Someone recently pointed me to a
long Facebook article that was written nearly a year ago is response to my
arguments around the inability for atheistic thought to provide the necessary
preconditions for the intelligibility of the human experience of morality. This
post is my response to and rebuttal of that article, written by Gerrit Morren.
Mr. Morren attempts to justify morality within his atheistic paradigm as well
as point out that Christian morality is self-contradictory. In other words,
atheism can account for morality but Christianity is actually inherently immoral.
The Christian has an authoritative
guide for all of reality; we call it the Bible. However, it would be a mistake
to think that the atheist does not have a guide for all of reality as well; he
or she calls it science. According to popular atheist, Alex Rosenberg, “Science provides all the significant truths about
reality, and knowing such truths is what real understanding is all about. …
Being scientistic just means treating science as our exclusive guide to
reality, to nature—both our own nature and everything else’s.” [Alex Rosenberg, The Atheist’s Guide to
Reality, pp.7-8] This quote is also found over at James
Andersen’s blog. It was Dr. Andersen’s article that prompted me to pick up
a copy of Rosenberg’s book. If it is true that science provides all significant
truths about reality, then science must also provide the truth about morality
as well. And that truth will either be a naturalistic explanation for morality
or its outright denial. The former will always end in moral relativism or even
moral skepticism while the latter leads to the unimaginable: anything goes.
“I’ll argue that if naturalism is
true, then so is moral nihilism, the view that there are no objective moral
standards and that anything goes, ethically speaking. I’ll also call this view
moral relativism, moral subjectivism, and moral skepticism. [Mitch
Stokes, How to be an Atheist, p. 151] Stokes tells us that naturalism
produces moral relativism because it is relative only to human desires
or preferences. It produces moral subjectivism because it seems to
require a personal subject to affix value. And it produces moral skepticism
because we can have no knowledge of objective moral standards – pretty much
because there really aren’t any such standards. Now presents no small problem
for science. Contrary to what many atheists and even Christians have been led
to believe, the problem of evil is a much bigger problem for atheistic thought
than it is for Christian thought.
As I said at the beginning, this post
is a response to and rebuttal of Gerrit Morren’s open letter to me that he
posted on Facebook nearly a year ago. I did not see the letter because I am no
longer a FB participant. From the very beginning of the article Mr. Morren gets
it wrong. He writes:
Dear Ed Dingess, you asked me to
account for my morality after I accused Jesus -
disguised as the holy spirit - of cruelly and unjustly slaying Ananias
and Sapphira, because of their ‘crime’ of not giving all of their savings to
the early Christian church and lying about it.
Note that Ananias and Sapphira were
not judged because they did not give all their money to the church. They were
judged because they liked to God. That is a vastly different scenario than Mr.
Morren has created. If Mr. Morren is going to indict Christian belief, he
should at least criticize this historical facts of the matter. Not only is this
the case, but Morren goes on to classify the lie that the couple told as a
white lie. But Morren offers not defense, to definition, no criteria for why he
classifies this lie as a white lie versus a more serious one. We are left to
just accept Morren’s ethical system on the face of it.
Morren also contends that Adolf Hitler
was a committed Christian:
Well I’d like to inform non-dr.
Frank Turek and all of his type of Christians that Adolf Hitler was a
Roman Chatholic [sic], remained so all of his life.
This is simply another error
concerning the facts. Hitler stopped going to mass after he became a man and
there is no indication that he ever returned to his Catholic faith.
Morren then lays out his basic
foundation for objective morality:
I think informed opinions can
contribute to working towards better and more universal beneficial ethics, that
are so commonly shared (even
instinctively longed for) that they gain such an inter-subjectivity – meaning
they are shared across cultures by most of the Homo Sapiens-family – that they
may be considered ‘objective’ in the sense that their generality is accepted
world-wide. Even then they would not be absolute in the sense of divinely
issued. They would just be commonly shared, and thus reach a certain level of
universality.
To begin with, what is it exactly
that informs this universal ethic as Morren calls it. That is the whole point
in dispute where the presuppositional apologist is concerned. The challenge to
Morren is that he must provide the necessary preconditions for the
intelligibility of morality. To say that everyone seems to agree that right and
wrong exists is merely to beg the question. Yes, there is a universal sense of
morality within humanity. That is exactly my point as it has been the point of
every Christian theologian and philosopher down through history. What else must
be true, or must be the case in order for this state of affairs to make sense?
Morren does not say. He just points out what we all already know. Morality
seems to be innate. Moreover, Morren talks about information, agreed upon
information. That opens a whole new can of worms. Where does this information
come from? Is it inside us? I go back to Hitler and ask, did Hilter have the
same information about morality as Gandhi? So it seems that while humans have a
universal sense of morality, they differ on the details of moral behavior. For
example, I think sex outside of marriage is immoral. There are many who
disagree with me. That raises the question as to the truth value of the proposition:
All extramarital is wrong. This proposition can either be true or false. It is
a strong universal claim about a very specific kind of human behavior. What
information could Morren or any atheist provide either affirm or refute this
proposition? Do we vote on it? Perhaps American culture should decide? Maybe all
of Western culture should have the say? But who gets to establish the method by
which morality is determined? It seems to me that under all circumstances, the
choice reduces to an unavoidable arbitrariness.
Morren then categorizes
Christianity in such a way that it becomes obvious to any reader that he is
actually arguing with a Straw Man version of Christianity instead of biblical
Christianity: I reject the Christian ethical system because in its theology,
its veracity claims, its presuppositions and view of other worldviews I think
it is non-benevolent and seeking world-supremacy by force. So Morren thinks
that Christianity is basically unloving and seeking to impose itself on the
world by force. This is a pretty bold claim. I wonder if Morren has any
evidence that this is actually what Christianity teaches. If one reads Morren’s
article here,
they will discover that he engages in one lie after another where Christian
teaching, Scripture, and even history is concerned. Morren seems intent on not
letting the facts stand in the way of his attack on the morality of Christian
theism.
In one example, Morren claims that
Paul attempted to justify lying. Saint Paul already teaches that lying is a
lesser vice than not being able to convert people. Here’s from Romans 3:7: “For
if the truth of God hath more abounded through my lie unto his glory; why yet
am I also judged as a sinner?” Morren neglects the fact that Paul is saying
that he was being accused of lying, not that he was actually lying. This seems
to be one more attempt by a dishonest atheist to set up his own version of
Christianity so that he can knock it over.
The task of grounding morality in
something other than God…has occupied nearly all of Western ethical philosophy
since the Enlightenment. I don’t think it has been at all successful; all the
main moves have been tried and found wanting. [Mitch Stokes, How to be an
Atheist, 154] In the end, it comes down to two basic choices even though
these choices encompass a number of nuances that do become highly complex.
Either morality is grounded or not grounded. From there we have the second
choice. If morality is not grounded, then we fall into moral nihilism and
anything goes. If we ground morality at all, we must ground it in God or in man.
If we ground morality in God, our task is to understand God’s revelation about
himself in nature and in Scripture so that we may understand what constitutes moral
behavior. If, on the other hand, we ground morality in man, we are left with
the task of determining how it is possible to remove the bias of men so that we
can avoid moral relativism; to remove the personal subject so as to avoid moral
subjectivism; and to discover an objective standard so that we can avoid moral
skepticism.
Gerrit Morren concludes his argument
by attempting to ground his morality in a list of virtues. In other words,
Morren adopts, for the most part, Kant’s philosophy of morality. Morren says he
thinks of morality as duty: I think of morality mainly as a set of unbiased,
civil duties. This is a deontological approach to ethics. And as we shall
see, atheism is not capable of providing the necessary foundation for
deontological ethics. Morren contends that the virtues that he lists existed
before Christ, in ancient Greek philosophies and in Confucius. Well, the first
known philosophy was purported to be Thales, was born in 624 and Confucius was
born in 551. Yet, we find Moses writing in Leviticus what has become the golden
rule in modern vernacular. And this predates both Greek philosophy and Confucius
by approximate 1000 years. In addition to this, Solomon pinned Proverbs over
300 years before Thales and nearly 400 years before Confucius was even born. Finally,
in Christian theism, Christ always is. There is never a time when Christ was not.
In summary then, not only does Moses and Solomon predate Greek philosophy, and Confucius,
Christ does as well, being the eternal Son of God within the self-contained
ontological Triune God of Christian Scripture.
An atheistic deontological morality
ultimate lands Morren in the sea of moral skepticism. If morality is the
product of the human mind, and it seems that it must be so within his system,
then it follows that such rationalism must inevitably lead to irrationalism as
John Frame puts it. To anchor morality to the rational mind is to anchor it to
unknowable chance or fate. Frame tells us that rationalism leads to dogmatic
certainty about an absolute that is empty.
Frame writes, “But, in the end,
nobody has the right to argue an ethical principle unless he is willing to
listen to the God of Scripture. Moral norms can come only from a personal
absolute, and the Bible is the only written revelation that presents such a God
to us. So we must now turn to Scripture to hear the word of the Lord.” [Frame,
The Doctrine of the Christian Life, p. 125]
No comments:
Post a Comment