Stand to Reason Blog

Will Right and Wrong Always Be Obvious?

A person doesn’t have to know the Bible in order to know right and wrong, right? Well, yes and no. It all depends on what value system is being fed to that person by society. A society saturated in a Christian understanding of morality will reinforce that understanding, even among its atheists. A society without the background of Christianity behind it will enforce a different understanding of morality. Atheists have the mistaken idea that objective morality is simply obvious to everyone, but the truth is, it’s not. All one has to do is look back through history (and in other cultures today) to see that this is so. Our damaged consciences are malleable.

Is murdering your child right or wrong? Ask these mothers in India, where it’s commonplace in some areas to let your girl die if you prefer a boy. Ask pre-Christian cultures. This is why I think atheists are being far too hasty when they argue that Christianity is expendable—unnecessary for a good society. If we see atrocious moral crimes in cultures not influenced by Christianity, we have no reason to think our current standards will continue in a culture that rejects Christianity.

Case in point:

You might recall that British politician, Colin Brewer, who last year said that disabled children should be killed to save taxpayer money. You might recall that at the time he apologized and stepped down in disgrace. But you probably didn't know that he was re-elected to his old seat this year. And he's at it again.

This time, he reportedly compared disabled children to deformed lambs that need to be culled. In an interview with none other than the Disability News Service, Councillor (yeah, they spell it that way) Brewer said that perhaps we should be treating disabled children like the runt of a litter of lambs which are often disposed of by smashing them against the wall.

‘If they have a misshapen lamb, they get rid of it," he said. "They get rid of it. Bang."

Bang? That's sound fiscal policy, huh? And that's what it is, according to Brewer. He said that disabled people are just too expensive to care for so some may just have to go.

"We are just animals," Brewer continued. "You can’t have lambs running around with five legs and two heads. It would be put down, smashed against the wall and be dealt with."

As I’ve written before, intrinsic human value has to be taught. A society’s view of the human person and its value will affect what that society views as being moral: We are just animals. Imperfect animals aren’t worth the trouble. Therefore, there’s a case to be made for killing them rather than caring for them. That conclusion reasonably follows from the non-Christian premise. As Christianity fades in influence and a different view of the human person gains acceptance, don't expect that our society will continue to recognize that conclusion to be immoral. At that point, people will still consider themselves to be perfectly moral…but only because they’re judging themselves by a different standard of morality.

It’s difficult for us to recognize the depth our depravity when “everyone else is doing it.” Ask Gosnell’s nurses. Only the truth can awaken and sharpen our consciences, and for that to happen, the truth has to be heard and esteemed.

For now, there’s an outcry brewing against this politician in the UK, and that’s a good sign. But it’s not as if he’s a lone voice out there (see Peter Singer). As our belief in intrinsic human value wears away, we should expect to see more like him. Just consider this:

But here's the thing – [Brewer] was just re-elected earlier this month to his old seat. That means that being pro-infanticide and culling the disabled is no longer a deal breaker in European politics.

Blog Update

We’ll be taking a break from the challenges this month while we’re sorting out the comment situation on the new blog. While things are settling, feel free to bookmark and continue to follow the blog on the old site, which will be up and running (with comments), as usual. We’ll be sure to keep you updated in both locations when anything changes.

UK Apologetics Conference

On May 25^th, the Unbelievable radio show is hosting an apologetics conference in London on the topic “Jesus: Liar, Lunatic, Legend…or Lord?” You can view the schedule and sign up for the conference here.

If you’re not familiar with the radio show, take a look at the archives while you’re on the site (or subscribe here). It’s a helpful resource you should be familiar with.

 

Challenge: God Doesn't Care What We Believe

The challenge this week is a quote I found on Debunking Christianity:

What religious diversity shows us is that, if gods exist, they don't care what humans believe... any god worth their title could tweak things so that humans believed whatever they wanted them to believe if belief was important to them, and would have no one to blame but themselves if they were disappointed.... So either no gods exist, or they are fine with religious wars, misinterpretation, conflicting beliefs, and so forth.

Does religious diversity prove that God doesn't care what we believe? This seems to be related to another very common objection that we've discussed here before. If you can figure out which one, you'll have a head start! Tell us how you would respond to a friend who said this to you, and then we'll hear from Brett on Thursday.

[View Brett's video response.]

Challenge: The Gospels Aren't Eyewitness Accounts

Here's the kind of question Jim often hears:

Christians like to call the Gospels "eyewitness accounts," but why should we take them seriously as "eyewitness" testimony when the authors don't say anything about being eyewitnesses and the accounts clearly contain descriptions of events (like the virgin conception, birth narratives, and private moments of Jesus) that the authors could not have personally seen?

So what do you think? Do you have an answer for this challenge? Let us know in the comments below, then Jim will post his answer on Thursday.

[View Jim's video response.]

What Counts As Evidence?

You’ve probably heard at least one atheist say, “There’s no evidence for Christianity.” It may not be that they’ve never looked into the question and listened to our arguments. The problem may simply be that they’re illegitimately disqualifying circumstantial evidence from consideration. Jim explains in Cold-Case Christianity, from his experience as a detective, why this is a mistake:

It’s not a coincidence that I was a nonbeliever before I learned anything about the nature of evidence. In those days, as I was evaluating the claims of Christianity, I demanded a form of evidence (direct evidence) that simply isn’t available to anyone who is studying historical events. I failed to see that rejecting (or devaluing) circumstantial evidence would prevent me from understanding anything about history (when eyewitnesses of a particular event are unavailable for an interview). If I continued to reject (or devalue) circumstantial evidence, I would never have been able to successfully prosecute a single cold-case killer. All of us need to respect the power and nature of circumstantial evidence in determining truth so that we can be open to the role that circumstantial evidence plays in making the case for Christianity….

When discussing evidence with skeptics, we don’t need to concede that a particular fact related to the Christian worldview is not a piece of evidence simply because it is not a piece of direct evidence. Even though a particular fact may not have the individual power to prove our case in its entirety, it is no less valid as we assemble the evidence….

When defending our belief in the existence of God, the resurrection of Jesus, or the validity of the Christian worldview, we may need to take some time to explain the nature, role, and power of circumstantial evidence.

The instructions for jurors in California read, “Both direct and circumstantial evidence are acceptable types of evidence to prove or disprove the elements of a charge, including intent and mental state and acts necessary to a conviction, and neither is necessarily more reliable than the other. Neither is entitled to any greater weight than the other.” That might come as a surprise to our atheist friends!

How Tim Keller Made Peace with the Wrath of God

“My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will” (Matthew 26:39).

In a sermon titled “The Dark Garden,” Tim Keller explains how he came to understand that a god without wrath and Hell is not as loving as the God we find in the Bible:

Because [a cup of poison] was the method of execution for many people,…the Hebrew prophets came to use the cup as a metaphor for the wrath of God on human evil…. For example…Isaiah 54: “You will drink the cup of His fury and stagger.” So the reason why [Christian martyrs] who died for what they believed in didn’t die the way Jesus is dying—didn’t fall to the ground, didn’t find this horror coming down—was that they didn’t face the cup. They didn’t face the justice of God against all human wickedness and evil, which was just about to come down on [Jesus]….

It was in the Garden of Gethsemane that I came finally to grips—I made my peace, as it were—with the wrath of God. Now, it might shock some of you that…a preaching minister was struggling with the very idea of a God of wrath, a God who sends people to Hell…. And then it was studying the Garden of Gethsemane when I finally came to peace with it because I realized this: The reason why people get rid of the idea of Hell and wrath is because they want a loving God…. They say, “I can’t believe in Hell and wrath because I want a more loving God.” And I came to realize in the Garden of Gethsemane that if you get rid of the idea of Hell and wrath, you have a less loving God.

Because if there is no wrath by God on sin, and there is no such thing as Hell, not only does that actually make what happened to Jesus inexplicable—Jesus staggering the way He is, asking God, “Is there any other way?” [and] sweating blood means that He was wimpier than hundreds of His followers, if there was nothing like [God’s wrath]—but…the main thing is, if you don’t believe in the wrath and Hell, it trivializes what He’s done…. If you get rid of a God who has wrath and Hell, you’ve got a god who loves us in general, but that’s not as loving as the God of the Bible, the God of Jesus Christ, who loves us with a costly love.

Look what it cost. Look what He did. Look what He was taking. You get rid of wrath and Hell, He’s not taking anything close to this. And therefore, what you’ve done is you’ve just turned His incredible act of love into just something very trivial, very small….

And by the way, if the anticipation of these sufferings—if the very taste of these sufferings—sent the Son of God into shock, what must it have been to drink them to the bottom?

We see the height of God's costly love in what He did to give us grace, but you can't know the beauty of this grace—the very concept of grace will be meaningless to you—if you reject the rightness of His justice.

Now We Wait for the Ruling

If you’d like a quick primer on what the Supreme Court will be deciding in the next few months, this New York Times chart on how the justices could rule on Prop 8 and DOMA is clear and helpful.

Over at First Things, Glenn Stanton comments on some good questions the Justices asked. I tracked down one of the quotes he cited from Justice Sotomayor to get more of the context:

SOTOMAYOR: Mr. Olson, the bottom line that you're being asked—and it is one that I'm interested in the answer: If you say that marriage is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist? Meaning, what state restrictions with respect to the number of people…the incest laws, the mother and child…I can accept that the state has probably an overbearing interest on protecting a child until they're of age to marry, but what's left?

OLSON: Well, you've said in the cases decided by this court that the polygamy issue, multiple marriages, raises questions about exploitation, abuse, patriarchy, issues with respect to taxes, inheritance, child custody, it is an entirely different thing. And if you—if a state prohibits polygamy, it's prohibiting conduct. If it prohibits gay and lesbian citizens from getting married, it is prohibiting their exercise of a right based upon their status.

The first mistake Olson makes here is that he thinks people are being denied marriage because of their sexual orientation (i.e., “their status”). This has never happened. There is no test whatsoever for sexual orientation when a person applies for a marriage license. There is no class of people being told they’re not eligible for marriage. In fact, the exclusion of same-sex couples (that’s same-sex couples, not homosexual citizens) from marriage isn’t about prohibiting something on the basis of bad conduct or the status of a group, it’s about the definition of marriage.

As Justice Roberts pointed out:

When the institution of marriage developed historically, people didn’t get around and say let’s have this institution, but let’s keep out homosexuals. The institution developed to serve purposes that, by their nature, didn’t include homosexual couples.

If marriage is a particular thing, then everyone has a right to take part in that institution as it stands, regardless of their personal characteristics. But to be part of the institution, they must be part of the institution. They don’t have a right to change that institution into something different simply because they don’t want to be part of it the way it is.

Imagine a public park builds a tennis court so that people can come to play tennis. Nobody should be denied the right to play tennis games there. Period. It’s a public park, open to all. One day, a group of basketball players comes to the park, wanting to play a game, but they find they can’t play basketball on a tennis court. They immediately go to City Hall to complain: “Everyone has the right to competitive exercise with a ball on that court! We’re being denied our rights based on our status as basketball players!” Can you see the problem? The fact that they don’t want to play tennis doesn’t give them the right to demand that the government build a different court at the park. Their right isn’t to “competitive exercise with a ball” (tennis shares that in common with basketball, but it can’t be reduced to that), their right is to play tennis on that court, just like everybody else.

Please don’t take that illustration farther than it’s intended to go. I’m merely trying to show that rights aren’t being denied simply because a person (or group of people) doesn’t want to take part in something. The park promises the same thing to all. It doesn’t promise “competitive exercise with a ball,” it promises tennis. And tennis excludes basketball—not out of prejudice, but by nature. One could certainly argue over whether the park ought to change that court into something different, but as things stand, no rights are being violated. Neither justice nor equality demands that the park change its court to accommodate the desires of the basketball players to play a different game in that space. The same is true for marriage.

Secondly, even if it were legitimate for Olson to make the argument that homosexuals are being denied the right to marry “based upon their status,” I don’t see why one couldn’t equally say that polygamists are being denied their rights based upon their status as people who prefer to have many marriages. Isn’t that class of people being denied their right to define marriage for themselves, if Olson’s way of looking at this is correct?

Another problem: Olson says polygamy is an “entirely different thing” from same-sex marriage because it “raises questions” about legal, social, and moral harms, and that’s what prevents it from being a right. But in making this distinction, he’s merely assuming what he needs to prove. Those defending traditional marriage also have arguments explaining the harm that will be caused by removing the core principle of sexual complementarity from the definition of marriage (including the legal difficulties resulting from surrogacy, sperm and egg donors, etc.—difficulties that will inevitably result because a third person outside the family must always be involved in the creation of a child for same-sex parents).

If Olson is correct that the harm that would result to society from changing the definition of marriage is grounds for not changing the definition to accommodate a particular group’s desires, then same-sex marriage can be disallowed if it causes harm.

But if Olson is correct that same-sex marriage is not merely a desire, but actually a right that can’t be disallowed, even if it raises questions of harm, then Sotomayor’s question stands: If defining marriage for yourself is a fundamental right, what state restrictions could ever exist?

Olson can’t have it both ways.

You can read more quotes from the proceedings in Stanton's article, “Supreme Court Finally Asks the Tough Questions on Same-Sex Marriage,” and on the Huffington Post.

Can a Non-Physical Being Affect the Physical World?

To accept the existence of miracles, one would have to accept the idea that a being without material properties (i.e., God) can move about, change, and otherwise affect objects in the physical world. Is this, in itself, an absurd proposition? I don’t think so. I can’t show you how the affecting of the physical by the non-physical is possible—such explanations are beyond my capability, but I can certainly demonstrate that this is not only possible, but commonplace.

Imagine you’re sitting on a park bench and spot a good friend approaching. You raise your arm and wave.

Why did you wave? There was nothing in the physical world that compelled you through the laws of physics, or chemistry, or anything else to raise your arm. Your action did not begin with a physical process; your action began with your will. Your will to raise your arm was not a physical part of your body. Your thought was non-physical—it couldn’t have been measured because it had no mass and took up no space. Try describing your thoughts and your will in physical terms—what color are they? How big are they? How much do they weigh? These questions are meaningless because our wills are not in the same category as objects in the physical world, which can be described in such terms.

Our wills are non-physical, and yet somehow our non-physical wills are connected to, and have power over, a part of the material world. Somehow our non-physical thoughts and wills are able to move physical objects—our own bodies. 

Our limited minds are only able to move our own bodies, but is it so outrageous to think that it’s possible for there to be a greater mind out there who would have access to all physical objects? It’s difficult to rule out the possibility on principle when we see the same thing taking place on a smaller scale everyday, every time we make a move.

J.P. Moreland on Dualism

In this video, J.P. Moreland discusses with Robert Lawrence Kuhn (producer and host of the Closer to Truth show on PBS) the movement among intellectuals away from belief in the existence of a soul:

I think a lot of it’s sociological. I think we live in a day where scientism is the default position by a lot of people—that’s the idea that science, and science alone, can give us answers to our questions about reality. And I think it’s a big mistake to advance that view….

I don’t think the issue is scientific. The fundamental questions about the nature of consciousness and whether there is a soul are just not scientific questions. They’re questions like, “What exactly is a thought?” “What is a semantic meaning?”… There hasn’t been a single discovery in neuroscience or any other branch of science that a dualist (that is, one who believes in the soul and consciousness) could not easily accommodate within his or her theory…. [See here for more on that.]

Moreland explains some of the issues behind his belief in dualism—the definition of consciousness, the interaction between the brain and the self, objections to substance dualism, etc.—and then sums up the conversation this way:

The bottom line is this: Consciousness just isn’t the same thing as physical states of the brain because there are things true of one that aren’t the other. And the self is not identical to the brain because the self is a simple substance that isn’t composed of parts. And these questions are not fundamentally scientific questions, they’re philosophical.

 

(HT: Justin Taylor – See his post for another video by Moreland on the “Case for the Existence of the Soul,” and see more Closer to Truth interviews with J.P. Moreland here.)