The Dawn Treader

Jeff,

Thanks for reminding me of this conversation. It was powerful to be with so many of my fellow Centurions this weekend. Allow me to reiterate what I was trying to say:

God is sovereign. That is, He is sovereign now and forever. Let's focus on the now for a moment. If we truly believe in the resurrection then Jesus is reigning over every square inch of creation. The Gospel then is not merely a message of personal redemption but the proclamation of a King and His reconciliation of all things in Heaven and on earth to himself.

In short, it is not just a realization of how it "end" but more generally how it "is" today. Does this make any sense?

I watch plenty of people who know how it ends who don't realize how it is today. As I said before, "Be not dismayed, The King is on the throne. Be not mistaken, we know who is the true King and all others are mere imitations."

I don't know where this puts my functional theology but would enjoy some dialogue about these ideas.

All this being said, there are those who would say that there does not exist transcendent truth that rules our moral lives just like physical truths govern the universe. These people are fewer than many leaders would make us believe. We should still enter into dialogue with those opposed to us and before entering into this dialogue we must be truth incarnate.

I would agree with Tom on the straw-man that has been constucted. I am disappointed with many of the strawmen that are constructed for the sake of "winning" these arguments. Please confront me if you find fallacious thinking or strawmen constructed in my writing.

"I think morality is subjective, but it would be silly for me to take offense at assertions to the contrary. After all, mine is almost certainly a minority view, and I am a pragmatic person."

Actually, Rob, yours is the majority view. Taken from a 2002 Barna survey.

By a 3-to-1 margin (64% vs. 22%) adults said truth is always relative to the person and their situation.

When you include the youth ...

The perspective was even more lopsided among teenagers, 83% of whom said moral truth depends on the circumstances, and only 6% of whom said moral truth is absolute.

I am glad that you find that few non-Christians are offended by someone claiming that universal moral truth exists. My hunch is that they treat such a claim as nonsense, and therefore non-offensive ... kind of like someone claiming to believe in the Easter Bunny ... ridiculous, but certainly not offensive.

Now, given that your view is the majority view by a margin of 3 to 1 ... (your view that morality is personal and therefore subjective) ... isn't the view that there are moral absolutes an extremist view and therefore offensive? (typically extremists are considered offensive, aren't they?)

"Now, given that your view is the majority view by a margin of 3 to 1 ... (your view that morality is personal and therefore subjective) ... isn't the view that there are moral absolutes an extremist view and therefore offensive?"

Let's assume that the poll is accurate. Is 22% to be considered an extremist percentage? Let's hope not; that would mean between one out of four and one out of five are nutbags! Anyway, for me, extremists are not per se offensive. Maybe I am an extremist on some issues and I agree with those extremists that share my view. In that case, I perceive extremists on the other end of the spectrum to be nutbags and, quite possibly, but not necessarily, offensive. I suppose it depends on the issue.

I suppose I shouldn't be surprised that young people are so predominantly relativistic. I see multitudinous examples in my classroom every time I pass out a test. Cheating is apparently O.K. as long as a. you don't know the answer. and b. you don't get caught. ;-)

Jeff,

Mohler is my buddy and I think he has more balance to his comments than most. I understand what the statistics say about who believes in "absolute truth" and who doesn't. I am trying to say that there is a disconnect between what is being heralded by the leaders within many Christian groups who are crying about the falling sky and the actual interaction I have everyday (outside of academia) with co-workers, friends, cashiers, waitresses, Starbucks baristas, etc. On the whole, they are reasonably minded people who, despite what the polls say, believe there are transcendent truths that govern the universe in the area of physical laws as well as moral law. They know that pushing an elderly woman into the train tracks is wrong and stealing someones purse is wrong for all people in all times.

I think Mohler is showing the straw-man when he says:

"Absolute or objective truth is denied outright."

Some would deny this 'absolute or objective truth' with their mouths but in reality they live these absolute truths everyday. It is "the truth they can't not know".

My point is this: Do continue to herald these truth denying relativists that are fewer than many would have us believe or do we herald the King of Kings who became truth incarnate and invites us to live this truth as well. I look at it like this: The truth denying relativists aren't going to listen to us so we should instead take the Gospel with all its power to those who will accept truth, who God has prepared to accept this truth.

I am not seeing a lot of support for Mohler and Barna's findings in this crowd.

In conversations I have had with ordinary folk about ethics, I typically hear comments like the world is not black and white ... or in the real world there are no clear answers and such. While not being a completely relativistic position, it certainly leans that direction. I think the opposite is true -- I think the clear moral truths outnumber the nuanced problem cases by a long shot. We tend to focus on the tough moral cases rather than the obvious stuff.

I was talking to a 17 year old about an ethics class he was taking in high school. I asked him what he was learning. He kind of shrugged his shoulders. I said, are you learning about what is right and wrong? He replied, "No. You know, there is no right and wrong. The class is intended to teach you how to think about ethical situations."

So I beg to differ with you guys a bit. The sky may not be falling, but I think that relativism has a firm grip on the rank and file of our culture.

I think Brian's point is valid though -- our message should not be one of fear, but one of faith in Christ -- the one who is Truth.

Here is where I think those like Mohler can help. Whether people actually believe there is no transcendant truth or not, they certainly espouse it. It affects their thinking. It colors how they hear things. If we are to be missionaries into this culture, we need to recognize the worldview filters through which our words are received. Mohler, Koukl and others have a good handle on relativism and how to engage it with clear thinking.

David,

I understand that some ethical thinking is really, really hard. I posted on the ethics of snitching ... which I think can be challenging.

So I understand there are true ethical dilemmas out there.

As I look back on my past week, I would say the ethical situations I faced all week long were pretty easy. I knew right from wrong. I did not have to wrestle with scripture or natural law or anything like that to make ethical choices. Most of my day's choices are moral no brainers. Should I yell at my son when he interrupts me while I am working, for example. Or, should I help out around the house without being asked. Or, should I put in a full day in the office or go hit golf balls. Or, should I spend some time in the Word and in prayer, or surfing on the internet.

The vast vast majority of my ethical choices are quite easy.

Now, I do get some tough ethical situations. One came up this week that I am not at liberty to discuss in this forum. It was challenging, and took some thinking and discussion to work out the right thing to do. It was anything but a no brainer.

That is where I am going with my comment. I am not saying everything in life is black and white. I am saying a lot of moral choices are quite easy.

What happens is many focus on the hardest of choices -- like your torture example -- and then suggest that most of life is morally ambiguous.

Imho, the difficulty, more often than not, is *not* in knowing the right thing to do ... it is in choosing to do the right thing ... especially when it is costly and inconvenient.

I hope that helps clarify where I am coming from ... I agree that we face tough moral situations from time to time.

As I read what I wrote, I think I might be overstating my point a bit. I do agree that there are real moral principles that apply to everyone and that there are many facets of everyday life in which we can choose to apply (or not apply) them with some degree of confidence. Just want to be clear about that.

"Am I seeing a real trend line, or am I adding to a spirit of fear about rampant moral relativism in our culture?"

I don't think the "trend line" is any different to any other age. Not when you really think about it - people have always held certain absolute or objective truths and their own subjective biases at the same time.

I wouldn't say it os fear mongering always (although some of th culture war rhetoric is) but that it is impersonal, one step removed and dealing with ideas about people rather than the people themselves. Because of that we are given a very one dimensional view of people.

Yes, moral relativism says that there are no absolutes, but at the same time it acknowledges (and perhaps even welcomes) the existence of near-universal truths, so deeply embedded in who we are that they often appear to be absolutes.

Paul, this is an interesting perspective to me as someone who's partial to Natural Law theory. To me, the existence of these "near-universal" truths that are "embedded in who we are" is strong evidence for Natural Law, and therefore a strong argument against true moral relativism. Certain moral principles appear over and over again across times and cultures because they are genuine principles. They're part of how we're made.

Perhaps you can explain some of these things, at least in some tentative way, based on how the human brain, language, and culture evolved. But even the, you're left with a big "Why?" question. Judeo-Christian theology provides, I think, a satisfying and consistent answer to that question. I'm not sure that any alternative ethic, such as perhaps utilitarianism, provides a workable response.

I think it's a good one :) In comparison, the Judeo-Christian answer - 'Because God Says So" - is about as unsatisfying as it could be, and is only consistent because it transcends such issues (the answer is always Because God Says So).

Well, I would agree that "because God says so" would be unsatisfying. However, that's not the Judeo-Christian answer. It's a poor charicature of the Judeo-Christian answer that someone like Richard Dawkins might draw.

The Judeo-Christian answer ultimately is ontological: "because that's who God is." God doesn't "say so" arbitrarily. He is, and what He says regarding the moral law -- as well as what we intuitively know about it -- ultimately flows from His nature and character. Goodness, justice, love, beauty, and truth are present perfectly in God's nature and character. They are present also in His creation, and are known at least dimly in every person's deepest being, because all of creation must reflect God's nature and character.

When God speaks the moral law into propositions, particularly in scripture, He does so consistent with His eternally preexisting character and nature, and therefore also consistent with the Natural Law that was present from the beginning of creation. Scripture doesn't create the moral rules; it simply makes some of the moral rules more clear to us.

As to the naturalistic narrative of ethical development, I don't think it's satisfying because it doesn't answer any of the hard questions we're asking. In particular, though it might tell us "How" we've come to feel certain things are right or wrong, it doesn't tell us "Why" we should or shouldn't act on those feelings. It isn't in any way normative, and therefore can't support any system of law, norms, or culture. (For a more detailed and erudite discussion of this, I'd direct you to Dawkins' God: Genes, Memes, and the Meaning of Life, by Oxford theologian and molecular biologist Alister McGrath. Incidentally, McGrath believes, as I do at least to a certain extent, that God used an evolutionary process that can be described in naturalistic terms to imprint on our brains and emotions certain aspects of the moral law.)

In my view, then, when properly understood, the Judeo-Christian concept of Natural Law provides rich ground for a deep and robust ethic based in the ontological reality of God. I don't see that the secular alternatives, which principally are variants of utilitarianism, offer anything comparable.

But I think Paul's comments also support my point. Paul intellectually believes in some kind of relativism, but if I'm reading him right, he feels, intuits, and acts like there's something more. (Paul, sorry if I'm misreading you on this). I think this is true for lots of people -- probably lots of people who haven't thought through these things as carefully as Paul has. There's some degree of intellectual assent to relativism, but not much real commitment to it. Sort of like the many Americans who claim to be "Christians" but have no inkling at all of any lived-out committment to the faith. (Paul, forgive me if this sounds like I'm deprecating your views -- that's not what I'm intending).

dopderbeck:
I wasn't thinking of 'Because God says so' in a literal sense, so perhaps I can abbreviate it to 'Because God'. In that way it's actually quite similar to a religious viewpoint, because it doesn't really provide a 'why' answer either - I say "Because it turned out that way", you say "Because God". Now clearly it doesn't extend quite as far as the religious view. The naturalistic view would be "Because it turned out that way, and now it's up to you to live within society". The religious view, in contrast, is "Because God, and therefore you must". I'll give you it's a little more comprehensive, but it's hardly any more satisfying or reasoned.

Oh, and "therefore also consistent with the Natural Law" - don't you mean that Natural Law is consistent with it? :)

Jeff:
It's not the easy topic to slip into a conversation :) Based on conversations I've had I don't think most people think about this at all - they feel their beliefs are grounded in truth, but push hard enough and I think you get to either "Because God" or "Because", neither of which is actually a reason. So do they believe in moral truth? Well I guess it depends on the meaning of belief!

both:
You're right, I do proceed as though my beliefs are truths. In everyday use there is no difference - I tell my children not to lie because it's wrong, not because I believe it to be wrong, or because I think the consensus of society based on our common humanity is that it's wrong, or that God warned against bearing false witness. In everyday life the origin of these things is totally irrelevant; it's only when we start to ask why that it becomes interesting (if not actually important).

For example, you would argue, I think, that our laws derive their authority from the laws of God and the value that God placed on man. I would argue that they get their authority from the consent of the governed. Either view could be right, and that makes for an interesting discussion, but in practice it's the consent of the governed that decides whether laws are passed and maintained (in general), not their possible moral basis.

"Mao said laws get their authority from the point of a gun. As a practical matter, absent a higher law and a higher justice, Mao is right, isn't he? If the governed don't like it, let them talk to the gun."

But you claim that there is a higher power, and Mao is still right. That's the point I'm trying to emphasize here; you can argue about where the authority comes from in the abstract, but in reality it depends on acquiesence from the governed. That can come from the positive experience of representative democracy, or the negative path of Mao's gun. Either way it didn't matter whether the laws in question matched an abstracted Natural Law.

One other point: why do you feel that "God, therefore you shouldn't steal" is intellectually more satisfying than "Empathy, therefore you shouldn't steal"? It's a genuine question, so I'm happy to accept either a straight answer, or a reason why the question is incorrectly phrased :)

"One other point: why do you feel that "God, therefore you shouldn't steal" is intellectually more satisfying than "Empathy, therefore you shouldn't steal"?"

"Empathy, therefore you shouldn't steal" does nothing to eliminate the problem of the tertium quid ... "the third thing" ... the Tao as C.S. Lewis called it ... or Natural Law to use the term that David uses.

We all live and behave as if right and wrong exists. It is universal to mankind. In order for rightness and wrongness to exist, there must be a way to resolve disputes between two parties about what is right and wrong. One must have a standard which transcends both parties ... one must have a tertium quid to adjudicate the dispute.

The tertium quid cannot belong to one of the two parties, or it is no longer a tertium quid. Subjective preferences or emotions, like empathy, cannot qualify as a tertium quid.

There must be a straight stick which will tell us which sticks are crooked.

The only thing that can function as a tertium quid is something which in reality transcends the two parties. A law of rightness.

Without such a law, you cannot claim anyone is wrong ... for wrong loses its meaning without a tertium quid.

I would argue, therefore, that one cannot make sense out of our human experience and reject a tertium quid. It would be irrational to do so.

Natural law, which emanates from the holy character of a transcendant law Giver, fits a tertium quid. Empathy does not.

Jeff:Now, given that your view is the majority view by a margin of 3 to 1Methinks you put too much faith in inspecific poll questions. :) Get more specific, and your results change. In fact, even if you turned the question around, instead asking people if they believe that there are things which are unequivocally wrong, your result set would differ markedly from the one you cite.

The way the question is asked, I'm willing to bet most people approached it the way they'd approach the question "Is killing another human being wrong?" with the answer to that -- even your answer to that -- being "It depends."According to Mohler, the evidence is overwhelming ... objective truth is denied "outright". Is he constructing a straw man?In short, yes. He's conflating moral relativism with utilitarian ethics, even though these two things are not related. You've often been guilty of this, too.

The difference between your ethics and mine (and, I suspect, Rob's) is one of nuance. In your case, the rules are very broad, and in mine (and, I suspect, Rob's) it's much more nuanced. But at the end of the day, you could still get any one of us to a position where we'd say "X is absolutely, unconditionally wrong." We'd just have a different X. And mine (and, I suspect, Rob's) would likely be more specific and more nuanced than yours. (Hypothetcial example: "Is killing a baby wrong?")

David:But why should we give a rat's patootie about the "consent of the governed?" The larger question is why we should give a rat's patootie about anything at all. In this regard, I find that the Christian worldview is often more cynical than the non-Christian, insofar as it seems to operate from the assumption that without the prospect of reward and punishment in some yet-to-come afterlife, people won't care about anything. In that sense, Mao and Christians seem to agree. :) And that's what we non-Christians (and, trust me, plenty of Christians) are trying to avoid.If we're all that is, and we're here just because we're here, there doesn't seem to be much rational basis for many things we build our lives onHere I think you're just guilty of lack of imagination. There doesn't always have to be "something more" at stake. Let me teach this point by way of a parable of my own making. Suppose you're traveling by air to some exotic destination, and during a flight layover, your connecting flight gets cancelled. Now you're stuck in Detroit, Michigan for the night instead of sunny San Diego. In that situation, do you obsess about how you came to be stuck in Detroit, and about the futility of it all? Or do you make the best of your time in Detroit?

Personally, I view life in a much more positive light than a plane layover (and if there's a city closer to hell than Detroit, I haven't been there [grin]), but it's a decent (if shallow) illustrative example. For nonbelievers like me, our lack of belief in some bigger, greater afterlife that will yield ultimate reward and punishment doesn't preclude us from trying to make the best of the life we have now -- the only one we can be reasonably sure we've actually got.

In fact, as if to defy you, atheists and other non-Christians lead happy, fulfilling lives every day, despite your implication that they ought not be able to. :)

Jeff:In order for rightness and wrongness to exist, there must be a way to resolve disputes between two parties about what is right and wrong. One must have a standard which transcends both parties ... one must have a tertium quid to adjudicate the dispute.Historically, anyway, that "standard" has often been measured in caliber. Or kilotons. :)

Seriously, however, this gets into a more fundamental debate about what morality and ethics actually are, and what they mean. You argue that without some perfect being, they can have no meaning. People like Rob, Paul, and I generally disagree. The best way to illustrate this is with a question: What, in a general sense, determines whether or not an action is moral? Your answer would involve the action's compliance with God's laws and His will. Mine involves the consequences of that action, balancing the benefit against the harm. I don't find either position to be wholly unreasonable, even if I don't agree with yours.

"But at the end of the day, you could still get any one of us to a position where we'd say "X is absolutely, unconditionally wrong."

I think this is pretty much what Brian and David have been saying. There are no real relativists out there because even the most hard core relativist is forced into an absolutist stance of: there is absolutely no truth that is always true. Relativism is unlivable because it is ultimately self-defeating. It can be declared with our mouths ... but it can not be lived because it is incoherent.

I am glad to see you agree with them (and me) on that point.

The obvious question is, when you get through all of your nuances and find that unalterable, unconditional wrong ... what is the tertium quid ... the third thing ... the transcendent straight stick you are appealing to to support your moral claim?

"I find that the Christian worldview is often more cynical than the non-Christian, insofar as it seems to operate from the assumption that without the prospect of reward and punishment in some yet-to-come afterlife, people won't care about anything."

I disagree. The underlying moral basis of the Christian worldview is not fear. It is the holy, perfect character of a transcendant God. Your likening of God to Mao borders on the offensive.

David and I continue to seek what your holy and transcendant standard is.

Jeff:what is the tertium quid ... the third thing ... the transcendent straight stick you are appealing to to support your moral claim?That's a good question, and one I can't answer. The cool thing is, neither can you. :) Sure, you can say God, but you have no way of knowing or demonstrating that your view of God is the straight stick and the next guy's view of God is the crooked one. So we're in the same boat.

And that's why morality is still so hotly contested: there is no definitive "straight stick." If someone had one, and could demonstrate that they had it, there wouldn't be much room for debate.Please clarify the distinction.Natural Law = God
natural law = a set of consistent physical laws for the universeThe underlying moral basis of the Christian worldview is not fear.It shouldn't be, but that's not often how it's presented. Isn't reward and punishment at the root of the whole "without God, what's the incentive to live well" argument that David and others often bring up? If that's not the intent, then there's clearly a need to clarify, because it sure comes across as "when the cat's away, the mice will play" to me.Your likening of God to Mao borders on the offensive.I assure you, no offense was intended. But there does seem to be a certain hypocrisy to the idea that without God, the only ethic that can exist is "might makes right" while simultaneously arguing that God's might makes right (I know, I know, in the latter case, His perfect nature is what makes His might right, but that's a distinction without a difference).David and I continue to seek what your holy and transcendant standard is.I suppose I could make one up if it would make you feel better. :) By and large, the golden rule seems to work well for me.The point that continues to surface is that everyone lives as if there is a transcendant standard of right and wrong out there, because there actually is a transcendant standard out there.If that were truly the case, then wouldn't everyone come to the same moral conclusions? That we don't seems to me to be evidence that we're fumbling about a bit. Ultimately, however, there does have to be some sort of transcendent standard, but there's nothing that says that standard has to be God. It could be as simple as "the best interests of the human race," or it could be (and I suspect it is) a lot more complex than that.We can choose the road of selfish indulgence and willful ignorance.And you gripe about me being borderline offensive? Methinks thou doth protest too much! :)Hope is the best of things.I don't disagree. I just haven't hung all of mine on the Christian God. That's really the only place in which we differ.

"That's a good question, and one I can't answer. The cool thing is, neither can you. :) Sure, you can say God, but you have no way of knowing or demonstrating that your view of God is the straight stick and the next guy's view of God is the crooked one. So we're in the same boat."

Thank you for your honesty.

I don't have to demonstrate it ... because the only thing it could be, by definition, is God. God is by definition transcendant, timeless and holy. It is self-evidently true ... that is the beauty of it.

Your protest is kind of like saying, "you have no way of proving that a three sided polygon is a triangle" ... to which I say, you are right, but then, I don't have to. It is self-evidently so.

"It shouldn't be, but that's not often how it's presented. Isn't reward and punishment at the root of the whole "without God, what's the incentive to live well" argument that David and others often bring up? If that's not the intent, then there's clearly a need to clarify, because it sure comes across as "when the cat's away, the mice will play" to me."

Boy, I sure never got that from anything that David has said. I think you have misinterpreted something. I'll summons David back to the discussion.

This is not Islam we are talking about ... it is Christianity. Our motive for obedience is love. It is that whole thing about being rescued ... by grace ... the rational response to someone giving their life for you is to live a life of obedience out of gratitude.

Remember that opening scene from Saving Private Ryan? The old man goes to the cemetary and finds the grave stone, kneels and starts weeping. He is remembering those that gave their lives so that he might live. He remembers their sacrifice. That is exactly how the Christian views Christ and what he did. He took our bullet, as it were. That is the motive for living in submission to God, and following his revealed will.

Jeff:God is by definition transcendant, timeless and holy.Well, sure, but I could "define" something like "Xurg" that way, and the explanation holds up nearly as well. That's my point. You don't get to define your way out of the problem.Could it be that people are hotly debating the nuances?I doubt very highly that you would consider subjects like homosexuality, abortion, capital punishment, extramarital intercourse, and gender discrimination to be "nuances."You and I seem to agree that a transcendant, unalterable, set of moral laws existAs I think on it, I'm not so sure on the "transcendent" part -- I don't think that's the best word for it. But as I just pointed out, we disagree on some pretty big "nuances." Big enough that I don't consider them to be "nuances" at all.That is the motive for living in submission to God, and following his revealed will.That explains the justification that Christians give for their morality, true enough, but that's not what we're talking about here. We're talking about why (according to you and David) there cannot be morality without God (specifically, the Christian God). In this context, I'm concerned not with your argument for your idea of morality, but with your argument against mine, which has very closely resembled, "without God [to give us law and order], there's no 'incentive' for ethics, and you're left with 'might makes right.'" And that, to me, seems downright misanthropic.

David:For such people, the motivation to live in accordance with the moral law is a joyful gratitude over what God has done in Christ.And what of the others?

That's the problem with this reasoning: there's no fear of punishment among those who comply and thus will be spared the punishment, but there's still very much the threat of punishment for those who don't comply. Revelation is filled with graphic details about what happens to "the rest of us." So it's more than a little disingenuous to say that the threat of punishment has nothing at all to do with it.

D'oh. "all the different" should read "all that different."

"By definition human beings are moral critters who's morality is self-generated. No need for a God or transcendent moral code then to guide human behavior."

And I would be inclined to accept your opinion if being human was synonymous with eternality, transcendance and holiness ... which it, of couse, is not.

I understand your concern about question begging, but the concept of God requires transcendance ... therefore, the requirements for the tertium quid are met in full.

By the way, how do you demonstrate that all three sided polygons are triangles?

Meant as an illustrative question ... not meant as snarkiness.

"We're talking about why (according to you and David) there cannot be morality without God (specifically, the Christian God)."

Huh? I am claiming that you cannot be an atheist and have a tertium quid. You made the claim that you believe that there are truths that are unalterable and always true, and I am holding you to it. You also claimed that we would disagree on the content of those truths ... fair enough ... but that is a red herring.

Morality can exist in an atheistic worldview ... it just cannot exist in a transcendant form ... it cannot be unalterable and transcendant as your originally stated. It is incoherent. You have no fixed point to adjudicate from and make true moral assessments from. i.e. back to a standard-less standard. 1=2 and 3/0 stuff.