You are here: Home / Archives for moral absolutes

Answering Atheist X: The Immutable God Exists

December 5, 2012 By 2 Comments

Slavery and The Existence of an Immutably Good God

By Mike Robinson

atheism fails objective moral valuesAtheist X (AX) wrote a guest post (here) that argued Christians cannot “reconcile their belief on slavery, God’s nature, and His proclamations on slavery” within scripture. He discussed other issues and presented a few additional claims, but the heart of his essay centered on the alleged inconsistency of an immutably good God issuing laws regulating slavery.

A Defeater

There are numerous problems regarding AX’s approach. One issue he did not consider: There are Christians who do not ascribe to God all the actions and commandments issued in His name in the Old Testament. These sorts of Christians may hold to one or more of the following:

  1. The full inspiration of Scripture
  2. The infallibility of Scripture
  3. Particular notions of the inerrancy of Scripture

One who maintains such (OI) still affirms God’s immutable1 goodness while having hermeneutical commitments that reinterpret the pertinent passages or deny that the difficult passages were in the original autographs. Even though I personally reject these positions, these views provide clear defeaters for AX’s contention.

Defending Immutable and Objective Moral Values

AX’s position fails, but that does not insure that my views of God’s immutable goodness conjoined with full-orbed inerrancy are correct in contrast to the previously mentioned OI Christians.

I have argued:

  1. Objective moral values2 exist.
  2. Selected objective moral values have the attributes of being immutable and immaterial.
  3. The mutable material cosmos and humanity within lack the attributes of being immutable, and immaterial.
  4. The mutable material cosmos and humanity within cannot account for objective moral values.
  5. The triune God has the attributes of being immutable and immaterial.
  6. Therefore the existence of objective moral values furnishes grounds for knowing that the triune God exists.

How do I defend this argument against AX’s disputation?

AX contends that [5] is defeated because:

[S1] There is no morally good justification that an immutably good God could have for adjudging laws that allow Old Testament slavery.3

But this prompts the question: How could a finite, fallible man know such a contention as [S1]? AX’s position is not based on knowledge, but on his presuppositions.4 Presuppositions tend to drive people into confirmation bias (men seek out evidence that supports their worldview and ignore evidence that disconfirms it). No finite man can possibly have access to enough knowledge of the incalculable amount data that God has for justifying transitory laws. No mere human has the ontological status to justify [S1] and AX’s case against [5]. Mortal men lack the capacity to have this almost exhaustive knowledge of Old Testament history, culture, and possible actions needed to make such an assessment.

AX could not possibly provide epistemic justification that there is no possible reason God could have for justifying His dispensing laws within ancient warring cultures—laws that repel our modern sensibilities.

Worldview Interpretive Necessities

AX bases his rejection of [5] on particulars and not universals.5 All worldviews are open to charge on particular claims as well as individual assessments of specific evidence (disagreement over interpretation of particular evidence is often the case among interlocutors—while both are susceptible to confirmation bias). Apologists for a specific worldview have answers pre-formulated for particular issues, so trading brute evidence (or swapping uninterpreted facts) is not the chief means of finding truth apropos worldview analysis.

I’m asking: What are the required rational and ethical a priori conditions necessary to ground immutable universals required for intelligibility? Christian Theism offers the answers; atheism fails. Atheism is fully deficient of immutable universals required to even begin an inquiry concerning the morality of worldviews. To examine, analyze, and discern proper moral particulars, one needs a worldview that supplies immutable universals including objective moral values. Materialistic atheism believes that only the cosmos exists; the matter and motion within the universe is all there is. Does the cosmos have the capacity to ground immutable universal moral values and duties? No. The material cosmos comes up infinitely short since it is a particular mutable (changing) thing; it lacks universal reach (it is not omnipresent) and it is always in a shifting and variable flux. Thus the material cosmos as well as the matter and motion within fail to ground immutable universal moral values. Since immutable universal moral values exist, strict materialistic atheism cannot be true. 

Strict materialistic atheism lacks the ontological ability necessary to furnish a suitable foundation for objective moral values and duties. Equally, mutable humanity embedded in the cosmos is also devoid of the ontic capacity to account for immutable moral values.

Christian Theism posits things, forms, entities, norms, concepts, laws that are immutable, universal, and non-physical, but the atheistic materialist denies this at his own peril and self-stultification. Christian Theism brings with it the ability for coherence, moral law, inductive truths and all the a prior rational requirements for intelligibility.

A few Questions for AX and other Non-theists

  • Atheist X: On your principles, why is slavery, abusive servitude, or men kept in small prison cells morally wrong?
  • Is there anything immutably wrong?
  • If there is no God, this means that bad things just happen, why should anyone care? It is all physical stuff and things happen like leaves burning in a field. Within an atheist worldview, why ought we care about mere matter in the shape of a man over matter shaped like a leaf? These under your worldview are merely displacements of atoms from one form to another. If there is an ontological distinction, could you show how the presuppositions of atheism might yield such a distinction?
  • Within an atheist worldview, why should the state or individuals be required to respect a person? How does this value of humanity result from the presuppositions of atheism? Why should the state or individuals respect your opinions and even your life more than the pulling of a weed or the quashing of a bug?
  • Given an atheist worldview, how do objective immutable moral values follow?

An immutable standard (the Decalogue), grounded in the immutable character of God, allows men to delineate good and evil. And since you, like me, have sinned, how do you find pardon and eternal forgiveness? The answer is to turn from your ways and trust in Christ who died and rose from the grave. Repent, believe on Him and you will then be accepted by God; He will rinse away all your wicked deeds as you find real peace.

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

  1. Immutable: Unchanging; invariant; that which cannot change; always remaining the same; not mutable; perpetually the same, unceasingly unchanging, changeless (God, the laws of logic, and moral law are immutable).
  2. Moral Value: That which is morally good or evil; the moral worth of something. It is morally good to give apple pies to all your neighbors, but it is not a moral duty to do such. Moral Absolutes: Moral truths or obligations independent of individual men, convention, culture, or society and independent of what they consider to be morally right or wrong. Moral Duty: That which is morally right or wrong; moral obligations. Universal Immutable Moral Value: That which is universally and unchangeably morally good or evil; the immutable moral worth of something that is an absolute.
  3. Selected rulings in the Torah regarding slavery were not ideal or ideally good. In the Torah, God commanded that men love their neighbors as themselves (Lev. 19:18). Old Testament slavery was much different than the general manifestation of antebellum slavery. In ancient times of almost perpetual war together with the harsh reality of daily survival, what was the state to do when a man was in so much debt that he could not repay his lender? These and similar problems required God to allow some form of fair regulations for bodily retainers and servitude. Various things permitted in the Old Testament did not automatically represent the ideal of good. Because of the hardness of men’s heart, God tolerated some things in the Old Testament that He did not commend. If this is always morally wrong, what about men retained in small cells in modern prisons? While slavery is unlawful and absolutely immoral within a Christian worldview, in ancient tribal days, the Torah provided public acknowledgment and lawful protection to those retained that was for its period progressive. Servitude and bondage regulated in the Torah were not based on race or color. Even aliens were to be treated fairly: “But the stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God” (Lev. 19:34). “You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether one of your brethren, or one of the aliens who is in your land within thy gates” (Deu. 24:14). In Matthew the Pharisees came to Jesus and asked Him: “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” Jesus told them that divorce was not in the Lord’s plan from the beginning of mankind. They then asked Christ: “Why, then, did Moses command to give a certificate of divorce and to put her away?” It was in the Torah so it must be God’s model choice. But Jesus replied: “Moses, because of the hardness of your hearts, permitted you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so” (Matthew 19:3-8).
  4. Presupposition: One’s primary rational principle. A preeminent belief held to be true and taken as a precommitment. It is the belief that is held at the most foundational level of one’s grid or web of beliefs. It is the lens through which one interprets reality; it is taken for granted and assumed in making a statement or a theory. It is one’s rational starting point; primary and fundamental assumption; and metaphysical foundation. Everyone has presuppositions—primary belief patterns that influence one’s thinking and outlook. Reason, logic, mathematics, knowledge, predication, and morality are only consistent with Christian presuppositions.
  5. Universals: A universal is something that is true or applies everywhere and at all times. Immutable laws in mathematics and logic are universals. Universals are applicable to or affecting all things, individuals, conditions, or cases; in general. Existing or prevailing everywhere, applicable or occurring throughout or relating to everything everywhere in the cosmos and outside the material cosmos. An assertion, statement or proposition that affirms or denies something about every member of a class, as in all men are mortal; a general term or concept or the type such a term signifies all of one thing, concept, or truth; a metaphysical entity taken to be the reference of a general term, as distinct from the class of individuals it describes. In general, I employ this term in reference to laws or entities that are not limited ontologically to the spatio-temporal realm; the Law of Non-contradiction and the Law of Identity are examples of universals. There are diverse meanings and applications of the term “universal,” but herein I develop the classification above.
————————————————————————————

See the new eBook: The Sure Existence of Moral Absolutes: Proof for Christian Theism  HERE

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christian Philosophy Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Christianity Provides Universal Moral Values

November 28, 2012 By 5 Comments

Christianity: The Source of Universal Moral Values

By Mike Robinson

 the ten commandments decalogue

 

It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on ground other than religious ones (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion).

 

Atheist Christopher Hitchens observed: Hume said, “You can’t get an ‘ought’ from an ‘is.’” I think that is true (Hitchens and Wilson Debate, WMTS).

The language … and practice of morality today is in a state of grave disorder (Philosopher of Ethics Alasdair MacIntyre, After Virtue).

This essay seeks to demonstrate that moral absolutes exist and that atheism lacks the ontological (nature of being; ontology is the study of existence or reality) grounding for moral absolutes. Atheists can know what is moral (epistemic explanation: relating to what we know); they can know right from wrong. Nonetheless, atheism lacks an objective, immutable, and perfect ontic ground to issue objective immutable moral commandments. Additionally, atheism lacks the means to hold all moral lawbreakers to an account.

A moral absolute is true and completely exceptionless. This is sometimes put by saying that a moral absolute is universalizable: it is equally binding on all people at all times… (J.P. Moreland & William L. Craig, Philosophical Foundations for a Christian Worldview).

Many ideologies and religions offer moral edicts, but I maintain that secular, Islamic, Hindu, and naturalistic moral values are inconsistent and cannot be ultimately justified. Selected ideologies believe it is right to lie and murder in order to promote their agenda. To a consistent atheistic materialist, the concept of immaterial law is nonsensical. It doesn’t seem to make sense to argue that an immaterial objective moral value comes from a material-only world; therefore, for the consistent atheist, immaterial objective moral values do not exist. I will argue that the only consistent and righteous moral system comes from Christian theism. It is justified and it is impossible for it not to be true because Christianity supplies the necessary truth conditions for immutable moral values. Mutable materialistic atheism ultimately tumbles into moral nihilism.

God is Necessary for Objective Morality

In Christianity neither morality nor religion come into contact with reality at any point (Nietzsche).

If the conclusion of a sound argument is rejected because of sinful suppression, clearly that’s no fault of the argument (James Anderson).

 

  • Since the immutable good God with universal reach exists then immutable universal objective moral values exist.
  • The immutable good God with universal reach exists.
  • Therefore immutable universal objective moral values exist.

Below is another valid but not biblically acceptable form (it does not ontologically start with God)

  • If immutable universal objective moral values exist the immutable God with universal reach exists.
  • Immutable universal objective moral values exist.
  • The immutable God with universal reach exists.

——-

Similarly one could argue employing the following form:

  • Objective moral values exist.
  • Objective moral values have the attributes of being immutable and immaterial.
  • The mutable material cosmos and humanity within lack the attributes of being immutable, and immaterial.
  • The mutable material cosmos and humanity within cannot account for objective moral values.
  • The triune God has the attributes of being immutable and immaterial.
  • Therefore the existence of objective moral values furnishes grounds for knowing that the triune God exists.

These are valid and defendable formulations; nevertheless the issue of the ontology of moral values is not merely a matter of reasoning to God utilizing the existence of moral values. It understands that all reasoning depends and presupposes God. This includes reasoning about moral values.

Additionally, I am not asserting that non-theists do not know (epistemic concern) moral principles nor are they directly rejecting the second table of the Ten Commandments. In some ways non-theists do not have to openly affirm the first four commandments in the Decalogue to live by selected moral principles, albeit incongruously. Accordingly, I am contending that God is ontologically indispensable for the existence (ontic claim) of objective moral values. God is the ontological basis and underpinning for immutable moral values.

God is the unchanging foundation for unchanging moral values for the reason that He is the standard of good. Since He is good and perpetually the same, He is the foundation for unchanging moral values. Under non-theism mutable human beings cannot be the ground for immutable moral values. Evolving humans (evolve means change) lack the ontic capacity to provide a ground in of themselves for unchanging moral values. One cannot give what one does not have (universality and immutability).

On non-theism the best we have is a varying subjective opinion (or collection of opinions) of what some men at a particular point in time consider a moral value; possibly conjoined to a moral duty.

An Ever-in-Flux Cosmos Cannot Ground Immutable Moral Values

Moral law has to be derived from us (Christopher Hitchens, Wilson and Hitchens Debate).

If you don’t like my principles, I’ve got others (Groucho Marx).

Materialistic atheism believes that only the cosmos exists; the matter and motion within the universe is all there is. Does the cosmos have the capacity to ground immutable universal moral values and duties? No. The material cosmos comes up infinitely short since it is a particular mutable (changing) thing; it lacks universal reach (it is not omnipresent) and it is always in a shifting and variable flux. Thus the material cosmos and the matter and motion within fail to ground immutable universal moral values. Since immutable universal moral values exist, strict materialistic atheism cannot be true. Mutability eats at the non-theistic ontic base like acid.

Strict materialistic atheism lacks the ontological ability necessary to furnish a suitable foundation for objective moral values and duties. Equally, mutable humanity embedded in the cosmos is also devoid of the ontic capacity to account for immutable moral values.

Objective Moral Values and Duties Exist

First … human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in certain ways… Second … they do not in fact behave in that way. These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in (C.S. Lewis).

Many actions are universally, objectively, and immutably wrong. Actions like killing babies for mere fun. Child sexual assault and torture for crowd enjoyment are universally and immutably wrong. These actions are unremittingly wrong since these prohibitions are based on God’s unchanging nature. Every person with a properly functioning moral sense knows that gratuitous torture and abuse is always wrong.

Moral values are grounded on God and moral duties are commands revealed by a good God in man’s conscience and in Scripture.

A moral duty is obligatory of men when the good God commands it. A moral action is permitted for people when the good God commands it or the action is derived from the general equity of a biblical command. An action is prohibited when the good God commands people not to do such an action.

Accordingly, moral obligations and prohibitions are known by the commandments of God and the application of the general equity thereof. Additionally, in a subservient manner, one’s properly functioning conscience directed by the truth of Scripture morally informs a person.

God’s commandments are not arbitrary inasmuch as they are based on and flow from God’s essentially good unchanging nature. Since God’s commands are based on His nature the truth of God’s existence is invulnerable to the Euthyphro Dilemma (this is discussed in greater detail elsewhere in this volume).

See the new eBook: The Sure Existence of Moral Absolutes: Proof for Christian Theism HERE

objective moral values

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

or in Paperback on Amazon

Filed Under: Apologetics, Classical Apologetics, Presuppositional Epistemology Tagged With: , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Christianity Provides Moral Absolutes: The Failure of non-Christian Moral Systems

November 6, 2012 By 2 Comments

Problems with Selected Non-Christian Ethical Systems

By Mike Robinson

objective moral valuesApparently healthy, normal, pleasant young German lads, counterparts … in America would be called “fine college boys,” could be and were–1000’s of them–turned quickly into cruel, course bullies who, in uniform of the notorious S.S., flogged elderly doctors and schoolmasters into unconsciousness for the facilitating of the process of opening the jaws and purloining the gold fillings of their… victims before they were wheeled off to one of the crematory.1

 

“Man––the most brutal, the most resolute creature on earth. He knows nothing but extermination of his enemies in the world” (Adolph Hitler in his wicked work: The Superiority of the Aryans).

 

Pragmatism: the doctrine that practical consequences are the criteria of knowledge, meaning, and value.

How do you know what is right or wrong? Many people feel the way to establish law is to study a problem and legislate what works best (that which is the most efficient; relating to praxis). Laws that promote a moral code that merely works best are capricious. Laws that solely aim to promote the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people are, also, fickle and arbitrary. Moreover these laws can change. And they do not provide an immovable standard to discern what happiness is or what works best.

Utilitarianism declares that law is to be based on evaluating what supplies the most utility for the most men; what provides the most happiness for the greatest number of people. Laws are to be legislated based exclusively on what will promote the best consequences. However, utilitarian’s cannot find agreement among themselves concerning the proper objective: Is the correct goal the greatest quality of happiness or the greatest quantity of happiness? And who decides? What is more, utilitarianism cannot supply an ultimate and unchanging standard. It just pushes the question back one step. What is the ultimate standard that judges what is more valuable? Utilitarianism fails because it requires a standard that transcends itself.

 Ethical pragmatism is one way of determining what is good or bad. … That which works best determines its moral value. Careful evaluation should discern the possible consequences in order to see if an action is … right or wrong. The moral answer is to be judged in terms of whether the actions yield satisfactory results (Richard H. Popkin).

In 2004, Las Vegas County Commissioners and members of the community gathered to debate laws that would restrict erotic dancers. They decided to proscribe moderate rules for lap dancing. Most of the citizens and the commissioners did not cite any moral law that would prohibit such behavior. Instead, one person after another simply cited pragmatic or consequentialist reasons to support their arguments such as: Scientific research indicates sensual touching promotes good health for the human heart. One lady who spoke was an ex-stripper; she recounted how stripping ruined her life. Still, research has also indicated that many serial rapists and sex offenders visit strip clubs and this may eventually lead them to commit heinous sexual crimes against others. However endorsement of pragmatism or consequentialism raises the questions:

  1. By what standard does society use to discern what works best?
  2. By what standard does society use to discern what brings the best consequences to the most people?

Through lap dancing, many men will have healthier hearts; yet, many others will be injured as an indirect or direct result of this perversion. Even these shaky ethical systems, in the end, require a standard to judge what is morally paramount.

Pragmatic and Utilitarian Law Leads to Evil

It will be argued that pragmatic ethics involves an evolutionary-based teleological theory—although not wholly Darwinian in nature (James Liszka).

 Utilitarianism: the ethical theory that maintains that the correct course of action is the one that maximizes the overall happiness for the most people. It is a system of consequentialism, meaning that the moral worth of an action is determined only by its resulting outcome, and that one can decide the moral value of an action after knowing its consequences.

Laws cannot be completely based on the principle of what works best. Ethical pragmatism is a teleological notion and falls under its own weight. It tumbles inasmuch as the principle itself cannot be tested, studied, and found to work best. Likewise, an absolute fixed ethical system cannot be based on what maximizes utility. The utilitarian (category of consequentialism) precepts can be Play-Doe in the hands of righteous men or wicked men. Wicked people can decide that all manner of evil has more utility and then pass laws based on that evil. Nazism wooed the German people in great numbers partially through the utilitarian application of Hitler’s grandiose ideas. The majority of the German people believed that Nazism brought happiness and great industry to their country in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. Yet Nazism was evil. The records of the Nuremberg Trials on Nazi war crimes states: “About a million and a half people were exterminated in Madnek … over 133,000 persons were tortured and shot … Germans … exhumed and burned corpses, and crushed their bones with machines and used them for fertilizer… Nazi conspirators mercilessly destroyed even children. They killed them with their parents, in groups, and alone… They buried the living in graves, throwing them into flames … conducting experiments on them.”

Without God, nothing can supply the immovable paradigm for immutable universal moral values and duties. Society needs an absolute universal moral law to evaluate what is best and what is good, or it will fall into barbarism. Without God, moral choices are unclear. The true God is inescapable. Men may try to escape His moral decrees, but without them, life can only lead to despair and pain.

Some atheists assert that the focus of morality is to minimize harm. If that were the case, one could not morally prohibit a 20,000 group of child molesters in an East Asian country that desires to molest 500 young children in a small town. If allowed they will not invade a large city and kill 10,000 citizens. This is a way to minimize harm, but it allows outright evil to occur. One needs an absolute standard to have proper moral objectives.

Moral Law: It’s more Than a Feeling

Supreme Court justice Stephen Bryer revealed his ultimate measure for deciding law. On CSPAN he conceded that he knew his ruling was right by how he “feels” in his heart.2 The brilliant atheist Bertrand Russell admitted that he based his ethics on how he “feels.” Pol Pot felt he needed to mass-murder one million of his citizens in the killing fields; Hitler felt like murdering over 10,000 people a day and to use the skin of those murdered to make lamp shades and use their hair to make sacks. Moral worth is more than a feeling.

Ethnic Cleansing and Utilitarianism

If men are wicked with religion, what would they be without it? (Benjamin Franklin).

In claiming that the Turks were wrong in the mass genocide of one million-plus Armenians, a socoety needs more than an ideology that establishes law based on maximum utility. The Turks thought the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians was of great benefit for most of the people in Turkey. The genocide helped the greatest number of people, as it increased and augmented the most happiness for the most people.

Putting women in emotional, civil, and physical bondage makes most Muslim men, in dozens of countries, very happy. An Associated Press article3 reported an opinion poll of the people of Russia. The poll found that 53 percent of the respondents viewed Stalin’s role (he murdered 20 to 35 million people) in Russian history as “absolutely positive” or “more positive than negative.” Yet, only 33 percent said his role was “absolutely negative” or “more negative than positive.”

What if the majority of a nation voted that killing people with big noses or large feet made them most happy? What if 51 percent voted to kill the other 49 percent who had bigger noses or larger feet? Is it wrong? By the utilitarian benchmark it is lawful and good inasmuch as it benefits the most human beings; it brings happiness to the greatest number of people.

By what standard does society measure happiness and pain? If most people are not happy and feel pain because they cannot afford steak seven days a week, does society have the moral obligation to take the people out to a steakhouse every night? What if the majority of people can’t afford to buy the supersize meal deal at Taco Bell? Do we owe the people a big Chulupa combo with an extra-large Pepsi because this will make the most people happy? One needs an absolute moral yardstick to make law. Pragmatism and utilitarianism ultimately fail inasmuch as they cannot supply a fixed absolute standard.

  • A pleasure calculus?
  • Passing laws to make the most people happy?
  • Avoiding the moral law as politicians speak only of that which works best?
  • Does this sound familiar? Are there two American political parties (and all the pundits) that seek to enact laws with strict utilitarianism aims?
  • Which US political party avoids moral issues the most while seeking to make people happy using other citizen’s wealth?

God’s Law is the Objective Standard

Non-Christian philosophers fell short when they attempted to devise an obligatory moral criterion. It appears the best they could come up with was the pleasure calculus. The laborious chart did not work because it was arbitrary and could not deliver a universal and fixed moral touchstone. God has given mankind the blessing of an absolute moral law that binds all men at all times. This gift is His commandments: the absolute moral law which all censure, prohibition, civil restraint, individual rights, approbation, and righteous jurisprudence are derived. We are to reject all moral and ethical systems that are not based on the general equity of principles of God’s commandments.

——————————————————

  1. Geddees McGregor, Introduction to Religious Philosophy
    (Boston, MA: Mifflin, 1959), pp. 118-119.
  2. CSPAN: 11/10/05.
  3. Associated Press: March 6, 2003.

————————————————————————————-

For more see my new Apologetics eBook The Assured Existence of Moral Absolutes: Proof for the Existence of God HERE

Also in paperback on Amazon. It offers potent proof for the existence of God employing moral absolutes.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christian Philosophy, World Religions Tagged With: , , ,

The Moral Law of God Requires Respect

June 21, 2012 By Leave a Comment

Placing No Value on Objective Moral Values

It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on ground other than religious ones (Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion).

If you love Me, keep My commandments (Jesus: John 14:15).

The denial of objective moral values is a self-diminishing effort because the denial of objective moral values presupposes a moral view: it is morally permissible to absolutely deny absolute moral values. So in a sense, the attempt to deny absolute moral values affirms that they exist. To deny fixed moral values is self-deflating; the denial, in the end, leads to the removal of a standard that obligates others to communicate the denial absolutely. If you ask them if they absolutely believe that there are no absolutes; they may say, “no.” Then you just ask them if they absolutely believe their answer of no. At some point they must stand on an absolute or they fall into idiocy.

Additionally, if one tries to fall back on the canard that “all things are meaningless,” one commits philosophical suicide. If all things are meaningless, then that would include the statement itself (all things are meaningless). Therefore it is impossible for all things to be meaningless.

God Law is Essential

It is a divine doctrine which teaches what is right and pleasing unto God and reproves everything that is sin and contrary to God’s will (The Book of Concord).

Fearing the Lord is the beginning of moral knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction (Proverbs 1:7, NET).

The law of God requires a new kind of respect and awe (Alasdair MacIntyre).

The consistent basis for ethics is God’s Word, the Bible. The Ten Commandments are the foundation for just laws and righteous ethical codes. Other systems are inconsistent and allow evil to intermingle in culture. Muslim societies prohibit freedom and decree the execution of those who disagree with Islam. Hinduism, for over two thousand years, legalized the burning of widows in the funeral pyre of their deceased husbands. Charles Spurgeon recounted the story of a Hindu woman that told a missionary: “Surely your Bible was written by a woman.” The missionary asked her: “Why do you assert that?” She responded: “Because it says so many kind things about women. Our religion never refers to women except in reproach.”

 A man should always learn from the mind of his Maker. Behold the Holy One, blessed be He, ignored mountains and hills and caused His Shechinah to alight Mount Sinai (Talmud).

The Bible, thousands of years before Western science discovered the problem of microbes and the need to wash and sterilize, commanded people to observe strict sanitary guidelines. In contrast, the Hindu’s consider the Ganges River to be sacred and are commanded to bathe, drink, and swim in its polluted waters. An Associated Press release recounted how the faithful Hindu immerses himself into the Ganges. The result, of this polluted bath, is many of them get skin, intestinal, and stomach ailments from the “holy river.” A river that is filled with rotting corpses, ashes of the dead, sewage, and other waste. Many devout Hindus die from the religious rituals of the Ganges that are theologically imposed on the faithful.1 Clearly all religions are not basically the same. All moral codes (whether religious or non-religious) are not the same. Values, morals, and laws that are good come from the Bible.

Good moral values and obligations come from, or are derived from, the general equity of biblical principles within the Decalogue and the teachings of Jesus Christ.

———————————————————————-

1. Prajnan Bhattacharya, Hindu’s Risk Health for Holiness (Las Vegas, NV: Review Journal, May 14, 2002, Associated Press), p. 7B.

To learn innovative arguments for Christian theism see my New eBook The Sure Existence of Moral Absolutes: Proof for the Existence of God HERE

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christian Philosophy, Presuppositional Epistemology Tagged With: , , ,

God and His Law: The Preconditions for Shame & the Relief of the Gospel

April 20, 2012 By Leave a Comment

God and His Law: Reveal Guilt and Shame

Justice–if we only knew what it was (Socrates).

The LORD is compassionate and gracious, slow to anger, abounding in love (Psalms 103:8).

 We all, at times, feel the emotional state of guilt and shame. This guilt and shame we feel when we break a moral law, at least tacitly, assume God and His fixed just law (Romans 1:18-27). In principle, an immutable moral obligation can only be justified by appealing to the immutable, sovereign, omnipotent, and good Lawgiver (an ontic foundation: what is). Man feels shame and guilt when he disobeys inasmuch as he has done this to a personal loving God. We know (epistemic: what we know) this through our conscience and God’s Word.  Accordingly, it appears obvious, prima facie, that anti-theism is not just to be rejected as a foundation for moral law, but it is unbearable. But one doesn’t have to rest on the unendurable; submit to the moral Lordship of God and conform to His Word. This is veracious since God is the self-existent, holy, and sovereign One who is the foundation of moral law and ethical principles.

Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect (Jesus, Matthew 5:48)

Part of the magnificence of the Christian faith is the truth of God’s moral law, and its culminating expression and fulfillment in the Gospel. Jesus Christ died on the cross for His children and rose from the dead on the third day. Those, who trust in Jesus, have all their guilt and shame washed away. Yes, God’s law presses guilt on our soul, but God is a good and merciful God. Through the cross of Christ, He forgives our sins and gives us forensic (legal) and perfect righteousness in Jesus by grace alone. Christianity is the worldview that can account for guilt and shame, and is the only worldview that can forensically eliminate them. Christianity is the foundation for objective moral values and duties. And it provides the spiritual remedy for falling short of one’s duties through the vicarious atonement of Jesus Christ.

for more on Ontology and how to use it in Apologetics see my Ebook: Ontology: Studies in Christian Thought and Apologetic Applications HERE

Filed Under: Apologetics, Covenantal Apologetics Tagged With: , , , , ,

There Are Theistic Moral Absolutes: Some Thoughts

January 3, 2012 By 5 Comments

Theistic Moral Absolutes

By Mike Robinson

I have asked countless non-absolutists, from self-styled religionists to independent atheistic materialists, the following question:

Mike: Is there absolute truth?

Non-Christian: No. We can’t know anything for certain.

Mike: Are you certain of that?

Arguments that contradict the Christian worldview will, at some point, be self-stultifying. Bringing this truth up in a conversation is a good way to begin a fruitful dialogue. If your interlocutor posits a self-defeating assertion, press it a bit on him, and do not let him change the subject right away. Confute any self-refuting fallacy he states, and then proceed to share the law and the gospel with him (that like you, he is a sinner and he needs the forgiveness offered in the gospel). Make sure you listen to him at least as much as you speak.

If one asserts that we can’t know anything for certain, then we cannot know that for certain. If their statement is true, then it is false. If it is false, then obviously it is not true.1

Many think that Kant was one of the chief instigators of non-theistic moral values. Kant built on Socrates, Hume, and others in promulgating the notion that one could have objective moral values (OMV) without God’s written revelation (yes men can discern and practice morality without scripture: see Romans 1; but they cannot account for objective moral values without God). Some readings of Kant suggest that we could discover fixed ethical truths through the use of “pure reason.” Yet a normative ethical code with universal moral absolutes cannot exist without God’s law. There isn’t a constant, comprehensive, and universal ethical common ground among cultures or peoples. Even cultures within the same country often lack ethical common ground (as we have seen in Afghanistan, Iraq, and India). Many Islamic terrorists decree that it is the moral duty of faithful Muslims to blow up innocent civilians. Various pagan cultures demand the burning of widows. Some cultures demanded the sacrifice of virgins to the Aztec gods. A few Buddhist sects sanction burning oneself to death in a suicidal protest to make a political point. These actions are wrong because they contradict God’s law. Only the true and living God can immutable decree that which is good and that which is evil. Christians throughout history have practiced immoral and evil acts, but the truth of God accounting for objective moral values is independent of whether people have properly obeyed His law or not. Men, including Christians, sin this truth actually presupposes OMVs inasmuch as without OMVs one could not name the moral crimes committed by religionists or non-religionists.

John Frame explains: “Certainty is a lack of doubt about some state of affairs… Absolute certainty is the lack of any doubt at all. Short of that, there are various levels of relative certainty. The question also arises in the religious context: can we know God with certainty? The Bible often tells us that Christians can, should, and do know God and the truths of revelation (Matt. 9:6, 11:27, 13:11, John 7:17, 8:32, 10:4-5, 14:17, 17:3, many other passages). Such passages present this knowledge, not as something tentative, but as a firm basis for life and hope.”

Frame continues: “It is impossible to exclude absolute certainty in all cases. Any argument purporting to show that there is no such certainty must admit that it is itself uncertain. Further, any such argument must presuppose that argument itself is a means of finding truth. If someone uses an argument to test the certainty of propositions, he is claiming certainty at least for that argument. And he is claiming that by such an argument he can test the legitimacy of claims to certainty. But such a test of certainty, a would-be criterion of certainty, must itself be certain. And an argument that would test absolute certainty must itself be absolutely certain. In Christian epistemology, God’s word is the ultimate criterion of certainty” (John Frame: Certainty, IVP Dictionary of Apologetics).

The unchanging universal in reach God is the only means to account for universal unchanging OMVs; an always changing, non-universal cosmos fails to account for unchanging universal OMVs. It cannot give (immutable universals) what it does not have; mutable non-universal humanity has the same explanatory impotency. The true God is required for OMVs.

—————————————-

  1. Some might then say, “I don’t know for certain that we can’t know anything for certain.” At that point ask them if they are certain that they are not certain? At some point in the regress they will have to be certain of their uncertainty.

Human behavior doesn’t affect the reality that God alone accounts for OMVs. Men are called to follow the moral law Jesus proclaimed–and when they sin, they ought to repent, seek forgiveness, and aim to follow His moral precepts. See my book: There Are Moral Absolutes HERE

 

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christian Philosophy, Classical Apologetics Tagged With: , ,

Book Review: Grave Influence: and the 21 Radicals and Their Worldviews

August 2, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Book Review: Grave Influence By Mike Robinson

In 2004, Las Vegas County Commissioners and members of the community gathered to debate laws that would restrict “erotic dancers.” They decided to proscribe moderate rules for “lap dancing.” Most of the citizens and the commissioners did not sight any moral law that would prohibit such behavior. Instead, one after another sighted pragmatic reasons to support their arguments such as: Scientific research indicates sensual touching promotes good health for the human heart. One lady who spoke was an ex-stripper, and she recounted how stripping ruined her life (research has also indicated that many serial rapists and sex offenders visit strip clubs and this eventually leads them to commit heinous sexual crimes against others). Endorsement of pragmatism raises the question: By what standard does society use to discern what works best? Through lap dancing, many men will have healthier hearts; yet, many others will be injured as an indirect or direct result of this perversion. This is just one small example of the lack of moral standards applied in the civil and cultural realms within the USA. And herein Brannon Howse declares that Christians have “lost the culture war.”

In “Grave Infulence: 21 Radicals and Their Worldviews that Rule American from the Grave,” Howse demostrates how socialism, communism, atheism and occultism have successfully attacked the Christian character of America. This page-turner is large (368 pages), yet the style makes it accessible to young people and non-scholars.

The author calls believers to stand for truth and contend for Christian convictions to protect your freedom, family, and church. Howse also notes the importance of education to promote one’s worldview as the secularists have effectively accomplished. He opines: “Education is the most powerful ally of Humanism and every American public school is a school of Humanism.”

This volume addresses the worldviews promoted by:

- Kierkegaard
- Nietzsche
- James
- Dewey
- Darwin
- Skinner
- Marx
- Freud and many others.

Countless strict secularists attempt to hide the atheistic ground for their ethical views by calling it Pragmatism. Yet laws cannot be completely based on the principle of what “works best.” Pragmatism itself is an abstract notion and falls under its own weight. It tumbles inasmuch as the principle itself cannot be tested, studied, and found to work best.

Furthermore, an absolute fixed ethical system cannot be based on what maximizes utility. Utilitarian precepts can be “Play-Doe” in the hands of righteous men or wicked men. Wicked people can decide that all manner of evil has more utility, and then pass laws based on that evil. Nazism wooed the German people in great numbers through the utilitarian application of Hitler’s ideas. The majority of the German people believed that Nazism brought happiness and great industry to their country in the late 1930′s and early 1940′s. Yet Nazism was evil.

The records of the Nuremberg Trials on Nazi war crimes states: “About a million and a half people were exterminated in Madnek… over 133,000 persons were tortured and shot… Germans… exhumed and burned corpses, and crushed their bones with machines and used them for fertilizer… Nazi conspirators mercilessly destroyed even children. They killed them with their parents, in groups, and alone… they buried the living in graves, throwing them into flames… conducting experiments on them.” Without God, nothing can supply the paradigm for universal moral absolutes. Society needs an absolute universal moral law to evaluate what is best and what is good, or it will fall into barbarism.

Reject God, then moral choices are much less clear and less intelligible. God is the truth condition for immutable moral absolutes. Men may try to escape His moral decrees, but without them, life can only lead to despair and pain. Supreme Court justice Stephen Bryer revealed his ultimate measure for deciding law. On November 10, 2005 on CSPAN he conceded that he knew his ruling was right by how he “feels” in his heart. The brilliant atheist Bertrand Russell admitted that he based his ethics on how he “feels.” Pol Pot felt he needed to mass-murder one million of his citizens in the killing fields; Hitler felt like murdering over 10,000 people a day and to use the skin of those murdered to make lamp shades and use their hair to make sacks. Only a moral system grounded on peremptory rational commitments to God can pronounce that mass murder is always wrong.

If men are wicked with religion, what would they be without it? (Benjamin Franklin).

An Associated Press article, of March 6, 2003, reported an opinion poll of the people of Russia. The poll found that 53 percent of the respondents viewed Stalin’s role (he murdered some 20 to 35 million people) in Russian history as “absolutely positive” or “more positive than negative.” Yet, only 33 percent said his role was “absolutely negative” or “more negative than positive.” And in America, the Columbine High School murderers justified their crimes using Darwinism and wearing natural selection shirts. I would personally add: What if the majority of a nation voted that killing people with big noses or large feet made them most happy? What if 51 percent voted to kill the other 49 percent who had bigger noses or larger feet? Is it wrong? By the utilitarian benchmark it is lawful and good inasmuch as it benefits the most human beings. By what standard does society measure happiness and pain? If most people are not happy and feel pain because they cannot afford steak seven days a week, does society have the moral obligation to take the people out to Sizzler every night? What if the majority of people can’t afford to buy the super size meal deal at Taco Bell? Do we owe the people a big Chulupa combo with an extra-large Pepsi because this will make the most people happy? One needs an absolute moral yardstick to make law.
Pragmatism and utilitarianism cannot supply this absolute standard. Many think Philosophy has fallen short when it attempted to devise a obligatory criterion. Some believe that the best man-birthed philosophy could come up with was the “pleasure calculus.” The laborious chart did not work because it was arbitrary and could not deliver a universal and fixed moral touchstone.

God has given mankind the blessing of an absolute moral law that binds mankind. This gift is His commandments. The absolute moral law which all censure, prohibition, civil restraint, individual rights, approbation, and righteous jurisprudence are derived. We are to reject all moral and ethical systems that are not derived from the principles of God’s law. There must be an unchanging standard of absolute moral laws. Personal preference ethics cannot rightly condemn Nazism, slavery, abuse, environmental destruction, murder, and rape. That view is false and contravenes God’s word.

There are moral absolutes and God has revealed them in the Bible. Furthermore I would note: Our epistemological means of discerning what is good and right is found in the Bible. That is our authority and our guide. Man is not the standard. Science is not the standard. Why? Because only the Bible can provide a standard based on an all-knowing and unchanging being, God. The standard must be based on an unchanging source, or ethics could change. If moral standards were mutable this would mean: lying and murder on one day are bad. The next day they might be good. This is impossible and collapses the floor it stands on. If lying could be good, there can be no truth, which is a truth claim. This is self-confounding. Honesty is not just the best policy, it must be practiced in order to communicate and live with others.

William Bennett reminds us: “Society cannot exist or function properly when people aren’t honest.” He then reminds us that “Our forefathers understood that honesty is essential to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and are impossible without the honesty of our country’s citizens… Honesty… involves consistency between our thoughts and our actions.” But what survival value would honesty be for natural selection to infuse this into our genes? One must presuppose honesty to account for communication, but evolutionary advantage would be with those who lie for personal gain and survival. Deception and dishonesty would better insure the multiplication of more of their genes. We are superintended by the hand of a sovereign God who gives us laws and principals that do not change because He is immutable. There is no place for full and free personal autonomy apart from God. Nietzschian philosophy, communism, and Nazism proclaim an ethic based on autonomy and survival of the fittest. Their foundational values led to the murder of tens of millions. If a man attempts to dismiss God from ethics, they end up with concentration camps and genocide. Without Biblical restrictions from an unchanging God, wickedness would flourish. To have a righteous nation, it must have a moral code from an unchanging and inerrant God. Only He could provide a fixed standard of good.

Jeremiah 50:35-38 (ESV): 35 “A sword against the Chaldeans, declares the Lord, and against the inhabitants of Babylon, and against her officials and her wise men! 36 A sword against the diviners, that they may become fools! A sword against her warriors, that they may be destroyed! 37 A sword against her horses and against her chariots, and against all the foreign troops in her midst, that they may become women! A sword against all her treasures, that they may be plundered! 38 A drought against her waters, that they may be dried up! For it is a land of images, and they are mad over idols.”

http://www.amazon.com/There-Are-Moral-Absolutes-Presuppositional/dp/1598007661

Filed Under: Apologetics, Book Reviews, Christian Philosophy, Uncategorized Tagged With: ,

Moral Absolutes Require God

April 26, 2011 By Leave a Comment

Moral Absolutes are God Grounded and God Revealed

 

by Mike A Robinson

Before the mountains were brought forth You had formed the earth… from everlasting to everlasting, You are God (Psalms 90:2).  

Nazi genocide is wrong. All rape is wrong. Child abuse is wrong. These heinous actions are universally wrong. These are evil acts. Individuals and society are bound to right ethics by God. Righteous laws are good in and of themselves because they come from a good God. The God inspired moral code in scripture outlines the duties of mankind. It’s not just an axiomatic system, nor is it true and binding inasmuch as they are self-evident truths, first principles, or discerned by pure reason. They are absolute because they reflect the nature of God’s divine being. Our conduct is to be regulated by the law that comes to man by the authority derivative of a good and immutable God. A moral relativist cannot declare that anything is always right or wrong within his worldview and remain consistent. All non-theistic worldviews ultimately lead to the denial of unchanging ethical laws. Moral absolutes are true and must not be violated. God alone is the one who makes unchanging moral standards true. Moral absolutes (MA’s) not only point to God, but without God, no one can have any moral absolutes. The denial of MA’s self-defeating inasmuch as MA’s are presupposed within that denial, thus God must exist.

   People declare that all things are relative out of one side of their mouth, and then defend environmentalism as if it is always true out of the other side of their mouth. They know that relativism is not true! Obviously, relativism is a self-voiding notion, but they just do not want to be tough-minded and think through life’s important issues. Thus many throw around relativistic canards without ever thinking critically about the ground of their claims.

see my book on the necessity of universal moral norms:  There Are Moral Absolutes

http://www.amazon.com/There-Are-Moral-Absolutes-Presuppositional/dp/1598007661

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christian Philosophy, Covenantal Apologetics Tagged With: , , , ,

Moral Absolutes: Contending for Biblical Theism

October 29, 2010 By Leave a Comment

In 2004, Las Vegas County Commissioners and members of the community gathered to debate laws that would restrict “erotic dancers.” They decided to proscribe moderate rules for “lap dancing.” Most of the citizens and the commissioners did not sight any moral law that would prohibit such behavior. Instead, one after another sighted pragmatic reasons to support their arguments such as: Scientific research indicates sensual touching promotes good health for the human heart. One lady who spoke was an ex-stripper, and she recounted how stripping ruined her life (research has also indicated that many serial rapists and sex offenders visit strip clubs and this eventually leads them to commit heinous sexual crimes against others). Endorsement of pragmatism raises the question: By what standard does society use to discern what works best? Through lap dancing, many men will have healthier hearts; yet, many others will be injured as an indirect or direct result of this perversion.

Pragmatic Law Leads to Evil

Laws cannot be completely based on the principle of what “works best.” Pragmatism is an abstract notion and falls under its own weight. It tumbles inasmuch as the principle itself cannot be tested, studied, and found to work best. Furthermore, an absolute fixed ethical system cannot be based on what maximizes utility. The utilitarian precepts can be “Play-Doe” in the hands of righteous men or wicked men. Wicked people can decide that all manner of evil has more utility, and then pass laws based on that evil. Nazism wooed the German people in great numbers through the utilitarian application of Hitler’s ideas. The majority of the German people believed that Nazism brought happiness and great industry to their country in the late 1930’s and early 1940’s. Yet Nazism was evil. The records of the Nuremberg Trials on Nazi war crimes states: “About a million and a half people were exterminated in Madnek… over 133,000 persons were tortured and shot… Germans… exhumed and burned corpses, and crushed their bones with machines and used them for fertilizer… Nazi conspirators mercilessly destroyed even children. They killed them with their parents, in groups, and alone… they buried the living in graves, throwing them into flames… conducting experiments on them.”

Without God, nothing can supply the paradigm for universal moral absolutes. Society needs an absolute universal moral law to evaluate what is best and what is good, or it will fall into barbarism. Without God, moral choices are unclear and unintelligible. God is the only precondition for moral absolutes. The true God is inescapable. Men may try to escape His moral decrees, but without them, life can only lead to despair and pain.

Moral Law: More Than a Feeling

Supreme Court justice Stephen Bryer revealed his ultimate measure for deciding law. On November 10, 2005 on CSPAN he conceded that he knew his ruling was right by how he “feels” in his heart. The brilliant atheist Bertrand Russell admitted that he based his ethics on how he “feels.” Pol Pot felt he needed to mass-murder one million of his citizens in the killing fields; Hitler felt like murdering over 10,000 people a day and to use the skin of those murdered to make lamp shades and use their hair to make sacks. Only a moral system grounded on peremptory rational commitments to God can pronounce that mass murder is always wrong.

Ethnic Cleansing and Utilitarianism

If men are wicked with religion, what would they be without it? (Benjamin Franklin).

In claiming that the Turks were wrong in the mass genocide of one million-plus Armenians, one needs more than an ideology that establishes law based on maximum utility. The Turks thought the ethnic cleansing of the Armenians was of great benefit for most of the people in Turkey. The genocide helped the greatest number of people, as it increased and augmented the most happiness for the most people. Putting women in emotional, civil, and physical bondage, makes most Muslim men, in dozens of countries, very happy. An Associated Press article, of March 6, 2003, reported an opinion poll of the people of Russia. The poll found that 53 percent of the respondents viewed Stalin’s role (he murdered some 20 to 35 million people) in Russian history as “absolutely positive” or “more positive than negative.” Yet, only 33 percent said his role was “absolutely negative” or “more negative than positive.” And in America, the Columbine High School murderers justified their crimes using Darwinism and wearing natural selection shirts.

What if the majority of a nation voted that killing people with big noses or large feet made them most happy? What if 51 percent voted to kill the other 49 percent who had bigger noses or larger feet? Is it wrong? By the utilitarian benchmark it is lawful and good inasmuch as it benefits the most human beings. By what standard does society measure happiness and pain? If most people are not happy and feel pain because they cannot afford steak seven days a week, does society have the moral obligation to take the people out to Sizzler every night? What if the majority of people can’t afford to buy the super size meal deal at Taco Bell? Do we owe the people a big Chulupa combo with an extra-large Pepsi because this will make the most people happy? One needs an absolute moral yardstick to make law. Pragmatism and utilitarianism cannot supply this absolute standard. Philosophers fell short when they attempted to devise a obligatory criterion. The best they could come up with was the “pleasure calculus.” The laborious chart did not work because it was arbitrary and could not deliver a universal and fixed moral touchstone. God has given mankind the blessing of an absolute moral law that binds all men at all times. This gift is His commandments. The absolute moral law which all censure, prohibition, civil restraint, individual rights, approbation, and righteous jurisprudence are derived. We are to reject all moral and ethical systems that are not derived from the principles of God’s law.

see my book that contends for God’s existence utilizing moral absolutes at:

http://thelordgodexists.com/books_2.html

or on Amazon

Prove the existence of God.
Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: , , ,