has asked us to rule over it (Genesis 1:28).

However, it is also clear humans are the epitome of the created order.  God has given us creation to rule over, which logically means we are greater.  A lesser cannot rule a greater!  It has been said, that one human being is worth more than all the molecules in all the universe.  This being so, we cannot stand by and watch as people suggest we are worth less than what God has said.  He created us in His image, and we must stand for the truth.

Some Thoughts on the Brown - Ehrman Debate

Yesterday, at Ohio State University, Dr. Michael Brown debated Dr. Bart Ehrman on the premise Does the Bible Provide an Adequate Explanation to the Problem of Suffering.  Overall this was one of the best debates I have seen on this topic.  Both sides were passionate, and came armed with Biblical text to support their position.  Overall, I enjoyed this debate very much, and it is hard to declare either presenter the clear winner.

As I was watching this debate a couple things struck me about all debates on the problem of suffering or evil.

First, one should not use the problem of evil/suffering as a primary reason for or against the belief in a supreme deity.  There are multiple reasons why this is a poor justification for or against the existence of God.  There is a lot of evidence for the existence of God which come from other lines of inquiry, and just because we don't like the theistic answers to the problem of pain, does not negate any of these other lines of evidence.  Just because you might not like the answers to the problem of pain, does not negate the evidence for God from cosmology, philosophy, science, and experience.  In the same way, because you might want there to be a God who will bring justice, does not actually entail other evidence against his existence wrong.  Here is a hypothetical about how this might go:

Atheist: God does not have an adequate answer to the problem of evil.  So he doesn't exist!

Theist: God does exist, so he has an adequate answer to the problem of evil.

Atheist: But there can be no adequate answer for suffering, so there is no God.

Theist: Heaven is an adequate answer for suffering.

Atheist:  No, its not!

Theist: Yes it is!

Very quickly, this digresses into a subjective preference about whether the answers given are adequate or not.  The logical problem of evil has fallen out of favor for this exact reason.  There could be a logical reason why God could allow pain, but whether or not we accept it comes down to whether or not we believe there is a God and if he is good.  There are better lines of evidence for/against God, and we might want to ask about the problem of evil after we have decided about whether or not God actually exists.

The second observation I had from the debate was how often people mistake the ontological/metaphysical for the epistemological.   At one point Dr. Brown made a remark about the meaning of life if God did not exist.  The comment was made to point out, that if God does not exist, then there is no ultimate meaning to suffering or kindness or life in general.  To this point, Dr. Ehrman said Dr. Brown's assertion was "obscene" and offensive.  He commented that he, himself, had much meaning in his life even though he did not believe in God.  Ehrman's answer shows he was confused about Dr. Brown's point.

I am not sure theists have done a good job explaining ontological issues like these yet.  And when we try to use them, we often let the non-theist get away with changing from the ontological to the epistemological in their answer.

Let me explain what I mean.  The ontological is the way reality really is, while the epistemological is our knowledge of things.  When Brown argued there would be no meaning without God, he was making an ontological claim  He was saying ultimate meaning cannot exist if there is no God, because everything will end in the end, and we will cease to exist.  Anything we do in this life will be ultimately worthless, because we do not have a standard of worth to measure by, and in the end, everything will be destroyed.

Ehrman answered with an epistemological claim, specifically saying he knew his life had meaning.  But this does not answer Brown's assertion that there is no meaning without God.  Instead, this is actually an implicit admission as to Ehrman's intuitive knowledge of God, because he knows his actions have true value.

Theists need to learn how to explain this better.  We need to learn to include ourselves in the argument.  We are not saying atheists have no value because they don't believe in God.  We are saying, that neither the atheist, nor the theist, has any ultimate value if there is no transcendent grounds to give us worth.  An atheist or a theist who does work for the poor, ultimately does nothing, without a God in existence in reality, because it will all be for naught when it is all destroyed.  We are not saying your belief in atheism means you do not have worth, we are saying neither you nor I have any worth if we are all products of natural processes.  Mother Nature does not care about you or I, because Mother Nature is really mother nature!!!

But if there is a God, then both the theist and the atheist have value, because of the transcendent nature of the Creator.  Inventors create with a purpose, and the Creator is no different.  He has a purpose for both the atheist and the theist.

Overall, I the debate was enjoyable and thought provoking.  In the end, is there much more you can ask for in a debate?

If you are interested in listening to the debate, apologetics315.blogspot.com has already linked to an MP3 of the event.

It is reasonable to believe in God. Pt 5

I have been arguing for the viability of belief in God.  I have argued a cumulative approach to the issue is more beneficial than using any singular argument for the existence of God alone.  Instead, as a rope is stronger than the individual strands, the arguments, when used together are strong enough to hold up a large claim, such as God's existence.  My last post focused on the complexity of life and its suggestions for an Intelligent Designer. I now turn to the Moral Argument.

Objective Morality, It’s the Law!

Every law we encounter was underwritten by an intelligent lawgiver.  When we choose to break the speed limit, we are choosing to ignore the laws placed in effect by our legislation.  In the same way, if we break the moral law, we are choosing to ignore the law in effect by a moral legislature.

The existence of objective morality implies the existence of a creator.  If there are universal moral laws, they must have been given by a moral lawgiver.  The moral argument for the existence of God can be stated as:

Every law has a law giver

There is a Moral Law

Therefore, there is a Moral Law Giver

If the two premises of this argument are true than the conclusion necessarily is true as well.  However, can we show premise one and two are true?

The first premise is clear.  Every law needs a lawgiver.  You cannot have legislation without a legislature.  Obligations only come from being obliged to someone.  I am not obliged to things, only when persons are involved can obligation become real.

We recognize laws in everyday life.  Suppose you played a board game with some very quirky rules.  You ask a friend, “Who came up with these rules?”  To which your friend replied, “No one, they just happened.”  Would you accept that as an explanation?  No, you would know someone came up with the rules of the game.  In the same way, the rules we find in life have been legislated by an intelligence.

But, is there a moral law?  To answer premise two we need only search within ourselves to see what is true about morality.  Is it really wrong to murder, rape, or lie?  Clearly most people in most cultures at most times would agree murder is wrong. There are certain acts we instinctively recognize as wrong (torturing or murdering the innocent or committing rape).  Our natural reactions to actions such as rape, incest, murder, or torture indicate they are objectively wrong.  Obviously, some things are objectively, morally wrong.

However, we live in a culture trying to deny the existence of universal morals.  Often people will claim morality is subjective or relative.  However, if you disagree with them they will vehemently oppose your denial of their argument.  This is where they make their mistake.  When one denies an absolute, they have affirmed another absolute. A denial of the existence of objective morality assumes their opinion is correct.  They also assume this opinion has objective value.  Where does this value of their opinion come from?  Why should we listen to a moral relativist?  They are assuming their opinion has value, which only makes sense if a lawgiver has said human beings have value.  

Still, some will argue, that we do not have universal morals, because there are differences in morals around the world. I do not agree with this assessment.  Sure, it might seem as though some people think abortion (for example) is morally right, and some think it morally wrong, but this does not mean their morality is different.  Neither the pro-abortion, nor the pro-life advocate thinks murder is right.  Instead they disagree about whether or not there is a human being in the womb.  Both sides think it is wrong to murder human beings, but do not agree on what constitutes a human being.  If it can be shown the fetus is a human being, then we would have complete agreement.  Its not the morals of the situation we disagree about, its the nuances.

Since, there are universal objective moral laws, then there must a moral law giver.

Next: Quick Extras

"It's Fun"... And Other Bad Justifications

As a high school teacher I hear many justifications (excuses) for the reasons my students choose to do the things they do. Some of the time they give justification which is sound, but most of the time, it seems as though their reasoning is flawed.

I plan on blogging about the excuses... eh reasons... students give to me, and then show how these reasons cannot be a primary motivation for doing anything.  (By the way, the idea for this series comes from one of my favorite bloggers C. Michael Patton's series called . . . and other stupid statements.) So, my first post in this series: "It's Fun."

Two years ago a couple students roamed the halls of our school carrying a Rubik's Cube.  They were never far from this toy of the spawn of Satan (My words: I hate these things). They would spend any free time in class messing around with the cubes, and actually they got quite good at lining the colors up correctly.

One day I ventured a question, "Why do you carry around a Rubik's Cube?"

One of the students offered, "It's fun" as his primary justification.

Now, I must be clear about one or two (maybe three) things before we proceed.  First, I don't have anything against fun (Contrary to what many of my students my think).  Second, I actually don't mind people playing with Rubik's Cubes (I don't really think they are the literal spawn of Satan).  Lastly, remember, one of my primary jobs as a Christian educator is to help my students to think more critically about their everyday lives.

So, as the student said, "It's fun" as his justification, my teacher instinct kicked into high gear.  I began to wonder if I could exploit this as an opportunity to help my class learn how to think a little more clearly.

"If we passed a young man stealing a purse from an older woman, and we stopped to ask 'why are you doing this?'  What if the young man replied, 'It's fun.'"  I wondered, "would that be a worthy justification?"

See, its clear in the case of the young man stealing that "It's fun" just does not justify his actions.

This is where it turned ugly.  My students were disgusted that I would compare their play with a toy to the obviously immoral actions of a thief.

However, I did not compare their play with the toy to the actions of the thief, I compared their justifications.  If a wrong action cannot be justified by one excuse, then neither can a right action be justified by that same excuse.  I explained all sorts of things might be fun, but this does not tell us whether or not we should or should not commit the action.

There may or may not be actions which are morally neutral, but before we start doing things just because they are "fun" we might want to ask questions like "Is it right, good, or glorifying to God?"  Once we have determined the prescription for any action, then we can determine whether or not its fun enough for us to spend time on.

Warning: Where Are You Sending Your Children To College? Is It Gender Neutral? Or How to Suppress the Truth in Unrighteousness

Al Mohler has highlighted a growing problem in the United States (and the West in general) today.  We are losing our sense of morality, as evidenced by our confusion about gender.

Mohler, keying off an article in the LA Times,  explains how many universities are now offering "gender neutral" housing.  The universities defend this position by exclaiming the students are adults who have the right to choose their comfortable zone.  While the students defend by saying, "a roommate is a roommate."

This is a problem I have wondered about a lot recently.  I do approve of some of the changes of our views of the roles of Men and Women as they have blurred the lines of artificial shackles.  However, how are we as a society going to survive (let alone thrive) if we cannot recognize the most basic of realities of God's world, such as the physical and emotional differences of men and women.  If God has created some differences in our nature, these differences are not artificial, but instead normal, natural, and freeing.  They help us understand how to fulfill our purpose.

Our society's need to erase and preempt the way God has created seems to be a clear case of a fulfillment of "exchanging the truth of God for a lie" in Romans 1:18-32 .  We love our "freedom" so much we believe lies to enable our immorality.  Christians need to stand against this confusion of roles and stand for the truth. 

Plato and Aristotle on Virtue and Happiness (or Human Flourishing)

Two of the blogs I frequent have recently made different posts about Aristotle.  Over on Signs of the Times there is a repost of an article called The Pursuit of Something Other than Happiness.  The article points out that although Aristotle's idea of virtue leading to true happiness seems appealing to our western, modern mind, it is instead Plato who seems closer to the Biblical idea of acting "good" for God, and thus finding human flourishing.  Very interesting.


My friend Stephen Notman also has a similar post at Psalm Trees.  His post, called Where Athens Meets Jerusalem, takes a little different look at the issue.  He contends the virtues should show us how to act more like Christ.  It is telling how both biblical and Greek ethicists believed all men have a moral knowledge telling them how to act virtuously.

An Exercise in Futility: Freedom, Equality without God

On this day, July 14, 1786, the frustration of the French people towards their government culminated in the storming of the Bastille. This kicked off the French Revolution.

The revolution was run under the banner of "Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity." This reflected the ideals of the enlightenment to treat their fellow man as equal, and of worth because they were all human. The goal was to create a society which saw all others as equal, but without the oppressive restrictions of a Deity.

Although the French Revolution occurred quickly after the American Revolution, and it seemed to be built on similar philosophies of value, France did not have nearly the stability of government as the United States after their revolution. Quickly after the end of the revolution, the Reign of Terror began. Among other things, the Reign of Terror is noted for sending thousands of people to their death at the guillotine, which was considered humanitarian compared with other methods. Those who were taken to the guillotine were taken because they had different political ideas than the new regime.

This is wholly unlike anything which occurred after the American Revolution. How do two revolutions with such like ideals produce two completely separate results?

The answer comes from each revolutions grounding or basis for the equality they sought and fought for. In the United States, equality of persons was something "endowed by their creator," but this is not true of the ideals of the French.

The French tried to base their equality in their own humanity. They had fully bought into the enlightenment ideals of the epitome of man. Unfortunately, morals have no true basis in this worldview. Morality becomes a he said, she said proposition. This culminated in the French not actually believing in the equality they had initially fought for. Instead, there was only equality for those who held the same political views as those in power.

The French Revolution seems to be something we would all cheer for, but instead it is really about how life would truly be without God. As Fyodor Dostoyevsky declared, "Without God, everything is permissible."

Equality, and all other moral precepts, need God as a basis, or it really doesn't mean anything.