Archive

Posts Tagged ‘Morality’

New Atheism’s Moral Meltdown (Part 2)

March 3, 2014 1 comment

In our original article we wrote “Of course, [Coyne] believes in moral obligations and the significance of the individual.” It seems we were much too generous, for his commitment to moral reality is far from clear. It is rather difficult to tell if Coyne is a realist or an anti-realist about moral principles. Indeed, he may be rather confused himself. Does he believe in moral facts? If he does, he is a moral realist who needs a materialist explanation for morality. If, however, he believes that moral principles have no truth values and that in making moral judgements we merely project attitudes or emotions on to the world, he is a moral anti-realist who claims he can explain morality away.

Can science explain morality away? It’s difficult to see how any scientific explanation of moral feelings would allow us to live as if there are no moral demands on us. It seems impossible to live as if morality is an illusion; Dawkins calls morality a “blessed, precious mistake”, and he believes it. But if morality is a mistake nothing is truly blessed or precious. Suppose our moral……..

 

Read the entire article here.

New Atheism’s Moral Meltdown (Part 1)

February 24, 2014 1 comment

A little while ago, Jerry Coyne replied to our critique of his approach to ethics. We’re not at all convinced by Coyne’s response, which essentially reduces to a rant about religious fundamentalism. Let us restate our case for the sake of clarity. Moral values seem quite at home in a theistic world-view; moral values do not fit in the New Atheist’s world-view. Therefore, any theist -be they merely a philosophical theist, or Hindu, Muslim, Jewish or Christian – has a better explanation for morality than Jerry Coyne, Sam Harris, Richard Dawkins or their acolytes[i].

We provide evidence for Christianity, and arguments for Christian faith, elsewhere on our website. [ii]And we are not very interested in advancing a political programme; we are much more concerned that people come to the Son of God for personal forgiveness and new life. Mr Coyne can reject our concerns as nonsensical; but that won’t help him explain morality. So we’ll look past most of the bluff and bluster in his reply, and focus once more on the central issues.

 

Read the entire article here.

Response to comment about Chris Broussard article

A while back I placed an article on my blog entitled “Should Chris Broussard be suspended from ESPN”. I had a commenter comment on this post, who claimed to be a Christian, but in the final outcome he did not view civil laws as being derived from God, but makes the claim that man is autonomous to make his own civil laws as he sees fit. I approved the commenter’s first few comments, but when the commenter began to rail and accuse my responses as being Pharisaical, I then cut the commenter off. Here is the final comment from this individual.

 

“You clearly responded without reading my statement… Your statement represented the puny thinking of a closed mind – not even the willingness to read the statement you’re addressing!
1. I celebrated Chris’ statement and agreed with it based on Romans 1, which I noted.
2. I satiated that I adamantly disagree with homosexuals marriage.
3. Civil rights are derived from being a citizen of the country you live in, based on that country’s laws.
4. Your Pharisee mentality really speaks to the parable of the toothpick in the versus the telephone pole in your own…
Read what was written before you waste time responding to your own issues.”

 

First my comments to this individual were not driven by the puny thinking of a closed mind for reasons that I will state in my next few points.

Secondly, this individual claimed that he celebrated Chris Broussard’s statement by appealing to Romans 1; yet had he believed Romans 1, then he would not declare that civil laws are derived from men whom have an autonomous mind set.

Thirdly, this commenter claimed that he disagreed with homosexual marriage. If this were true then he would not be a liberal concerning civil government.

Fourthly, this individual claims that civil rights are derived from being a citizen of the country in which one lives. It is true that civil rights are given to individuals within the country of which they live, but to make the claim that these countries have the right to make any and all laws that they so choose is to view the world through an autonomous mindset. Men can and have gotten together within the government systems of the countries, of which they live, and have made laws to govern their country. But do these individuals have the right to change the laws of nature, of which God has placed within this universe? This is the question. Men have no more right to change the week to an eight day week, than they do to allow two homosexuals to marry. God established the seven day week pattern from creation and has also established the marital pattern, of one man and one woman being united in holy matrimony, from creation. When these government officials make laws, against the laws of which God has established, then they are acting against God himself and shall be brought into judgment. Remember the nations that forget God shall perish Psalm 9:17.

Fifthly, this individual argues like an atheist. Atheists make the claim that morality is derived from nature. Yet nature is amoral. Since nature is amoral, then morality could not be derived from nature. Other Atheists claim that societies make up their own system of morality and this is where morality comes from. If this were true, then which society has the right system of morality? We see nations governed by Totalitarianism, Socialism, Communism, Democracy, etc… Certainly if morality were derived from society, then we should see a unified system across the globe, which is in place for the good of all individuals. The fact that there is diversity in the governing of countries just shows that there is one moral system, of which men have corrupted and perverted. For instance, no matter where one goes, most people believe that lying, adultery, and theft is wrong. The reason there is a unified concept concerning these things is because morality is something that is not inherent within us, but something that comes from outside us. It is a transcendent law that presses down upon all men. If this were not true, then no one would have the right to call other society’s actions immoral. Matter fact, if this were not true, then no one would have the right to call their neighbor’s actions immoral.

This is the same for civil laws. Government has been established by God as a means to thwart evil. Romans 13 states, that those in government positions are there as ministers of God for the purpose of thwarting evil. But just because certain governments don’t hold to the Bible, as its guide, does not mean that they are not accountable to establish laws that thwart evil. As I mentioned above, the laws of morality transcend us and are pressing down upon us. The laws that are established by government should be established for the betterment of society, not for the destroying of it. Therefore laws that allow two people of the same sex to marry and adopt children, not only destroys the foundation of society, but is an act of defiance to God, who established foundational laws that should govern society.

Finally, this blog views the world through what could be called a Biblical World view. In other words, this blog interprets all things through what God has declared. Anyone who does not see the world through the lens of the Bible has taken an anti-God and anti-Biblical approach to natural things. The Biblical approach to the universe is not the mindset of a Pharisee, but should be the mindset of all of God’s chosen elect. We are never to accept what God says concerning how to run the church, but then reject what he says about how men are to behave themselves within a societal setting. We are to accept what God has stated concerning both areas in question. God alone knows what is best. This is why he gave men commands, of which to obey, within the realm of this world. One man and one woman, united together in holy matrimony, shall keep diseases at bay, and also reproduces in order that society can continue. Without these foundational principles in place, no society will last long. Two men and two women cannot reproduce offspring. Two homosexuals that come together and adopt children cannot raise those children in the same way that a heterosexual couple could. The process going on within our legal arena in this country will have drastic and irreparable consequences. 

The unsaved increase their guilt by being baptized and partaking of the Lord’s Supper

Spurgeon 6

Now, I suppose if I were to labor never so arduously to hunt out this evil spirit from the sons of men, I should miss it still, for it hides in so many shapes, and therefore let me say, that in no shape, in no sense, in no single case, and in no degree whatsoever, are we saved by our works or by the law. I say in no sense, because men make such shifts to save alive their own righteousness. I will show you one man who says, “Well, I don’t expect to be saved by my honesty; I don’t expect to be saved by my generosity, nor by my morality; but then, I have been baptized; I receive the Lord’s Supper; I have been confirmed; I go to church, or I have a sitting in a meeting-house; I am, as touching the ceremonies, blameless.” Well, friend, in that sense you cannot be saved by works, for all these things have no avail whatever upon the matter of salvation, if you have not faith. If you are saved, God’s ordinances will be blessed things to you, but if you are not a believer you have no right to them; and with regard to Baptism and the Supper, every time you touch them you increase your guilt. Whether it be Baptism or the Lord’s Supper, you have no right to either, except you be saved already, for they are both ordinances for believers, and for believers only. These ordinances are blessed means of grace to living, quickened, saved souls; but to unsaved souls, to souls dead in trespasses and sins, these outward ordinances can have no avail for good, but may increase their sin, because they touch unworthily the holy things of God. Oh! repose not in these; oh! dream not that a priestly hand and sacred drops, or a God-ordained baptism in the pool, can in any way redeem you from sin, or land you in heaven: for by this way salvation is impossible.

Charles H. Spurgeon—Grace Exalted-Boasting Excluded—A Sermon Delivered on Sunday Morning, January 19th, 1862

God works from within a believer in order to preserve

Yet it needs to be pointed out that in maintaining His people in holiness, the power of God operates in quite another manner than it does in the maintenance of a river or the preservation of a tree. A rive may (sometimes does) dry up, and a tree may be uprooted: the one is maintained by being replenished by fresh waters, the other is preserved by its being nourished and by its roots being held in the ground; but in each case, the preservation is by physical power, from without, entirely without their concurrence. In the case of the Christian’s preservation it is quite otherwise. With him, God works from within, using moral suasion, leading him to a concurrence of mind and will with the Holy Spirit in this work. God deals with the believer as a moral agent, draws him “with cords of a man” (Hosea 11:4), maintains his responsibility, and bids him “work out your own salvation with fear and trembling, for it is God which worketh in you both to will and to do of His good pleasure” (Phil. 2:12, 13).

Arthur W. Pink—Studies in the Scriptures March, 1937 The Spirit Preserving

New Atheism

Have Atheists disproved the God of the Bible? Do they need to? It seems that every Atheist I interchange dialogue with will tell me that they do not have to give a reasonable explanation of why their views are true. Nevertheless, they keep telling me that my views are not true. If my views are not true, then why would it be unreasonable for me to demand that my Atheistic friends articulate why I am wrong and they are right?

You see from the time Atheist began to make headway in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, the most popular Atheist recognized that if they were going to deny God, then it was their burden to explain where morality, God consciousness, and the universe originated. Today’s Atheist are not as intellectually inclined and would just rather argue like children by pointing fingers and stating you are wrong, you are wrong, you are wrong, etc……. Yet to call a position wrong does not make it wrong. One must give valid reasons to show why the opposite position is wrong. No Atheist has ever been able to demonstrate, through valid arguments, why the God of the Bible does not exist.

 

Today I point you to an article by William Lane Craig on “New Atheism and Five arguments for God.”

It’s perhaps something of a surprise that almost none of the so-called New Atheists has anything to say about arguments for God’s existence. Instead, they to tend to focus on the social effects of religion and question whether religious belief is good for society. One might justifiably doubt that the social impact of an idea for good or ill is an adequate measure of its truth, especially when there are reasons being offered to think that the idea in question really is true. Darwinism, for example, has certainly had at least some negative social influences, but that’s hardly grounds for thinking the theory to be false and simply ignoring the biological evidence in its favor.

Read more of this post here.

William Lane Craig vs. Peter Atkins Round 1

March 27, 2012 8 comments

My second debate I listened to today was between William Lane Craig and Peter Atkins. Atkins was your typical scientist, whom upon denying the existence of God, has nothing left to try and answer the reason for the universe and all that lies therein except for evolution. Atkins argued that the arguments for theism do not work, yet just arguing they don’t work does not make the conclusions invalid to the theist arguments. In order for Atkins to really dismantle the theist arguments he must not only show that they don’t work, but must erect in their place, arguments that will be valid once the premises are reasoned to their logical conclusions.  This he did not do.

Atkins had as much faith in science as a theist has in his belief in God. Atkins argued that science can give an answer for all there is in this closed system or universe. Atkins believed that science can explain all things. Nevertheless Craig took him to task and showed that science cannot prove or explain mathematical equations, science cannot show the foundation for logic and reason, science cannot explain aesthetics, nor can science prove that science is true because the scientific method cannot be done on science itself.

Of course, Atkins used the famous argument against cause and effect that most atheist use. He stated that we know that cause and effect works within this closed system called the universe, but we do not know whether or not cause and effect works on the universe itself to bring it into existence.. Of course, before he was finished he actually admitted that nothing exist, in this universe or outside of it. As Atkins closed he lamented that he had been misrepresented.

Of course Craig took Atkins to task and dismantled his arguments. But Atkins could not receive truth because he trusted in science as if it were a god.

You can listen to this debate here.

This debate took place in 1998. There is a more recent debate between these two.