It's Advent Season!

This past Thursday was the last Dinner & Dialogue of the semester and it seemed fitting to take a break from the usual discussion to orient our minds toward Advent Season. Advent means "coming" and is intended to be a season of remembering the significance of the coming of Christ into the world. The following is our discussion from last week. Please reply with ideas or questions!

What Does Jesus’ Birth Really Mean?

1.  A     Cure                  for Sin (1 Peter 1:18-20)

2.         Promises            Kept!  (e.g., 2 Samuel 7:16; Micah 5:2, Isaiah 7:14)

3.  It shows that only a perfect       sacrifice             would do to make humankind right with God (Is. 64:6, John 1:14; 2 Cor. 5:21, Heb. 9:13-14).

4.  God              speaks                         !  (Hebrews 1:1-2)

5.  It is God’s     love                  shown for all!  (John 3:16, Romans 5:8)

Some ideas for Christmas Traditions to Help You Remember the real meaning of Christmas:

• GIVING (heartfelt giving only, of course) – The Magi’s gifts (Matthew 2) set the precedent, but Jesus came to give!
• READ a daily Advent Devotional – find one in the YouVersion Bible App
• When told “Happy Holidays” remember that Christmas is a holy day!
• Re-enact the Christmas story or at least read it aloud with gusto.
• Have a Jesus stocking. Write a note of thanksgiving and commitment to Him and let them accumulate year after year.
• Sleep on the floor 1 night since there was no room in the inn for Jesus.
• Journal daily about what God is teaching you through His Word as you spend quiet time alone with Him throughout the season.
• Donate food & clothes to the needy.
• Give a gift to a less fortunate child or family.
• Redeem pagan or secular holiday practices (Christmas trees, Santa Claus, etc.) by intentionally overlooking some and by ascribing Jesus value to others.
• Bake a Birthday cake for Jesus – Chocolate with White icing & Cherry pie filling.
• Ask others not to give you a gift but to give to missions or to support the needy on your behalf.
• Tell the story of the candy cane to someone who does not know Jesus.
• Be helpful around the house as preparations are made for Christmas—be involved! Let your family see Jesus at work in you.
• Be loving to family—those who know Jesus and those who do not—so that your love will send a powerful message!

A Response to the Transgender Phenomenon

INTRODUCTION

We transition now to an application of what we've learned in moral philosophy. The next several weeks will be devoted to covering certain ethical issues. Today we will be studying how we should respond to the emerging transgender movement.

We're going to break this down into two primary responses that we should have when it comes this issue: love and truth.

RESPONSE: LOVE

Let's begin with love. First, why should we respond in love?
- We are sinners too. It's not as though we're superior people to transgenders and others who struggle with that issue.
- Love mirrors Christ. Christ extended incredible love to us when we were sinners. And because we are to be imitators of Christ, loving others is what we are to do.
- We must always love the person. We don't have to agree, support, or love the things that people do, but they're still people.
- Love can lead someone to change. If you have a quality relationship with someone, you can guide them in their decision-making and lead them to making a change.

Remember, even though the reality is that people who intentionally mess with the gender issue are sinning, it's not like the ultimate sin. Transgender-related issues aren't some unforgivable, separate category of sin. It's just like lying or selfishness or stealing or disobedience or whatever. Along that thought, if you know someone who has a problem with lying, do you completely shun them? Of course not! You still love them! So, if someone has a problem with gender confusion, do you shun them? Of course not!

A fascinating point that was addressed in a separate message later during the worship gathering had to do with the early Christian church. One of the reasons for their spread in the Roman Empire was that when the plague was devastating the region, it was the Christians who were going in and tending to the needs of the sick - even if it led them to dying from the disease themselves. What if today's Christians had a similar reputation: that we were known for reaching out in love to all - even people that we'd rather avoid and express frustration toward and criticize. How Christ-like would that be!

Nevertheless, part of loving others is being real with people and gently proclaiming truth. I have a weird obsession with cliff analogies so bear with me here for a second. suppose someone is walking unknowingly towards the edge of a cliff and we know it's there and see they're approaching it. We can't be of the mentality that it's "nice" and "good" and "tolerant" and "Christian" to be like "well if you want to, it's cool. I'll accept diversity. I may not agree, but I'm not gonna talk about the fact that you're making a poor decision. You go ahead." No! We warn them. Yes, we do it lovingly, but we warn them. Love cannot stay silent.

RESPONSE: TRUTH

That leads to our second response: we respond with truth.

And what is the truth? The truth is that you're either (and always) a male or (always) a female (and yes, there are some legitimate exceptions that can be hard to figure out, but those are very few and so we won't significantly address them here). but that's the way it is.

But how do we know that? How do you know someone's gender? Their feelings? Their decisions? Their anatomy? Something else? I believe the answer to be simple: genetics! Your DNA and chromosomes determine whether you are male or female. You can't change it. It's science. It's biology. It's just the facts. I'm not speaking in anger or hate here. I'm just wanting to be clear.

So consider, is Caitlyn Jenner a boy or a girl? Some would say a girl because that's his desire, choice and anatomy. But what is he, really? Genetically, he's a boy. He may not like to be called that, but that's doesn't change the truth.

That's the scientific truth. But how can we look at this theologically? Consider this verse: Deuteronomy 22:5 - "A woman must not wear men's clothing, nor a man wear women's clothing, for the LORD your God detests anyone who does this." This seems to be a pretty big deal to God. But why? Think of it this way, God has designed us a certain way and if we try to change what He's done, we're elevating ourselves above Him and playing god. In case you forgot, we are not God. God is God and what He's done and what He desires deserve immense respect. And since He's established our gender, we are to honor that.

But do we just yell this fact at people? Absolutely not! We gently discuss it and we pray. 2 Timothy 2:25-26 - "Those who oppose him he must gently instruct, in the hope that God will grant them repentance leading them to a knowledge of the truth, and that they will come to their senses and escape from the trap of the devil, who has taken them captive to do his will." Although this verse is not in the context of transgenderism, it is in the generic context of what to do when we face opposition to our faith. We must lovingly "gently instruct" people, but also hope and pray that they will one day accept the truth.

THE BATHROOM ISSUE

So how do we address the bathroom issues that have been going around?

First, this should never have been an issue in the first place. Up till now, society seems to have had common sense about respecting others and using the proper bathroom. And those who have a legitimately gender-confused anatomy knew what made most sense to use. I think people should still just have common sense and go where it makes sense to go.

Unfortunately, that's not the world we live in today. And here's the problem that I see. When you change the standard to be "whatever you associate yourself with, you can go there," you open up a dangerous can of worms. Why? Because anyone can make the claim that they associate themselves (for no reason at all) with the opposite gender. No one can legitimately confront them, because you've boiled down gender to a matter of opinion. When you eliminate a standard, you can't stop anything because you have nothing to appeal to. And what have we seen?

Unfortunately, we've been hearing stories of issues when people go and use the other locker rooms or bathrooms just because they're allowed to. And seriously, who's going to take advantage of this emerging ideology? Only the pure and sensitive of heart? I don't think so! It's going to be a significant amount of perverts and troublemakers.

I wish people could just use common sense about this.

Consider this argument that I wish I could claim to be my own: this whole "go where you want" bathroom ideology has called into question the reality of the man and woman. Those pushing this are suggesting that since you can choose your gender that "woman" and "man" are nothing but some kind of social notions and political constructs. But as a believer in science, the man and woman are factual and real! And because they are real, they deserve rights like the right to privacy and their own corresponding bathroom.

During the discussion, it was pointed out that we should remember that we've not been placed in a world that abides by our morality, nor should we expect it too. So to a certain extent, we must deal with the decisions the world makes. We can still do what we can to impact this world for good, but there's no reason to throw a fit and continuously whine because this is a fallen world and a world not devoted to Christ. Do we have to just drop all issues then and throw up our hands? No. But we have to find a balance when it comes to our attitude towards it.

CONCLUSION

What can we conclude?
- We must be loving about this whole issue.
- Yet, there is truth involved and we can't ignore it.
- That truth must be gently proclaimed and bathed in prayer.

The Election

INTRODUCTION

We did it! We finished moral philosophy! Today we'll take a look at what has been the hottest issue of the last year and a half: the election.

Rather than spend time discussing the candidates, I'd rather equip you more broadly and long-term by analyzing and comparing the party's platforms. We're not just voting for president this year and so it's more helpful to examine something that will help us make decisions on all candidates and the candidates to come in future elections.

As we do this, please keep in mind Biblical principles. It's easy to separate our political views and religious views and many of us do that. But our view of God and Scripture should directly impact our political stances.

PLATFORM COMPARISSON

Every four years, the Democrat and Republican parties gather to select their presidential nominee. During this time, they form their corresponding platforms which lay out their beliefs and stances on issues. From what I've heard, this year the Republicans released one of the most conservative platforms to date and the Democrats released one of their most liberal platforms to date. You can find the Republican platform here and the Democrat platform here.

It might interest you to compare the preambles of both platforms and notice the differing styles and outlooks. I won't type them out here since you can follow the links yourself.

For now, consider a side by side comparison of the two party's platforms that you can find it here. They do have you put in your e-mail, but then give you access. There's other comparison's that are easier to access, but this one seemed to be very fair and well-rounded. Below I'll give you brief summaries of where each party stands on some of the issues. These are very short and consequently don't encompass each party's entire stance (which is why you should read the platforms yourself), but they highlight key points.

Human Life
- Republicans: strong belief in the sanctity of life
- Democrats: promotion of unimpeded access to abortion

Planned Parenthood
- Republicans: defund it
- Democrats: continue funding

Judges
- R: appoint justices that support family values
- D: appoint justices that support equality

Religious Liberty
- R: promote freedom of conviction
- D: promote tolerance

Education/School Choice
- R: promote utilization of education options
- D: improve public schools

Obamacare
- R: repeal it and reduce government control
- D: keep it and build upon it

Marriage
- R: marriage between one man and one woman
- D: marriage rights to all

Iran
- R: crack down on Iran
- D: Iran deal will work

Foreign Assistance
- R: reverse the pushed agenda of Obama administration
- D: continue spreading a family planning-centered ideology globally

When we discussed how these platforms compare to Scripture, people pointed out what seemed to be a discrepancy between the democratic positions on life and marriage and the Bible's message on those topics.

WHERE CANDIDATES WILL STAND

Now, one of the reasons that the basic platform ideologies are important to know is because in general, candidates will abide by their platforms. When anyone runs as a democrat or as a republican, in general, their worldview and stances on issues will be mostly in line with what the platform says. And granted, this platform is oriented for the federal level, not the state or local level. Nevertheless it summarizes the ideas that local and state officials hold to.

Thus, when you vote for president, senator, representative, state senator or representative, attoryney general, secretary of state, treasurer, or whatever, this platform roughly explains where they'll fall on issues.

Specifically for U.S. congressmen, they vote the party line (their party and platform) about 90% of the time. Some more and some less, but they tend to stick to it.

Though this doesn't apply now that the election is over, but it was discussed that for Trump and Hillary, we all knew that they both had character flaws. So, a reasonable idea would be to cancel those flaws out and look at where they stand on the issues (which is what people should have been doing all along). When you do that, you see that, in general, they abide by their corresponding party's platforms. Consequently, whichever platform a voter most agreed with should have determined which president they should pick.

JESUS IS KING

As always, we must remind ourselves of the reality that Jesus is King. We can find our peace and comfort in Him and in knowing that we're citizens of His Kingdom - a Kingdom that takes priority and will last longer and be better than any kingdom this world could produce. God puts in place the leaders He wants and we need to put our trust and find our rest in Him.

Utilitarianism

INTRODUCTION

You can breathe a sigh of relief as this is the last discussion on moral philosophy. We've studied the two families of moral thinking: moral objectivism and moral nonobjectivism. Today's topic doesn't fit well into either family, but is still a popular moral framework. I'm sure you've been exposed to this idea and could probably briefly explain it. Today is utilitarianism.

UTILITARIANISM DEFINED

Here's our working definition. Utilitarianism: the doctrine that an action is right insofar as it promotes happiness, and that the greatest happiness of the greatest number should be the guiding principle of conduct."

You're probably familiar with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill who are the famous proponents of the idea. John Stuart Mill said of utilitarianism "[T]he creed which accepts as the foundation of morals, Utility, or the Greatest-Happiness Principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. By happiness is intended pleasure, and the absence of pain; by unhappiness, pain, and the privation of pleasure."

So utilitarianism suggests that what is moral is what creates the greatest good. And therefore, the ends justify the means.

EVIDENCE FOR UTILITARIANISM

How can we defend this idea? Here's some thoughts:

First, seeking the greatest good is how we make day-to-day decisions. We're constantly weighing the pros and cons to make conclusions of what to do. Utilitarianism simply applies this process to morality.

Second, utilitarianism is always seeking the good of others. This is a very appealing idea as we all consider that to be a good thing.

And third, utilitarianism provides a reasonable framework for a society to operate morally and simultaneously eliminate the need for God. One of my friends proposed to me that, because of our secular society and non-theistic government, we should find an ideology for basing our morality on that doesn't include God. He submitted utilitarianism to be a plausible option.

PROBLEMS WITH UTILITARIANISM

Although utilitarianism may sound good, it has it's drawbacks.

To begin, it requires too much of people. If it's wrong to not seek the greatest good, then you must always be seeking the greatest good if you want to live morally. So, even though it would be good to give $100 to charity, if you could give $150 dollars it would be wrong for you to only $100. It would also make you feel guilty for relaxing and doing some things for yourself.

Also, the greatest good can be too difficult to calculate. Continually factoring the overall affects of your decisions on the planet can be time-consuming and nearly impossible because you must assign values to certain results and weigh every positive and negative value and you'd better get it right or else you risk committing a moral fault. Besides, who assigns the numbers and values in the first place? What can you appeal to to learn if you value someone's life, happiness, comfort, emotional stability, or physical safety more or less than one of the others. In short, it's no easy task to know the "greatest good."

Who determines "the greatest good"? This is a similar argument, but consider a hypothetical example. Suppose I'm in line somewhere (let's say for Black Friday shopping) and there's a thousand people in line behind me and one homeless man in front of me who, let's suppose, has no family and who will not be missed by anyone. If I were to kill the man (or to be less morbid: shove him out of the way), my happiness may increase as well as the thousand people behind me because we will all get through the line faster. No one will miss the man though his happiness may decrease (though you could argue that since he's dead he wouldn't care). In the end, wouldn't be best to kill the man for the sake of the masses or should I wait? Who decides what's better in that scenario from a utilitarianism standpoint?

The example above raises another problem for utilitarianism. It seems to allow for all kinds of "evil" to be acceptable. Since the ends justify the means, if killing or stealing or lying or abuse will bring about a greater good, it should be good to do.

During the discussions, it was also mentioned that utilitarianism, while serving the majority, would, in fact, ignore the minority which could be problematic.

RULE UTILITARIANISM DEFINED

To resolve some of these difficulties. Some have proposed a variant of "normal" utilitarianism (clarified as "act utilitarianism") called "rule utilitarianism." Rule utilitarianism takes into account "rules" which are determined to include actions that, when broadly applied, would generally promote happiness or unhappiness. Thus, since murder generally promotes unhappiness a "rule" under rule utilitarianism would be "don't murder." And since helping others generally promotes happiness, "help others" would be a rule under rule utilitarianism.

BENEFITS OF RULE UTILITARIANISM

The benefits of this idea are that it takes into account commonly held moral beliefs like not murdering, stealing, lying, etc. Also, it resolves some of the tensions of [act] utilitarianism (like killing to promote good).

PROBLEMS WITH RULE UTILITARIANISM

However, some problems remain.

Most noticeably, the question arises, "where do these rules come from?" There's two possible sources: either independently of utilitarianism or simply from concluding "this rule promotes the greatest good." Let's examine each of these.

If the source is outside of utilitarianism, then utilitarianism is not the over-arching and final authority on morality. Perhaps they're appealing to natural law or divine command or cultural beliefs or something else. Making rules from anything other than utilitarianism undermines rule utilitarianism.

But suppose the rules come from the conclusion that "this rule promotes the greatest good" then it would seem that rule utilitarianism simply boils down to act utilitarianism since that's how act utilitarianism determines morality: by determining what promotes the common good.

In the end, rule utilitarianism doesn't seem to be that much better since it runs into philosophical troubles and doesn't eliminate all the problems of act utilitarianism.

CONCLUSIONS

Here's what we can conclude.
- Utilitarianism CAN be helpful as it can guide in decision making. But...
- Complete utilitarianism is nearly impossible to live by.
- Utilitarianism doesn't hold water as an all-encompassing moral philosophy.
- Utilitarianism has the potential to allow almost anything.

Moral Subjectivism & Pluralism

INTRODUCTION

The ideas we'll talk about this time are similar to last's as moral relativism and moral subjectivism are similar ideas.

MORAL SUBJECTIVISM DEFINED

However, unlike moral relativism states that morality originates from a society, moral subjectivism can be defined as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to an individual standpoint and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over any other; thus, morality originates from the individual."

Thus, whatever you as an individual believe to be right or wrong, it is so.

Robert Anton Wilson, a self-described agnostic mystic, described this kind of thinking in this way: "'Is,' 'is,' 'is,' - the idiocy of the word haunts me. If it were abolished, human thought might begin to make sense. I don't know anything 'is'; I only know how it seems to me at the moment." In other words, he's asserting that whatever a person tends to believe or think at a given time is just as valid as what another believes or thinks in another moment.

EVIDENCE FOR MORAL SUBJECTIVISM

How would you defend this idea? During the discussion, people mentioned that such an idea can free someone from guilt and would be attractive because it allows them to do what they want.

Here's some other ideas that are used to support moral subjectivism. However, they can be refuted.

Moral Beliefs Are Based on Feelings. Therefore, since feelings are subjective, so is morality. Response: This is a false assertion. Yes, peoples feelings do impact their beliefs and vice versa. But that does not mean that feelings are the only standard by which morality can be measured.

People Disagree about Moral Issues. Thus, morality must be subjective. Response: So? Just because there's disagreement does not mean that there is no standard. It obviously doesn't mean that there IS a standard, but it's not a sufficient argument.

No One Can Prove Who Is Correct in a Moral Dispute. Since it can't be proved, you can't tell people that they must abide by... well... anything. Response: this idea already assumes that there is no standard. But if there is a standard, you are able to "prove" who is correct and incorrect in a moral dispute by referring to the standard.

PROBLEMS WITH MORAL SUBJECTIVISM

As for the problems with moral subjectivism, there are several.

Subjectivism Violates Logical Laws. As we discussed with moral relativism, if you consider the two claims "murder is moral" and "murder is immoral," logic would dictate that one is correct and one is false because they are opposites. However, subjectivism allows for both to be true if separate individuals hold each to be true for them. This flies in the face of logic and reasoning.

Believing Doesn't Make It So. Just because one believes in subjectivism doesn't mean it's correct. Nor is it true that you're correct if you are100% genuine in your belief about some moral issue.

"Moral Inquiry" and "Moral Improvement" Can't Exist. How can you learn what the "right thing to do is" or learn how to "improve" if there's no standard to refer to?

The Problem of the Real World. It's not hard to imagine the chaos that this world would be in if everyone decided to live as moral subjectivists. It doesn't hold up.

The Problem of God. If there is a God who's established laws to be obeyed, then moral subjectivism is automatically negated.

PLURALISM

I want to quickly connect subjectivism to the idea of pluralism. Pluralism is a much more common belief that's held by people compared to moral subjectivism.

Let's begin with a definition. Though there are many other practical ways to define Pluralism, for our purposes, we'll define it as "the idea of extending acceptance and even validity to a variety of worldviews."

In other words, moral subjectivism accepts multiple understandings of JUST morality. Pluralism accept multiple worldviews which includes morality, but also views of God, eternity, purpose, holy texts, etc. We all know people like this: people who think there are many ways to God, people who think there are many ways to go to heaven, people who think that many religions have elements of truth, and people who are accepting of almost everyone and all ideas.

COMBATING PLURALISM

How do we combat this idea? Here's a few points.

First, when it comes to understanding God, heaven, hell, sin, salvation, and all other wordlview questions, someone has to be right. Logic and truth demand that not everyone can be right. Only the correct are correct. So it's logically problematic to just accept everyone.

Second, consider this actual quote about someone describing an aspect of pluralism: "You're allowed to believe what you choose." To clarify, the context of this quote suggests that this individual sees validity in whatever belief is chosen. My question to the person would immediately be "Can I believe that you're wrong? Or can I believe that only my way is right?  Or can I believe that Jesus is the only way to salvation?" This assertion that the individual made opens the door to a plethora of logical errors.

Third, consider another actual quote. "There's more than one truth out there." Granted, there is not just a single truth that exists, but the connotation here is that multiple ideas on the same thing can all be correct. That's ridiculous! That's not how that works! Anyways.....

What can we say from Scripture about this? We don't have to go very far to find a convincing verse that relates. John 14:6 quotes Jesus to say "I am THE way and THE truth and THE life. NO ONE comes to the Father EXCEPT through me" (my emphasis). Jesus makes it very clear which, honestly, is a blessing.

CONCLUSION

In the end, we can conclude that moral relativism, moral subjectivism, and pluralism just aren't plausible. However, in a world that rejects the idea of God, a lifestyle and worldview of relativity is a very reasonable course of action. It's wrong, but it's a situationally sensible way to live.

Moral Relativism

INTRODUCTION

We continue our look at moral nonobjectivism. The plan was to discuss both moral relativism and moral subjectivism because they are similar. However, there was lots of good discussion during Dinner and Dialogue and so we spent time only on moral relativism.

MORAL RELATIVISM DEFINED

We can define moral relativism as "the view that moral judgments are true or false only relative to a cultural standpoint and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over any other; thus, morality originates from society." So what society says is good, is good.

William Graham Sumner, a sociologist, said this: "In the folkways [customs, traditions, and moral beliefs], whatever is, is right... 'Immoral' never means anything but contrary to the mores of the time and place. [T]here is no permanent or universal standpoint by which right and truth in regard to these matters can be established and different folkways compared and criticized."

EVIDENCE FOR MORAL RELATIVISM

If we were to defend moral relativism, how would we back it up? Here's some "evidences" for their case. As we go through them, see if and how we can possibly refute them.

God May Not Exist. Thus, if God has not established laws, there's nothing all cultures have to follow. Response: First, God does exist. But secondly, even if he doesn't it doesn't logically follow that a societal decision of morality is correct. In fact, without God to instruct us what is and is not moral, how are we to say that societal relativism is moral?

There Are No Moral Principles That All Societies Accept. If all societies have different ideas, how can there be an over-arching morality? Response: Whether they agree or don't (and you could argue that most cultures do agree on general ideas) it still doesn't follow that moral relativism is correct.

No One Can Prove Who's Correct in a Moral Dispute. So since we can't know what's moral, relativity must be true. Response: this "evidence" presumes that moral relativism is correct. However, if Christianity or some other morally objective philosophy is correct, then we CAN know who's correct in a moral dispute.

Tolerance is a Virtue. So we should be tolerant of other culture's ideas. Response: How do you know "tolerance is a virtue." What if my culture defines "virtue" as not a good thing? Besides, what's the virtue of being tolerant of wrong ideas like killing and rape if that's what a culture embraces?

People Should Conform to the Moral Code of Their Society. Response: according to who/what? You can't appeal to some idea of what one "should" or "shouldn't" do when you say that culture's can decide what's right for them.

PROBLEMS WITH MORAL RELATIVISM

Now that we've turned the "evidence" into potential problems, let's look at some points that are straight-up troublesome for the moral relativists view.

Relativism Violates Logical Laws. Consider these two statements: "murder is moral" and "murder is immoral." They are both opposite and logic would dictate that one has to be true and one has to be false. However, a relativist could claim that they could both be true in different cultures or both be false. This defies logic.

Believing Doesn't Make It So. Just because you believe that cultures can/should determine their own morality doesn't mean that that's the way it is.

The Problem of Subgroups. The point here is that it's very difficult to know what to abide by if your a moral relativist. Do you abide by the U.S's morality? What if your state's morality is different? Or what if your city's morality is different or even your neighborhood? What do you do? This is a difficult matter for the moral relativist.

The Problem of God. If there is a God who's established laws to be obeyed, moral relativism is immediately negated.

CONCLUSION

I think that after looking at both sides of moral relativism, we can simply conclude that it's not plausible.

"Creed"

I read this brilliantly written poem at Dinner and Dialogue because it exposes some of the absurdities of a world without God and simultaneously demonstrates what horrors such a world would entail.

"Creed" by Steve Turner

We believe in Marxfreudanddarwin
We believe everything is OK
as long as you don't hurt anyone,
to the best of your definition of hurt,
and to the best of your knowledge.

We believe in sex before, during, and after marriage.
We believe in the therapy of sin.
We believe that adultery is fun.
We believe that sodomy is OK.
We believe that taboos are taboo.

We believe that everything is getting better
despite evidence to the contrary.
The evidence must be investigated
And you can prove anything with evidence.

We believe there's something in horoscopes,
UFO's and bent spoons.
Jesus was a good man
just like Buddha, Mohammed, and ourselves.
He was a good moral teacher
although we think His good morals were bad.

We believe that all religions are basically the same--
at least the one that we read was.
They all believe in love goodness.
They only differ on matters of
creation, sin, heaven, hell, God, and salvation.

We believe that after death comes the Nothing
Because when you ask the dead what happens they say nothing.
If death is not the end, if the dead have lied,
then it's compulsory heaven for all
excepting perhaps Hitler, Stalin, and Genghis Khan.

We believe in Masters and Johnson.
What's selected is average.
What's average is normal.
What's normal is good.

We believe in total disarmament.
We believe there are direct links between warfare and bloodshed.
Americans should beat their guns into tractors
and the Russians would be sure to follow.

We believe that man is essentially good.
It's only his behavior that lets him down.
This is the fault of society.
Society is the fault of conditions.
Conditions are the fault of society.

We believe that each man must find the truth that is right for him.
Reality will adapt accordingly.
The universe will readjust.
History will alter.
We believe that there is no absolute truth
excepting the truth that there is no absolute truth.

We believe in the rejection of creeds,
and the flowering of individual thought.

If chance be the Father of all flesh,
disaster is his rainbow in the sky,
and when you hear

State of Emergency!
Sniper Kills Ten!
Troops on Rampage!
Whites go Looting!
Bomb Blasts School!

It is but the sound of man worshiping his maker.

Moral Nihilism & Atheism

MORAL NONOBJECTIVISM

We've spent the last couple of weeks on Moral Objectivism which states that morality exists outside of opinion. Now we'll cover the other family of moral philosophy: Moral Nonobjectivism.

Moral Nonobjectivism: "a family of theories that maintain that no moral claim, belief, or principle is either objectively true or objectively false (or objectively better justified than another) - that is, morality either doesn't exist or originates from opinion."

The corresponding expressions of Moral Nonobjectivism that we'll cover this week and next week are moral nihilism, moral subjectivism, and moral relativism.

MORAL NIHILISM DEFINED

As we examine moral nihilism this week, we can define it as "the idea that nothing is morally right or wrong, good or bad, required or prohibited." Nihilism comes from the Latin word nihil which means "nothing."

It was discussed what evidence could be found for this idea and why people would go for this idea. Among the ideas mentioned, some mentioned that because of the constant moral disagreements people have, they may adopt this idea to explain that fact. Additionally, it was stated that this is an attractive idea because it allows you to do what you want and frees you from guilt and possibly from consequences.

MORAL NIHILISM PROBLEMS

The problems with a nihilistic morality are rather obvious.

First of all, the fact that it eliminates morality and allows for anything is repulsive to the average human and seems to contradict what they know, feel, and believe. It simply doesn't seem plausible or true.

Second, moral nihilism allows for logical contradictions. Consider these two statements: "slavery is immoral" and "slavery is not immoral." Logic would dictate that because these are opposing statements one must be true and the other must be false. However, under moral nihilism, neither one is true or false. Thus, logic is defied.

Third, I will quote what I read in Moral Philosophy: Theories and Issues by Emmett Barcalow. "Moral Nihilists cannot have moral beliefs or make moral claims. For example, a moral nihilist who is being tortured to death for the amusement of a sadistic friend cannot believe or claim that what the friend is doing is wrong because the nihilist is committed to the view that nothing anyone does is wrong (or right). Similarly, a nihilist cannot have the belief that it would be wrong to start a nuclear war or to exterminate whole societies of people because one disagrees with their religion." Thus, although it's very much the natural inclination of people to make moral claims (arguably because they know there's morality in the universe), a moral nihilist is out of line to make such claims. (However, I suppose "out of line" doesn't exist in the moral nihilists' world)

ATHEISM

I want to take the rest of this time to talk about atheism because I think it connects. Here's how: moral nihilism is the only logically sound moral stance that an atheist can take. Because Atheists believe that there is no God or supreme Being, THERE IS NO ULTIMATE BASIS FOR MORALITY. You can't legitimately appeal to anything for your morality. Nihilism is the only sound option.

Consider this quote from the famed atheist Richard Dawkins: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we would expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference." Dawkins points to a very dismal picture of the universe. However, if you believe in no morality and no God, this is pretty much what your stuck with. I wholeheartedly disagree with Dawkins' assessment, but your worldview absolutely changes your outlook on life in this universe.

As we consider to continue this idea of morality (or the lack there of) in the atheistic framework, I would propose this as one of the weakest points in their worldview. A discussion using Scripture or science or arguments for God's existence may sometimes work, but if you explain the moral problem well, I believe it can be rather convincing.

If you begin by demonstrating that atheism offers no true standard, you can lead them to understand the logical hopelessness of their moral reasoning. Then, you can lead them to the point where they realize that what they claim flies in the face of what they intuitively know (that morality exists). Once they concede the need for an originator of morality, you can them point them to the reality of God.

A WORLD WITHOUT GOD

Often times we forget the destructive power of the atheistic ideas.

First, pause for a moment to imagine the implications of everyone living with moral nihilism. Pretty horrible, right?

Second, realize that societies built upon Nazism and Communism during the 20th century (which were built upon atheism) resulted in the bloodiest century of all time. 94 million were killed by communist regimes. 21 million were killed by Nazi Germany. And many more were killed in the wars revolving around the horridness of these societies.

CONCLUSIONS

1. Moral nihilism results in logical contradictions
2. Moral nihilism eliminates any kind of moral claim
3. Atheism offers no basis for morality
4. Atheism, when taken to it's cultural extent, has proven to be massively destructive

Natural Law Theory & Moral Egoism

INTRODUCTION

This week we're going to finish the examination of moral objectivism. Last week covered one of the sub-groups (Divine Command Theory) and this week will cover the remaining two: Natural Law Theory and Moral Egoism.

NATURAL LAW THEORY EXPLANATION

To help us understand this theory, it's helpful to consider natural physical laws or the laws of nature. Consider gravity, water freezing at 32 degrees Fahrenheit, warm air rising, etc. These are consistent laws that the physical world "obeys."

St. Thomas Aquinas described the Natural Law theory as similar to laws of nature in that they're inherently true and all humans have an understanding of them and an obligation to obey them.

Here's an official definition: a body of principles that are considered to be inherent in nature and have universal application in determining whether human conduct is right or wrong.

Aquinas said this about the idea: "under the divine lawgiver, various creatures have various natural inclinations, so that what is, as it were, a law for one is against the law for another; thus I might say that fierceness is, in a way, the law of a dog but against the law of a sheep or another meek animal. And so the law of man, which, by the divine ordinance, is allotted to him according to his proper condition, is that he should act in accordance with reason."

So Aquinas' argument is that we all have a sense of morality and ought to abide by it. To support this claim, we could point to ideas such as that you shouldn't kill the innocent, you shouldn't commit adultery, and you shouldn't steal. These are pretty general moral issues that we could argue everyone agrees with even though people come from different backgrounds and cultures and religions.

NATURAL LAW THEORY PROBLEMS

However, there are problems with this idea. It may sound good and simple, but if you think about it, there may not be this "universal agreement" that we may be tempted to at first believe. During our Dinner and Dialogue discussion, people pointed out that different people WILL have different opinions. They'll differ on what or who qualifies as "innocent." They'll differ on whether or not there are exceptions to "don't steal." And as you move away from generic moral ideas, you'll have even more disagreement. For example, even though the question of homosexuality is a critical issue, there is vast disagreement on whether it's moral or not and people will claim that their "natural inclinations" either approve or disapprove of it.

NATURAL LAW THEORY CONCLUSIONS

So you can't use Natural Law Theory as your overarching standard of morality because there's not enough agreement to validate it.

However, I think this idea does point to God. Humans have consciences and basic moral understandings and I think they point to God's law. Our agreed upon respect for other human beings didn't just get wired into us for no reason. It points to God's moral law and the fact that we were created in His image.

MORAL EGOISM EXPLANATION

Now moral egoism is kind of a weird ideology in that it's hard to place it in one of the two families of moral philosophy and also because it's simply dangerous.

We can define moral egoism as "the belief that it's always morally acceptable to do what one believes to be in one's own self interest."

Therefore, whatever you perceive to be beneficial to you is fair game.

Now, even though this may seem like it should go in the morally relativistic family of moral nonobjectivism, moral egoism still qualifies as a morally objective theory because it applies across the board. It's a moral "rule" that applies to everyone. Now, the "rule" says that you there can be relativity, but it's still the "rule." It's difficult to explain, but hopefully you get it.

MORAL EGOISM PROBLEMS

The problems with this idea are pretty obvious. If murder, rape, stealing, torture, or anything are in your best interest, it's all okay. Clearly we're repulsed by those ideas. Additionally, it ignores people and it ignores God.

But how can we prove that moral egoism is invalid? Just because we don't like something doesn't mean it's false. First, there's basically no evidence to suggest that moral egoism IS valid. Secondly, it goes against what people conclude to be reasonable. Third, it contradicts conscience. Fourth, you could argue that because it's against the Bible and the Bible's true, then moral egoism is false. Fifth, the idea doesn't work. If you live solely for your benefit, you could end up going to prison, being killed, starving to death, etc. Lots of things could go wrong that end up in your extermination and thus, not benefiting you. You could probably devise other reasons as well.

MORAL EGOISM CONCLUSIONS

But moral egoism is a very dangerous idea with very little going for it.

CONCLUSION

In the end, neither Natural Law Theory nor Moral Egoism prove to be completely valid forms of determining morality. At this point, Divine Command Theory is our best bet.

Divine Command Theory

INTRODUCTION

Last week we examined the two families of moral philosophy: moral objectivism and moral nonobjectivism. One of the ideas within moral objectivism (the idea that at least some morality is objectively true and independent of opinion) is the Divine Command Theory. That's what we're going to study this week.

Let's begin by defining it.

Divine Command Theory: the idea that the true standard of moral right and wrong is God's Law.

Thus, morality is what is divinely commanded. Now, some of you may have hesitations about this theory and may not like all that it has to say. What we're going to do is try to mold this theory so that it lines up with Scripture and we'll do that by trying to fill the holes that traditional Divine Command Theory leaves.

TWO VERSIONS

Two versions exist that try to explain how the Divine Command Theory works:
#1 God's commands do not make things right and wrong; He commands them because they are right or wrong. Thus, morality is logically independent of God's will.
#2 God's commands make things right and wrong. Thus, morality is logically dependent of God's will.

This is like a "which came first: the chicken or the egg" scenario. Does the standard of morality pre-date God's law or do God's laws create the standard of morality? We'll sift through both of these as we look at the supposed "problems" of Divine Command Theory.

"PROBLEMS"

Problem #1: Not everyone believes that God exists.

How do we resolve this? Well, frankly, a simple response would just be "So?" Just because someone does not believe in God's existence doesn't cause Him to disappear. In short it doesn't matter what you think. Here's a quote from a pastor Eric Ludy:

"Two plus two equals four. And no matter what you do, it will always equal four; no matter how you feel about it, it will equal four; no matter your experience on planet earth of having bad experiences with the number two, it makes no difference! Two plus two equals four! In other words, you have no say in it. It is true outside of you. It is known as a fact. And God is fact! He is not wishful thinking. That is a very important thing for you to notate in your soul because the enemy will make an appeal and he will say, 'Look at this. The natural evidence says this God is merely a concept, God is merely an illusion, God is merely a thought.' No, God is fact. God is real. God is true... There is a north whether you acknowledge there is a north or not. Two plus two equals four whether you acknowledge it or not... Two plus two equals four - it always will. God is who He says He is and He defines truth. Whatever God says goes!"

Problem #2: How do we know what God's law is?

Simply, we learn it from the Bible. But there's different interpretations and understandings of the Bible so now what do we do? You can go into a lot of detail about this, but first you take God at His word and believe what He says. Second, you interpret Scripture in light of its historical and cultural context, in light of the original language, and in light of the entirety of Scripture. If you do that, you can get a very good understanding of God's word.

Additionally, I think we can know what God's law is naturally: through conscience and logic. We all have a conscience given to us by God that does a rather good job at exposing moral rights and wrongs to us. Also, I would hold that you can logically draw conclusions of what is moral and what is immoral. Now, we can't rely solely on conscience and/or logic, but they sure can help.

Problem #3: If God's commands make things right and wrong, is morality arbitrary?

Let me re-explain it with a question: under the second version of Divine Command Theory (where God's laws make morality), couldn't God make rape, torture, and human sacrifice morally acceptable?

In the technical sense, could He? Sure. But would He? No. From what we can understand of God, He seems to take two things into account: His glory and practical consequences. Rape doesn't glorify him and the consequences of it are not at all positive. Am I appealing to some kind of standard of what is "glorifying" and what are "positive" consequences when I say this? Sure. But I'm interpreting in light of what God has already done, not by what I think God should do or what God should obey.

You see, if you answer "no" to the question of could God make rape, etc. morally acceptable, then you are appealing to a law or standard that you perceive to be higher than God. Logically, then that mental standard is the real god and the "above all." If you think there's something higher than God that you can understand and figure out on your own, then you might as well do-away with the idea of God completely! But the truth is that there is nothing higher than God.

Now, rather than siding with either of the two versions of Divine Command Theory listed in the second section, I think you can devise a sound theory that fuses both. They do seem to work in harmony when you think about it. Even though God makes morality, logic seems to be perfectly in in step at the same time. So a combination of the two seems to carry a healthy amount of validity. If you have a great way of explaining it, please comment below as this is something we didn't discuss in detail during the actual Dinner and Dialogue.

VERDICT

So here's the conclusions I believe we can draw from what we've learned.
- God determines morality and has the final say.
- God exists whether you like it or not. (I love phrasing it that way for some reason)
- God has revealed His law through Scripture
- Nothing, no standard or law or ideal, is higher than God.

Comment any disagreements or edits you might have.

BIBLICAL EVIDENCE

Finally, here are some verses that touch on several of the points that were addressed.

Psalm 33:4 - For the word of the LORD is right and true...

John 17:17 - Sanctify them by your truth; your word is truth.

John 1:1 - In the beginning was the Word... and the Word was God.

Colossians 1:17 - He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.

Ephesians 4:6 - One God and Father of all, who is over all...

Introduction to Moral Philosophy

Welcome to the first week of Dinner and Dialogue! This post covers what was discussed at the Baptist Student Union on Thursday, September 16, 2016.

ORIENTATION

As we kick off this semester, here's the overall framework for what we'll be learning: we're going to be examining moral philosophy, morality, and ethics. Today we're going to go over some foundational ideas and concepts so that we can all be on the same page for the rest of the year.

The first thing that I'd consider one of the biggest takeaways you can have from this semester is the power of inquiry and especially this question: "What do you mean by that?" This question is SO important! Terms always need to be defined and understood. In fact, I'd say that many arguments and debates result from a misunderstanding of the basic terms that are used.

For example, if I'm having a discussion with someone about the existence of God and they say, "Well I don't believe in God," what should I do? Rather than immediately trying to convince them that God exists, suppose I ask, "What do you mean by 'God'?" If they respond with, "You know, that mean ol' bully in the sky who hates everyone and wants to send them all to hell!" then I should be glad that I didn't launch into an argument to convince them that "god" exists. Instead, I can now explain the God that I know rather than talking about a "god" in general that we haven't defined.

So ask questions and especially "What do you mean by that?"

INTRO TO MORALITY

Accordingly, let's go ahead and define a couple terms:
- "Morality": principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
- "Moral Philosophy": a branch of philosophy dealing with both argument about the content of morality and the meta-ethical discussion of the nature of moral judgment, language, argument, and value.

Here's a question: do you think morality exists in the world? Basically all of us will answer "yes." Nearly everyone in the world knows that the idea of right and wrong is real. If people don't, you can probably convince them pretty quickly by simply punching them in the throat! They'll immediately try to convince you that you did something "wrong" and they deserve some form of "justice." Anyway, the point being that the idea of morality is pretty much a universal concept.

Now when someone makes a moral claim like, "not paying attention to Matthew when he's talking is wrong," the natural follow-up question is "why?" Moral claims deserve justification. That's one of the main things we'll be studying this semester: whether or not there's adequate justifications for moral claims.

FAMILIES OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY

Now when it comes to moral philosophy, there's two main families: Moral Objectivism and Moral Nonobjectivism.

Moral Objectivism: a family of theories that maintain that at least some moral claims, beliefs, and principles are objectively true and others are objectively false - that is, they exist independently from opinion.

Moral Objectivism includes the following ideas:
- Divine Command Theory: the idea that morality originates from God
- Natural Law Theory: the idea that morality originates from natural laws
- Moral Egoism: the idea that morality originates only from what's in your self-interest

Moral Nonobjectivism: a family of theories that maintain that no moral claim, belief, or principle is either objectively true or objectively false (or objectively better justified than another) - that is, morality either doesn't exist or it originates from opinion.

Moral Nonobjectivism includes the following ideas:
- Moral Nihilism: the idea that morality doesn't exist
- Moral Relativism: the idea that morality originates from the individual
- Moral Subjectivism: the idea that morality originates from the individual

An additional category that doesn't fit well in the two main families is Consequentialism.

Consequentialism: the idea that morality is determined by the consequence

The well-known expression of Consequentialism is Utilitarianism which we'll spend a week on.

THINKING THROUGH MORALITY

How do we determine morality? (Answers from the group: God, the Bible, parents, culture, logic, experiences, etc.) Everyone comes from a starting place in how they understand morality. When having discussions with others, you have to keep this starting point in mind and perhaps direct the discussion to it.

Suppose I was having a debate on homosexuality with someone and I was using the Bible as my starting point and they were using just their own ideas. My Bible verses aren't going to mean a whole lot to them. I need to address the root problem.

Or, if someone thinks that morality is relative and I don't, they're not gonna give a rip about my view because they'll just say it's only my personal standard. I'm probably going to have to address their presupposition that morality is relative rather than hammering them with my moral views.

Can/should we impose our views of morality on others? (Group consensus: IF there are absolute moral truths, we should inform people of them. IF there are no absolutes, then there's no logical basis for imposing our views on other people)

OUR WORLDVIEW

Finally, here's the worldview that will be central to our discussions this semester: God is the Authority and He sets the standard of morality and right and wrong. Now, this does not mean we have to ignore logic and reasoning. They happen to work in harmony. God has the whole thing rigged. But going forward, our stance is that God is right, God is always right, Scripture is right, Scripture is always right. We, as believers, have to be strong on this issue. God. Is. Right.

Welcome!

Thank you for checking out "Dinner and Dialogue!" This is the official blog for the Dinner and Dialogue ministry of the Baptist Student Union at Missouri Western State University. Each week during the school year we gather to discuss Christian apologetics, Biblical theology, and various worldview and ethical topics. Our goal is to build people in their faith, give them confidence in what they believe, equip them to think and live biblically, and prepare them to engage the world with wisdom and grace for the sake of God's Kingdom. The notes from each weeks' speaker and the points discussed during each session will be posted on this page. Feel free to comment and share these informative posts with your family and friends. God bless!