Quote of the week - Greg Koukl on the problem of evil

"A world that had never been touched by evil would be a good place, but it wouldn't be the best place possible. The best of all worlds would be a place where evil facilitated the development of virtues that are only able to exist where evil flourishes for a time. This would produce a world populated by souls that were refined by overcoming evil with good. The evil is momentary. The good that results is eternal. 

What good comes out of a drive-by killing, someone might ask, or the death of a teenager through overdose, or a daughter's rape, or child abuse? The answer is that a commensurate good doesn't always come out of those individual situations, though God is certainly capable of redeeming any tragedy. Rather, the greater good results from having a world in which there is moral freedom, and moral freedom makes moral tragedies like these possible."  

-Greg Koukl, Augustine on evil 

Free content on moral philosophy

For debates, definitions, book reviews/recommendations, and lecture mp3s check out click here. It will take you to apologetics315; an excellent site for audio. 

For in-depth encyclopedia articles on moral philosophy covering a wide scope of moral topics check out this; you'll be taken to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. It's all totally free content. You won't find video or audio though, only written content.

Glenn Peoples is an excellent, up-and-coming moral philosopher. So I'm including his blog in this list. Click here to read his work on moral philosophy.

Stand to Reason is a good source for commentaries and articles covering ethics. Click here to jump over there and start reading.

Below are some debates on morality and God.

Kant and hell part two

In my post Immanuel Kant on the concept of hell I wrote about how one could use Kant's moral argument to argue for hell in the afterlife, though I didn't fully develop the thought, I only briefly wrote about it. After thinking about it some more and talking about it with some friends I think I can develop the idea further in this post, though I may finish up in a part three post. Ready? Let's go! 

Hell traditionally (at least from what I know) has been though of as eternal punishment for one's sins here on earth, whether it's eternal fire, torture, or separation from God, still it's an eternal existence of punishment. In opposition to that (or maybe it's the accurate view - there is debate about it) there is also the view that hell is not eternal punishment, but instead it's annihilation, or put another way it's non-existence. Which would make more sense philosophically? Well, let's look at Kant's moral argument again: 

From his Critique of Practical Reason:

1. Happiness is what all human beings desire. 

2. Morality is the duty of all human beings. 

3. The unity of happiness and duty is the greatest good.

4. The greatest good ought to be sought.  

5. But the unity of desire and duty (which is the greatest good) is not possible by finite human beings in limited time.

6. And the moral necessity of doing something implies the possibility of doing it (ought implies can).

7. Therefore, it is morally (practically) necessary to postulate: (a) a Deity to make this unity possible (i.e., a power to bring them together), and (b) immortality to make this unity achievable.

According to Kant, human beings will exist after our death here in the phenomenal world and exist eternally in the noumenal world. Now Kant doesn't make clear what the noumenal world is, but instead argues for the practical necessity of God to make the unity possible and immortality to make the unity achievable. So those persons who sought the greatest good will have the privilege of enjoying the greatest good after death. What about those persons who didn't seek after the greatest good? There are immoral human beings in this world who are inexplicably malevolent; what happens to them? What kind of hell would be such persons' punishment? Annihilation or eternal punishment?

Kant's argument is vague (at least to me) on what happens to the persons who do not seek the greatest good. I would think since human beings are contingent upon the Deity who created them, then wouldn't they exist after their material death? If that is true, then an eternal punishment would be due to such persons. Of course, if the cosmic judge is all-powerful as he needs to be, does it not follow that he could cause someone or something to not exist? Therefore, hell would be non-existence if my logic is followed correctly. It's difficult to think of not existing, but it doesn't make it impossible.

Some might argue that the punishment should fit the crime. If that is true, then an infinite time of punishment would not be what is due to a person who committed immoral actions in a finite amount of time would it? Maybe an infinite amount of punishment can be reached? Is such a thing possible? Philosopher Greg Koukl answers the question.

"Lewis says this, "Since the time is infinite, the amount of punishment is infinite." This is the key error. Time in the afterlife is not an infinite for any of us. It is merely everlasting and there is a difference. The future goes on and on without end, but like our expanding balloon, it never will become infinitely long. So forever and ever means that it never comes to an end, but a thing that continues to get older and older still has an age. It never gets infinitely old. Even though one lives forever and ever, one never lives for an actual eternity, which is an infinite amount of time, because no matter how old you get, you always have an age. 

The confusion is understandable because time, like numbers, is potentially infinite, but the actual expansion into this limitless arena of possibility has an edge to it. It has a size. There are no limits to the possible size of numbers, but any particular number has a quantity. My point was, in Hell some people suffer more than others. The duration of this difference is everlasting, but it never attains to an infinite. 

Suppose you and I count together. I count every number and you count every tenth number. For the entire time that we count, your number will always be ten times larger than mine even though we count forever and ever. Though the numbers may be potentially infinite, you and I are always working with finite numbers, not infinite ones. Our amounts are never equal because, no matter how much time we have, neither of us can count to infinity. Every time we add one, we are still dealing with a finite number. We will never be able to get an actual infinite by adding one number after another. 

The duration of our future is much like counting, with the numbers representing successive moments of our existence. There may be no limits to the possible age of a being who lives forever, like you and me, but any particular created being always has an age. It gets larger and larger with every moment, but it still has an age. If it has an age, then the duration of its existence is finite and not infinite. Every created being had a beginning so it can never live for an actual eternity. It is temporal, not eternal. 

The simple truth is, even though punishment in Hell is forever and ever, it can never become eternal because no matter how far one lives into the future, he always has a quantifiable age. No one will ever endure an infinity of suffering because no one lives that long. Even though they live forever and ever and ever and never die, no one suffers in Hell for an infinite amount of time, and no one enjoys Heaven for an infinite amount of time."

Understanding an infinite existence in that sense changes the outlook on hell and punishment. The Judge or Deity (whatever you want to call him) can sentence a person to an infinite punishment, while retaining the model: "the punishment fits the crime."

If we use Kant's model, I think we can say that persons who sought after the greatest good will be united after death with the greatest good and enjoy it forever while those who did not seek after the greatest good will be punished based on the severity of their immorality forever and not being able to be united with the greatest good.

Are there holes in this philosophy? Perhaps. I think it could be defended better and maybe I will return to it someday, but I think we can say that hell is a punishment without end for those who didn't seek the greatest good.

Quote of the week - Greg Koukl on the problem of evil

"God certainly is strong enough to obliterate evil from the earth or to have prevented it in the first place. No question about that. But let me ask you a question. Is it a good thing that God created human beings as free moral creatures, capable of making moral choices? It strikes me that the answer to that is yes. Because God is good--which is one of the things in question here--God created free moral creatures. 

But this changes everything, doesn't it? What makes you think that strength has anything to do with God creating a world in which there are genuinely free moral creatures and no possibility of doing wrong? 

You see, now we're back to square circles. It's just as ridiculous to ask God to create a world in which we have genuinely free creatures with no possibility to do wrong, as it is to ask Him to create a square circle. The task has nothing to do with His strength. It has to do with the nature of the problem. If you're going to have morally free creatures--that is, human beings that can make moral choices for themselves--and if God is good, then He is going to create creatures that will be truly morally free. But that entails, of necessity, at least the possibility of evil in the world."

Greg Koukl - The strength of God and the problem of evil

Why suffering?

It has been a busy month, so that is why it's been a while since I've written a blog post. Anyway, this first post will be on the question, "If God is all powerful and all good, why does he allow suffering?" This is a powerful question. Think about it for a second. If indeed God is all powerful, would he not be able to eliminate evil from the world? A being that is all powerful would be able to do so. If he doesn't then he is not good. Yet, Christians claim their God is all powerful and all good. If the God is all good, he wouldn't want his creatures to suffer at all, would he? I certainly wouldn't want my children to suffer. I would do everything in my power to stop the suffering and evil plaguing them. So, what's the deal? This God must not be all powerful and also all good. Or either he is indeed all good, but not all powerful. Something is up.

Mr. Hitchens has given the illustration that God is "up there" looking down on His creation with folded arms looking at the creation with indignation, like a malevolent dictator. On the surface, especially after hearing the dilemma I wrote above, that would seem how God is. Why is there suffering if God can do something about it? Since He doesn't, it would seem He doesn't care at all what happens to us.

Some pastors and Christians say a person suffers due to the judgment of God on their lives. I don't think we are in a position to say that. How can I know if a person's sickness or a person's car having been stolen is due to God's judgment for some sin in their life? R.C. Sproul wrote, "In the ninth chapter of John, the Pharisees say to Jesus, “Why was this man born blind? Was it because of his sin or the sins of his parents?” Jesus said, “Neither one.” We can’t come to the conclusion that an individual’s suffering in this world is in direct proportion to that individual’s sin. That was what Job’s friends did when they came to him and tormented him by saying, “Boy, Job, you’re really suffering a lot. This must be an indication that you’re the most miserable sinner of all.” But the Bible says that we can’t use such a formula. The fact is, if there were no sin in the world, there would be no suffering." 1 We are in no position to judge.

A better answer to the question comes from Greg Koukl. He tackles the question by asking a question (He learned this from Doug Geivett). He asks, "What makes you think that taking away evil in the world has anything to do with God's strength?"

Koukl then goes on to say:

"God certainly is strong enough to obliterate evil from the earth or to have prevented it in the first place. No question about that. But let me ask you a question. Is it a good thing that God created human beings as free moral creatures, capable of making moral choices? It strikes me that the answer to that is yes. Because God is good--which is one of the things in question here--God created free moral creatures. 

But this changes everything, doesn't it? What makes you think that strength has anything to do with God creating a world in which there are genuinely free moral creatures and no possibility of doing wrong? 

You see, now we're back to square circles. It's just as ridiculous to ask God to create a world in which we have genuinely free creatures with no possibility to do wrong, as it is to ask Him to create a square circle. The task has nothing to do with His strength. It has to do with the nature of the problem. If you're going to have morally free creatures--that is, human beings that can make moral choices for themselves--and if God is good, then He is going to create creatures that will be truly morally free. But that entails, of necessity, at least the possibility of evil in the world." 2

God could have created us to make free will decisions without the possibility of choosing evil, but would we have genuine freedom? No, we would have had freedom in the larger sense of freedom, i.e., the freedom to make choices (what to eat, vocation, leisure), but we wouldn't have freedom in the narrow sense, which is moral freedom; we wouldn't have been able to make moral choices. Why is that important? Because God wanted to accomplish plenitude - the highest good possible; the best of all possible worlds requires moral freedom, which also brings the possibility of evil.

All that God made is good, even those things that appear evil to us are good. Our scope is limited because we are finite. If we could view things as a whole, we would be able to see that those things which appear to be evil are actually contributing ultimately to the greater good. This is difficult for us to understand, especially in a time when we are suffering because we want to know why x event is happening to us, but we simply do not know why we were in that place at that time. Some things are easy to know why. For example, if you touch a hot stove, you will get burned or if you willingly take a risk attempting to do a back-flip on your dirt bike; those are things that have answers, but not all of human suffering has easy answers. Cancer for instance does not have an easy answer, nor does being at the scene of a crime have an easy answer. These are things we are simply not in a position to judge "why" they happened.

William Lane Craig wrote, "To borrow an illustration from a developing field of science, Chaos Theory, scientists have discovered that certain macroscopic systems, for example, weather systems or insect populations, are extraordinarily sensitive to the tiniest perturbations.  A butterfly fluttering on a branch in West Africa may set in motion forces which would eventually issue in a hurricane over the Atlantic Ocean.  Yet it is impossible in principle for anyone observing that butterfly palpitating on a branch to predict such an outcome.  

The brutal murder of an innocent man or a child's dying of leukemia could send a ripple effect through history so that God's morally sufficient reason for permitting it might not emerge until centuries later or perhaps in another country.  Our discussion of divine middle knowledge (chapter 26) stressed that only an omniscient mind could grasp the complexities of directing a world of free creatures toward one's pre-visioned goals. One has only to think of the innumerable, incalculable contingencies involved in arriving at a single historical event, say, the Allied victory at D‑day.  This has relevance to the probabilistic problem of evil, for we have no idea of the natural and moral evils that might be involved in order for God to arrange the circumstances and free agents in them requisite to some intended purpose, nor can we discern what reasons such a provident God might have in mind for permitting some evil to enter our lives.  Certainly many evils seem pointless and unnecessary to us ‑ but we are simply not in a position to judge." 3 

In a lecture on the problem of evil, Craig said that the best thing we can do when we are suffering is to ask ourselves, "What can I learn from this?" He mentioned that he had to learn that, just like us, the hard way. He has dealt with suffering, just like the rest of us. The intellectual answer to the problem of evil is easy to deal with, but the emotional problem is tougher. I'll let Craig finish this post for me. 

"Christ endured a suffering beyond all understanding:  he bore the punishment for the sins of the whole world.  None of us can comprehend that suffering. Though He was innocent, He voluntarily underwent incomprehensible suffering for us.  And why? - because He loves us so much. How can we reject him who gave up everything for us?

When we comprehend his sacrifice and his love for us, this puts the problem of evil in an entirely different perspective. For now we see clearly that the true problem of evil is the problem of our evil.  Filled with sin and morally guilty before God, the question we face is not how God can justify Himself to us, but how we can be justified before Him. 

When God asks us to undergo suffering that seems unmerited, pointless, and unnecessary, meditation upon the cross of Christ can help to give us the moral strength and courage needed to bear the cross that we are asked to carry.  So, paradoxically, even though the problem of evil is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day God is the only solution to the problem of evil.  If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with gratuitous and unredeemed suffering. God is the final answer to the problem of evil, for He redeems us from evil and takes us into the everlasting joy of an incommensurable good, fellowship with Himself." 4

Sources:

1. R.C. Sproul - If God is all powerful, then why does he allow suffering?

2. Greg Koukl - The strength of God and the problem of evil

3. William Lane Craig - The problem of evil

4. Craig, ibid.

Why people are disappointed with marriage

 Fun. Laughter. Happiness. Good times. No worries. Is this how life is supposed to be? Is our definition of loving life and seeing good days measured by the amount of happiness in our lives? Now, this isn't just aimed at the "singles," rather the post is aimed at marriage and what people tell us a good marriage is. 

I was contemplating the notion that a marriage is defined as "good" by how "happy" the couple is. Now, I don't want you to get the impression from me that I think a couple isn't supposed to be happy in a marriage, no-no, I want to give you something to "munch" on. I found this article by Greg Koukl. The topic was on happiness and this is just one gem from the article:

"In the pursuit of happiness, human institutions are valid not because of transcendent ethic but because of temporal fulfillment, which is essentially self-centered. For example, marriage is a valid commitment as long as you're happy. If you're not happy anymore in the marriage, then you have reason to dissolve the marriage. But I would contend that if you're getting married to be happy, then you're getting married for the wrong reasons. Not that personal fulfillment is not a valid goal in some measure, but that's not what it's all about." 

Notice Greg didn't condemn happiness in a marriage, rather he was making the point that happiness isn't the goal of marriage. So, what is the goal of marriage? 

"You marry as a covenant agreement between two people to maintain a family unit in society to accomplish certain things, to help each other and embrace the events and issues of life together as helpmates, to raise a family and provide a stable environment for them. Though all of those things may breed a measure of happiness, they breed a measure of misery as well. That's why the covenant, the agreement, the commitment between husband and wife is not based on happiness. If it was you'd have to amend your vows to say, 'Until unhappiness do us part.'"  

Did you catch it? We don't marry to be happy. Why do we marry? To "maintain a family unit in society to accomplish certain things, to help each other and embrace the events and issues of life together as helpmates, to raise a family and provide a stable environment for them." That's why man and woman marry. A person pursuing happiness alone will be horribly disappointed with marriage because marriage is not an institution for happiness alone. 

Why are people disappointed with marriage? Well like I said above, both parties or a single party in the marriage is only seeking happiness. He or she usually thinks the other person can bring happiness because "Well, gee, Darin is just so funny, charming and fun...surely he can make me happy!" or "Man, Jane has a smoking body, surely she alone can satisfy me," and then shortly after marriage Darin is not so charming and funny anymore and Jane doesn't satisfy her husband's cravings. Why is that? Well, as Greg says later in the article: we have a cultural value, a cultural emphasis, on happiness. The pursuit of happiness becomes the rationale for all sorts of inappropriate behavior--"But she's not happy married to him. She's happy with me." "I'm not happy raising my children." "But I'm not happy when I'm not high." "I'm not happy going to work every day." These are the kinds of comments children make, not adults. 

Greg is exactly right: "These are the kinds of comments children make, not adults." Instead of marriage being the incubator for raising a family, it's become the incubator for raising one's happiness and when marriage is defined that way, people will be disappointed with it every time. That's why some people are disappointed with marriage and why our culture is the way it is. When desire and happiness is your destiny, then you're going to have horrible results. Not to get too off topic, but consider what Robert McCain wrote: 

"When you see a businessman divorce his wife of 30 years in order to marry his receptionist, or when Mary Kay LeTourneau wrecks her life to pursue a taboo romance with Vili Fualaau, these are manifestations of the same basic concept at the root of the gay-rights lobby’s “born that way” argument: Desire is destiny, and of all the happiness that we are free to pursue, no pursuit is more important than a sexual partner who fulfills our deepest longings. 

When a belief so pervades a culture as this one has pervaded our culture, it becomes impossible for most people to understand it rationally, for they have no other frame of reference. We might compare it to liberal bias in the news media. As I’ve often said, most journalists don’t notice liberal bias for the same reason fish don’t notice water — it’s everywhere, and it’s all they’ve ever known."

 

When one's goal is happiness, one will almost always fail because happiness isn't a meaningful goal due to the "I want this and I want it now!" attitude. Greg says, "we cling to this expectation of personal happiness, we will define good life, appropriate life, successful living in the context of freedom from problems and pain. And it's to that degree that life will deliver to us the severest disappointment, because life is not like that."

How should we look at marriage? I married my wife because I love who she is. I wanted to raise a family with her. I wanted to be faithful to her, to protect her, and to grow old with her. We fit together. Do we disagree on some things? Yeah, but not on major things like our goals, which is very important in a marriage. I don't recommend marrying someone you disagree with on goals and ultimate issues. Different tastes in movies and music are understandable (actually I learned of new music from my wife, which is cool).

I really like how Greg ends his piece: "Make it your goal to be faithful. Happiness will take care of itself. And the times that it doesn't, so what? Generally, if I'm really bummed out, I don't despair because there's probably nothing critically wrong with me, and it probably won't last. And if I'm really thrilled about something I enjoy it, but I don't cling to it because sooner or later I'll return to normal living, and that's OK--no guilt trips. And I never expect anything in this life to sustain me at anything like a blissful level." 

I couldn't end this post any better.

Jesus, the recycled redeemer?

*my title is from a STR resource

This post is going to be focused on sharing resources about Jesus and the dying-God savior myths.

First here is a video made by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason.

More resources

Jesus, the recycled redeemer

Was Jesus Christ just a copycat savior myth?

Jesus myth lies: Dying and Rising Savior gods Argument Based upon Lies

Christians like wearing blindfolds

Does a Christian have to be irrational in order to believe the truth-claims of the Bible? A step further, is it even irrational to be believe in a creator God of the universe? It all depends on the person actually. To be honest, there are irrational theists. There are those who find great comfort in saying, "It takes faith," when asked about their worldview. I will be so bold to say there are those who not only have comfort in that answer, but actually take pride in the answer of "I take it on faith," because they think they are really "spiritual" for leaving their mind in the street in matters of God and religion. 

Let's look at some examples. The following example is from an article written by Kenneth Copeland.

"You have to act by faith, not according to your feelings or reasoning. Faith is based on eternal truth and is more dependable than the evidence of your physical senses. According to 2 Corinthians 4:18, we are not to look at things which are seen,but at things which are not seen. The things which are visibleare temporal, or changeable. The things which are invisible are eternal—they never change. Don’t focus your attention on what you perceive through your five physical senses. Keep your heart fixed on the Word of God. Then what you see will come in line with the Word." 

I understand not making a decision based on feelings because a decision based on emotion is not a good move to make. However, how are you to act by faith if you abandon reason? I also must wonder what Copeland means by "Don't focus your attention on what you perceive through your five physical senses. Keep your heart fixed on the Word of God." How is one to fix his heart on the word of God if he must not perceive using his five senses? I know that's a bit sarcastic, but Copeland is promoting blind faith as if blind faith is virtuous and that irrationality is foreign to God and the Christian life. That couldn't be further from the truth. 

Consider what R.C. Sproul says in this article.

"Any discussion of faith and reason has to ask the question, “What is faith?” The biblical answer, according to the author of Hebrews, is that faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen (11:1). The author goes on to say that by faith we understand that the world was formed by the Word of God. The first thing we notice in this assertion is that faith is something that is substantial, not ephemeral. Secondly, faith represents a type of evidence. It is the evidence of the unseen. At the heart of the concept of New Testament faith is the idea of trust, namely, that faith involves placing one’s trust in something. In this regard all human creatures are subject to depending at one point or another on faith. I am not an expert in medicine, so I must give a certain trust to the diagnoses offered to me by experts in the field. That trust may be provisional until I find that it is not based in substance or evidence. But in the meantime, to trust what we do not see is not necessarily a matter of being irrational. Without reason, the content of biblical faith would be unintelligible and meaningless. So we say that biblical faith is not the same as reason, but that faith is rational and reasonable. The first assertion that faith is rational means that faith is intelligible. It is not absurd or illogical. If biblical revelation were absurd and irrational, it would be utterly unintelligible and meaningless. The content of the Bible cannot pierce the soul of a sentient creature without first going through the mind. It was Augustine who declared that faith without evidence is credulity. At this point we understand that though faith is rational, it is also reasonable. Biblical faith does not call people to crucify their intellect or take irrational leaps of faith into the darkness with the hope that Christ will catch us. Rather we are called to leap out of the darkness and into the light." 

Sproul accurately describes faith. Trusting in the evidence given by an object or person. I trust my mechanic to fix or service my car. I have good reason to put my faith in the mechanic to service my car with excellence. Why? Because of the track record. He has given me good reason to believe so! If faith is how Copeland explains it, i.e., wishing and speaking positively in attempt to make it true then the whole time I'm waiting on my car to be done I better look at the mechanic and speak, "You will fix my car! I know you will! I speak it and confess that it's true!" Why? Because I can't trust that my mechanic will fix my car based on his proven record of fixing my car in the past and rest easy knowing he is a good mechanic and my care is in good hands because that would be using reason and reason is a thing to be despised if you're a true Christian. What an absurd thing to believe.

I know I'm being snarky, but it's just so annoying to hear things like, "Christian, you must act on your faith by blindly wishing and speaking those things into existence, " or "Ya just gotta take those things on faith." Why? You wonder if these folks have studied church history or even read the Bible. 

Consider what Greg Koukl says here:

"Here is what Peter said. Acts 2:36, "Therefore let all the house of Israel know for certain that God has made him both Lord and Christ, Messiah, this Jesus whom you crucified." There it is again. "Know for certain."

This is throughout the entire Scriptures. Exodus, Acts, Romans 1:4. Paul talked about Jesus who is the Son of God, who is declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection from the dead. How do we know Jesus is the Son of God? Is that just a faith statement? Is it something we just wish were the case? Is that something we hope for in a leap of faith? Paul says he was declared the Son of God with power by the resurrection. We know he was the Son of God because He raised Himself from the dead. Now, that is evidence."

In the book of 1 John we see this all brought together. 1 John 5:13, "These things," John says, "I have written to you who believe in the name of the Son of God, in order that you may know that you have eternal life."

You can know it, ladies and gentlemen. Remember how John started out his book? He started out by saying those things which we have seen, those things that we know personally. "What was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have beheld and our hands handled concerning the Word of Life, and the life was manifested, and we have seen and bear witness and proclaim to you the eternal life." 

Do you think he is trying to get a point across there? He is saying, we've got the goods. We've got the evidence. Therefore our faith is not vain hope. It is not simply wishing. We've got convictions. We have put our trust in God based on the evidence, and that's what Biblical faith entails."

I can guarantee you your Christian life will be lived much better living a life of true faith. I hear people all the time (I have friends and family who subscribe to the Copeland idea of faith) speak as if they can't say anything "wrong" about themselves, e.g., you can't say "I have a cold," or "I'm having hear trouble," because then you don't have "faith" in God. I cannot imagine ever that God wants us to live that way. I don't read anywhere in scripture about people speaking positively 24/7 and never acknowledging their suffering. If you have a cold, you have a cold. Speaking the contrary will not heal you or make it go away. Faith is not wishing friends, faith is trusting in God and His promises based on evidence given to us by revelation. 

What is the evidence you ask? 

Start by looking here. Wintery Knight has an abundance of Christian resources for you to know for certain God exists and is the God as described in the Bible.

Is Divine Election fair?

In light of the traffic generating over the "Five bad arguments against calvinism" I thought I would share two videos made by Greg Koukl of Stand to Reason. The first video is about natural ability vs moral ability, i.e., man's natural ability to respond to the gospel.






This second video deals with the question, "Is divine election fair?"



Enjoy!

Also, if you haven't checked it out, here is the link to the "Five bad arguments against Calvinism."

Comment if you'd like.

Taking verses out of context

It's common for people to take a single verse from the Bible and make a doctrine out of it. Putting a number in front of the verse doesn't make it a stand-alone, end-all statement. Context is important. We don't take single lines out of other books and use them in such a fashion. I wouldn't understand my Information Technology textbooks if I read them like that. Why use the Bible that way?

Consider what Greg Koukl has to say on this issue.

"The numbers in front of the sentences give the illusion the verses stand alone in their meaning. They were not in the originals, though. Numbers were added hundreds of years later. Chapter and verse breaks sometimes pop up in unfortunate places, separating relevant material that should be grouped together.

First, ignore the verse numbers and try to get the big picture. Then begin to narrow your focus. It's not very hard or time consuming. It takes only a few moments and a little observation of the text. 

Begin with the broad context of the book. What type of literature is it history, poetry, proverb? What is the passage about in general? What idea is being developed?

Stand back from the verse and look for breaks in the narrative that identify major units of thought. Ask, "What in this paragraph or group of paragraphs gives any clue to the meaning of the verse?" 

There's a reason this little exercise is so important. Words have different meanings in different contexts (that's what makes puns work). When we consider a verse in isolation, one meaning may occur to us. But how do we know it's the right one? Help won't come from the dictionary. Dictionaries only complicate the issue, giving us more choices, not fewer. Help must come from somewhere else close by: the surrounding paragraph.

With the larger context now in view, you can narrow your focus and speculate on the meaning of the verse itself. Sum it up in your own words. 

Finally and this is critical see if your paraphrase makes sense when inserted in the passage. Does it dovetail naturally with the bigger picture?"

I found this video at STR place about reading passages in context. 

John Macarthur gives things to avoid while studying the Bible.

"Don't make a point at the cost of proper interpreta­tion . In other words, don't make the Bible say what you want it to say. That's like the preacher who proclaimed that women shouldn't wear their hair on top of their heads. His text was "Top Knot Come Down," supposedly from Matthew 24:17, which says, "Let him who is on the housetop not come down" (King James Version). Obviously that's not what the passage is about! Don't try to find verses to support a preconceived idea. I know if I try to make a sermon, I end up forcing the Bible to fit my sermon. But if I try to comprehend a passage, a message will flow out of the understanding that follows.


In 2 Corinthians 2:17, Paul says, "For we are not like many, peddling the word of God." The Greek word translated "peddling" is kapeleuo, which referred to selling something deceitfully in the marketplace--something that wasn't what it claimed to be. You must not force the Bible to illustrate your preconceived notions. Be careful not to interpret the Bible at the cost of its true meaning.


Avoid superficial Bible study . Unfortunately, some Bible studies consist of nothing more than person's saying, "I guess this verse means..." or "What does this verse mean to you?" Basically that's a pooling of ignorance--a lot of people sitting around telling what they don't know about the verse. To have a successful Bible study, someone has to study the passage beforehand to find out what it really means. Only then can you discuss it intelligently and apply it. Interpretation requires work. Don't take the easy way out and believe what everyone tells you the Bible says. Check the facts out yourself. Don't assume there are many interpretations of a biblical passage. There may be many applications, but there is only one true interpretation. God's Word is precise. It is not ambiguous. God has given us the ability to discover its meaning.


Don't spiritualize the text . The first sermon I ever preached was really bad. My text was, "The angel rolled the stone away" from Matthew 28. I entitled my sermon, "Rolling Away the Stones in Your Life." I talked about the stone of doubt, the stone of fear, and the stone of anger. Doubt, fear, and anger are all legitimate topics, but they have nothing to do with that verse! I call that "Little Bo Peep Preaching" because you don't need the Bible; you can use anything--even "Little Bo Peep."


Picture a preacher saying this: "Little Bo Peep has lost her sheep. All over the world people are lost. And can't tell where to find them. But they'll come home--ah, they'll come." Then you hear a tear-jerking story about sinners who came home "wagging their tails behind them!" Ridiculous? Yes, but unfortunately not too hard to imagine.


Many people tend to do that with the Old Testament. They turn it into a fairy tale with all kinds of hidden meanings--anything but what the text plainly states. Don't spiritualize the Bible. It deserves more respect."

Further reading

Greg Koukl "Never read a bible verse"

John Macarthur "How to Study Your Bible" 

Slavery and the moral argument

This post has two aims. 1) to explain Israel's use of slavery and 2) to explain how anti-slavery laws are good evidence for objective morality. So, first things first, we'll look at slavery "back in the day" and antebellum slavery or slavery in the good ol' South. 

The objection

When some folks are discussing the Bible and its atrocities, slavery is usually brought up. The charge, "Well, what about slavery? If the moral code of the bible is SO GREAT, then why is slavery condoned?" I have to say, if slavery in Israel was anything like slavery in the South, with its slave trades and cruelties, then I would side with the objection against the bible. When we read about slavery in bible we cannot equate that form of slavery with the slavery implemented in the South. The two are not similar. Want to learn about Hebrew servanthood? Paul Copan will teach us. He writes in his article on slavery:

"We should compare Hebrew debt-servanthood (many translations render this “slavery”) more fairly to apprentice-like positions to pay off debts — much like the indentured servitude during America’s founding when people worked for approximately 7 years to pay off the debt for their passage to the New World. Then they became free.

In most cases, servanthood was more like a live-in employee, temporarily embedded within the employer’s household. Even today, teams trade sports players to another team that has an owner, and these players belong to a franchise. This language hardly suggests slavery, but rather a formal contractual agreement to be fulfilled — like in the Old Testament.

Through failed crops or other disasters, debt tended to come to families, not just individuals. One could voluntarily enter into a contractual agreement (“sell” himself) to work in the household of another: “one of your countrymen becomes poor and sells himself” (Leviticus 25:47). A wife or children could be “sold” to help sustain the family through economically unbearable times — unless kinfolk “redeemed” them (payed their debt). They would be debt-servants for 6 years.4 A family might need to mortgage their land until the year of Jubilee every 50 years.

Note: In the Old Testament, outsiders did not impose servanthood — as in the antebellum South.6 Masters could hire servants “from year to year” and were not to “rule over … [them] ruthlessly” (Leviticus 25:46,53). Rather than being excluded from Israelite society, servants were thoroughly embedded within Israelite homes.

The Old Testament prohibited unavoidable lifelong servanthood — unless someone loved his master and wanted to attach himself to him (Exodus 21:5). Masters were to grant their servants release every seventh year with all debts forgiven (Leviticus 25:35–43). A slave’s legal status was unique in the ancient Near East (ANE) — a dramatic improvement over ANE law codes: “Hebrew has no vocabulary of slavery, only of servanthood.”

An Israelite servant’s guaranteed eventual release within 7 years was a control or regulation to prevent the abuse and institutionalizing of such positions. The release-year reminded the Israelites that poverty-induced servanthood was not an ideal social arrangement. On the other hand, servanthood existed in Israel precisely because poverty existed: no poverty, no servants in Israel. And if servants lived in Israel, this was voluntary (typically poverty-induced) — not forced." 

That doesn't seem like antebellum slavery at all. If you read the bible's entire treatment of slavery, "masters" were commanded to treat their servants as persons and not property. Notice also, that servants were hired not forced to be servants. This is radically different from the treatment of slaves in the South. The comparison of Israel's slavery to antebellum slavery is a false one. Paul Copan goes on to write a section titled "Three Remarkable Provisions in Israel."

"1. Anti-Harm Laws: One marked improvement of Israel’s laws over other ANE law codes is the release of injured servants (Exodus 21:26,27). When an employer (“master”) accidentally gouged out the eye or knocked out the tooth of his male or female servant/employee, he/she was to go free. God did not allow physical abuse of servants. If an employer’s disciplining his servant resulted in immediate death, that employer (“master”) was to be put to death for murder (Exodus 21:20) — unlike other ANE codes.10 In fact, Babylon’s Hammurabi’s Code permitted the master to cut off his disobedient slave’s ear (¶282). Typically in ANE law codes, masters — not slaves — were merely financially compensated. The Mosaic Law, however, held masters to legal account for their treatment of their own servants — not simply another person’s servants. 

2. Anti-Kidnapping Laws: Another unique feature of the Mosaic Law is its condemnation of kidnapping a person to sell as a slave — an act punishable by death (Exodus 21:16; cp. Deuteronomy 24:7). Kidnapping, of course, is how slavery in the antebellum South could get off the ground. 

3. Anti-Return Laws: Unlike the antebellum South, Israel was to offer safe harbor to foreign runaway slaves (Deuteronomy 23:15,16) — a marked contrast to the Southern states’ Fugitive Slave Law. Hammurabi’s Code demanded the death penalty for those helping runaway slaves (¶16). In other less-severe cases — in the Lipit-Ishtar (¶12), Eshunna (¶49-50), and Hittite laws (¶24) — fines were exacted for sheltering fugitive slaves. Some claim that this is an improvement. Well, sort of. In these “improved” scenarios, the slave was still just property; the ANE extradition arrangements still required that the slave be returned his master. And not only this, the slave was going back to the harsh conditions that prompted him to run away in the first place.11 Even upgraded laws in first millennium BC Babylon included compensation to the owner (or perhaps something more severe) for harboring a runaway slave. Yet the returned slaves themselves were disfigured, including slitting ears and branding.12 This isn’t the kind of improvement to publicize too widely. 

Old Testament scholar Christopher Wright observes: “No other ancient near Eastern law has been found that holds a master to account for the treatment of his own slaves (as distinct from injury done to the slave of another master), and the otherwise universal law regarding runaway slaves was that they must be sent back, with severe penalties for those who failed to comply.”13

If the South had followed these three clear laws from Exodus and Deuteronomy, slavery would have been a nonissue. What’s more, Israel’s treatment of servants (“slaves”) was unparalleled in the ANE."

Human Rights

There's another part of the accuser's objection to slavery I want to examine. The accuser sees something wrong with slavery, e.g., it's cruel to human beings and that human beings shouldn't be treated as slaves. Well, if human beings shouldn't be treated that way, then that really says something about humans, doesn't it? Why should we not be treated as someone's slave? Because it's cruel and inhumane? What makes it cruel and inhumane? The fact that we have inalienable rights is what makes slavery cruel and inhumane. Where do those rights come from? Not from government. These rights can't be taken or given to us by government; it merely acknowledges the rights of human beings. 

Our rights are transcendent rights given to us by God. Objective morality (morality that exists whether persons acknowledge it or not) flows from God's nature and is expressed to us in His commandments to us. Our rights come from God. Our rights cannot come from a physical quality in us. Physical qualities do not give us inalienable rights endowed to us. As Greg Koukl wrote in an article, "human beings are endowed by God with certain inalienable rights, and the endowment is not related to any physical thing in itself--any particular physical thing. We are endowed in a metaphysical way that is not related to our physical characteristics, but it is related to our humanness." 

If you're a materialist, you cannot argue that our rights are inalienable and can't be taken away because rights are not material. There is no morality because morality is not material. The best a materialist or naturalist can come up with for the apparent objectivity of morality is a morality based on survival of the fittest and we know that theory doesn't work; nor does the other option, relativism, work. 

I think the cruelty shown by antebellum slavery screams the truthfulness of the existence of objective moral values and duties. Given naturalism, slavery would not be cruel, it would not be evil because on naturalism human beings are not special, human beings do not have inalienable rights; we are just evolved primates and enslavement of some evolved primates for the selfish benefit of another evolved primate would not be wrong. In fact, on naturalism, slavery would be a good sign of survival of the fittest. It's possible I'm wrong, but I would think slavery would be just fine on a naturalistic worldview. What do you think?

Read the articles referenced

Does the Old Testament endorse slavery? by Paul Copan

Slavery, Abortion, and Inalienable Rights by Greg Koukl

More info:

Slavery in the Bible: 8 Quick Resources

Five bad arguments for theism

Last week, I wrote a post about five bad arguments against theism. Today, I'll cover five bad arguments for theism. The arguments I'm covering are mainly from the street theists. The theists most atheists encounter in their daily lives, you know, the ones that simply say, "Hey, religion helps me," or the famous, "Ya gotta' have faith," like the song by George Michael (or that's what I think of every time I hear someone say that). The problem with that kind of approach is not that folks shouldn't say those things to non-theists. The problem occurs when you use those statements as reasons for proof of God's existence. Not once did I take, "ya just gotta have faith" as a valid reason for believing in God when I wasn't a Christian. To me, it was a cop-out. 

So here are, in my opinion, the top five bad arguments for theism. 

1. Ya Gotta' Have Faith 

I'm never quite sure if the person that uses this reasoning for his belief truly believes you just got to have faith or if he simply doesn't have good reason for his holding theism. If the former, then he doesn't have a proper understanding of faith. If the latter, then the person probably doesn't care about reason and probably thinks it's wrong to have reasonable faith. Telling an unbeliever that you just need faith is foolish. Does the person expect the conversation to go like this: "Sir, how do you know God exists?" she asks the theist. "Well, you must have faith, that's how you know," he answers. "Oh, wow! I never thought of it like that before! Sir, count me in the theist camp!" she exclaims. 

That is not how it goes. In reality, she would dismiss him entirely and most likely theism all together. I did. Growing up, that's all I heard was that I just needed faith and then I would know God exists. Faith is not blind. Faith is not wishing. Faith is actually rational and reasonable. I know I use Greg Koukl's resources a lot, but hey, they're great resources! Check out the following resources to properly understand faith.

Faith and Facts article by Greg Koukl

Faith and Wishing article by Greg Koukl

What does the bible mean when it uses the word "faith"? by Wintery Knight

2. Theism Helps Me

This reasoning shoots you in the foot. When you talk to unbeliever about Christianity or theism in general, you don't want to use the phrase, "Well, it helps me," I know the phrase is meant to show the benefits of theism and not "shove" theism down the throat of your listener, but the reasoning has many faults. 

A) You slip into relativism. 

When you say, "It helps me," you're actually slipping into a "true for me, not for you" argument without realizing it. You're not arguing for God at all, you're actually proving the relativist's point of "if it helps you, great. It doesn't help me, so I don't need it." 

B) You make theism a crutch 

The "It helps me" reasoning makes theism a crutch instead of a truth finally acknowledged, which is great ammunition for those that say religion is the opiate of the masses. It's for the weak and the downtrodden and not for the strong they say and you're telling them, unknowingly, that they're correct in thinking that. Theism is not a crutch at all. My life would be much easier if wasn't a theist, however, I can't ignore the evidence for it. 

Using this reasoning will not get you anywhere with a clear thinking atheist or skeptic. Honestly, it won't get you anywhere with me either. If this is all you have for your belief in God, what will you do when it's not "helping" you anymore? When I'm at my darkest, at my lowest, knowing Jesus' resurrection actually happened is a great asset to my discipleship. It's not a crutch or blind faith; it's knowledge that is beneficial to my life. If all I had was blind faith and a crutch, then I wouldn't be a Christian. What would be the point?

Resources

Relativism mp3 by Paul Copan

True for you, not for me article by Paul Copan

3. You'll Go To Hell 

So since he won't believe you about the existence of God, then you sentence him to hell? That's classy. If the non-theist isn't going to believe in God, how do you expect him to believe in hell? If he doesn't hear you when you're telling him about God, he is not going to hear you when you tell him about hell. Further, even if you do manage to scare him enough into believing a hell exists, what happens when the fear wears off (it will)? Please don't use this argument. It will not stick. 

Also, the non-theist probably already has a low-view of God, hell will only strengthen that low-view. Using hell will not convert the thinking atheist. Hell won't even stick on the emotionally driven atheist. This is a bad argument. 

4. Prove God Doesn't Exist

This is another bad argument for theism. Why? The reason is because God isn't falsifiable. He can't be tested in a lab or studied under a microscope. This is scratching frantically at the bottom of the idea bucket to try and show the atheist how dumb she is when actually she isn't. The atheist knows she can't prove God doesn't exist and she isn't trying. She wants good reason for believing in God (there are good reasons, this isn't a good reason) and she wants to be taken seriously. Using this argument is not taking her seriously. Throw it away theist! Throw it away!

5. Pascal's Wager

I know some may disagree with me on this, but I have to list Pascal's Wager. If you're unfamiliar with the argument, it goes like this: a person should wager as though God exists, because living life accordingly has everything to gain, and nothing to lose. Pascal also stated that even though some are unable to believe, they should live as if they did believe, which may lead them to belief. At the time, his wager was groundbreaking, but it's not without problems. 

I've heard some atheists and skeptics say that if they lived their life as though God did exist, somehow manage to find that He doesn't, what about all of the wasted time put into belief in God? I know it's not a strong case against Pascal's wager, however I can't help myself from understanding the rebuttal. This is a problem, because if God doesn't exist, then you could have lived your life the way you wanted instead of the way God wanted. 

There are also other problems with the wager, e.g., argument from inconsistent revelations, assumption that one can choose belief, and others. It should be said, in Pascal's defense, he was not trying to prove God's existence by his wager philosophy. 

Those are the top five bad arguments for theism, in my opinion, and I hope that I've put a stone in your shoe with this post. There are good reasons for believing in God. You don't have to resort your belief to one of the five mentioned above. Faith is not blind, God is not a crutch, fear of hell does not produce a firm foundation, trying to get someone to falsify God will not cause them to hold theism as true, and Pascal's Wager only brings criticism. You may ask now, what are the good reasons? Click here to learn.

Euthyphro's Dilemma revisited

Due to the recent William Lane Craig and Sam Harris debate, there has been more discussion regarding objective morality and Euthyphro's *cough* false *ahem* Dilemma. Rather than write an entirely new piece, I'm going to use a part from my post Objective morals and Euthyphro's False Dilemma.

The Euthyphro Dilemma

What is another response from unbelievers? It's called the Euthyphro Dilemma (named after a character in one of Plato's dialogues). The dilemma is: Is something good because God wills it? Or does God will something because it is good? This is a popular objection to the moral argument for God's existence. If you say something is good because God wills it, then that good becomes arbitrary. God could have willed that cheating is good or that hatred is good, etc. That doesn't work does it? If you say that God wills something because it is good, then that good becomes independent of God, which makes moral values and duties exist independently of God, which contradicts premise 1. 

How does Craig answer the Euthyphro dilemma? He says that "we don't need to refute either of the two horns of the dilemma because the dilemma is a false one: There's a third alternative, namely, God wills something because He is good...I mean God's own nature is the standard of goodness, and His commandments to us are expressions of His nature. In short, our moral duties are determined by the commands of a just and loving God."6
 
So according to Craig, moral values and duties don't exist independently of God because God's own character/nature defines what is good and those morals flow out of God's nature. When the atheist asks, "If God were to command spouse abuse, would we be obligated to abuse our spouses?" he's asking a question akin to "If there were married bachelors, who would the bachelor be married to?" There is no answer because the question is absurd. 

Craig assures us that the Euthyphro dilemma presents us with a false choice, and we shouldn't be tricked by it. "The morally good/bad is determined by God's nature, and the morally right/wrong is determined by His will. God wills something because He is good, and something is right because God wills it."7


Source:
1. William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, CO: David C. Cook, 2010), pg. 132
2. ibid, pg. 133
3. ibid, pg. 133
4. ibid, pg. 134
5. ibid, pg. 134
6. ibid, pg. 135
7. ibid, pg. 136

Common questions to this answer of Euthyphro's Dilemma are: How do we know God is good? How is his nature good? Wouldn't it be possible for murder and rape to be 'good' if God commanded it? 


Philosopher Ed Feser has an answer to the above questions. [h/t] Joe's comment on WK's blog post.


“Given the doctrine of the convertibility of the transcendentals, on which being is convertible with goodness, that which is Pure Actuality or Being Itself must ipso facto be Goodness Itself. Given the conception of evil as a privation – that is, as a failure to realize some potentiality – that which is Pure Actuality and therefore in no way potential cannot intelligibly be said to be in any way evil. Given the principle of proportionate causality, whatever good is in the world in a limited way must be in its cause in an eminent way, shorn of any of the imperfections that follow upon being a composite of act and potency. Since God is Pure Actuality, he cannot intelligibly be said either to have or to lack moral virtues or vices of the sort we exhibit when we succeed or fail to realize our various potentials. And so on. All of this is claimed to be a matter of metaphysical demonstration rather than probabilistic empirical theorizing, and the underlying metaphysical ideas form a complex interlocking network that is (as anyone familiar with Platonism or Aristotelianism realizes) motivated independently of the problem of evil or the question of God’s existence.” 

Read more by clicking here. 

Greg Koukl answers the questions too. 

"The Christian's job is not done, though, because Bertrand Russell's observation suggests a second problem. Socrates' challenge to Euthyphro has not been met. What is "good"? It doesn't help to say that God is good unless we know what the term refers to. 

If the word "good" means "in accord with the nature and character of God," we have a problem. When the Bible says "God is good," it simply means "God has the nature and character that God has." If God and goodness are the very same thing, then the statement "God is good" means nothing more than "God is God," a useless tautology. 

The answer to this problem hinges on the philosophical notion of identity, expressed symbolically as A = A. When one thing is identical to another (in the way I'm using the term), there are not two things, but one.[10] For example, the president of Stand to Reason (Gregory Koukl) is identical to the author of this article. Everything that's true of the one is true of the other.[11] The author and the president are the same. They are not two, but one. 

According to Christian teaching, God is not good in the same way that a bachelor is an unmarried male. When we say God is good, we are giving additional information, namely that God has a certain quality. God is not the very same thing as goodness (identical to it). It's an essential characteristic of God, so there is no tautology.[12]

   

A proper understanding of Christian teaching on God removes one problem, yet we still face another: What is "good"? How can we know goodness if we don't define it first?

The way Abraham responded when he first learned of God's intention to destroy Sodom and Gomorrah gives us a clue to the answer:

Far be it from Thee to do such a thing, to slay the righteous with the wicked, so that the righteous and the wicked are treated alike. Far be it from Thee! Shall not the Judge of all the earth deal justly? (Genesis 18:25)

Here's the question. How did Abraham know justice required that God not treat the wicked and the righteous alike? As of yet, no commandments had been handed down.

Abraham knew goodness not by prior definition or by some decree of God, but through moral intuition. He didn't need God to define justice (divine command). He knew it directly. His moral knowledge was built in.[13]

 

Even the atheist understands what moral terms mean. He doesn't need God in order to recognize morality. He needs God to make sense of what he recognizes. 

This is precisely why the moral argument for God's existence is such a good one. The awareness of morality leads to God much as the awareness of falling apples leads to gravity. Our moral intuitions recognize the effect, but what is the adequate cause? If God does not exist, then moral terms are actually incoherent and our moral intuitions are nonsense. 

Christians need not fear Plato on this score. When Euthyphro's dilemma is applied to Christianity, it mischaracterizes the Biblical view of God. Goodness is neither above God nor merely willed by Him. Instead, ethics are grounded in His holy character. Moral notions are not arbitrary and given to caprice. They are fixed and absolute, grounded in God's immutable nature. 

Further, no outside definition of piety is necessary because morality is known directly through the faculty of moral intuition. God's laws express His character and--if our moral intuitions are intact--we immediately recognize those Laws as good. 

This doesn't mean Christianity is true, only that it's is not handicapped by Plato's challenge to Euthyphro."

Read his whole post by clicking here. 

Study objective moral values and duties further:

Do objective moral values and duties exist?

Euthyphro Argument

What is the basis of our values?


For more posts on morality click here.

Wanting objective morals without an objective moral standard

Listening to the Harris vs Craig debate last night on "Is good from God?" I noticed, yet again, a person defending objective moral values in a relativistic fashion. In the opening statement, it appeared that both men agreed on objective morality. What is objective morality? Objective morality, put simply, is a standard of morals that is binding on us whether we acknowledge them or not. I wouldn't want to confuse objective morals with universal morals because universal morals are morals that are recognized universally not necessarily objectively. Right now, universally people acknowledge that murder of an innocent is wrong. What if tomorrow, universally, people acknowledged that murder of an innocent wasn't wrong? That would mean that it's fine to go down the street, gun blazing, killing everyone you see and you could get away with that action. Objective morality means that even if tomorrow, the universal opinion is that killing the innocent is fine, that objectively killing the innocent is not fine, it's bad even if you don't acknowledge that it's bad. That is objective morality. 

Having said that, I think some defenders of objective morality are actually defending universal morality. Why do I think that? Well, for one because such defenders are basing their arguments on either a) evolution or b) utilitarian principles. Objective morals cannot be a product of evolution/herd/culture morality. Why? If objective morality developed by evolution, then I understand that it would have developed by natural selection. If the objective standard was developed by natural selection, then how could that be "objective?" Objective morality is the standard whether we acknowledge it or not; it's true without any help from us. An objective moral value is selflessness. Can selflessness be a product of natural selection? No. In natural selection the self is maximized. Greg Koukl gives a good explanation:

"So, in abbreviated form, the reasoning goes like this: I ought to be unselfish because it is better for the group, which is better for the species, which is better for me. So why ought I be unselfish? Because it is better for me. But looking at what is better for me, is selfishness. So all of this so-called description of where morality comes from, gets reduced to this ludicrous statement: I morally ought to be unselfish so that I can be more thoroughly selfish. That is silly. Because we know that morality can't be reduced to selfishness. Why do we know that? Because our moral rules are against selfishness and for altruism. They are against selfishness and for the opposite. When you think about what it is that morality entails, you don't believe that morality is really about being selfish. Morality is about being unselfish, or at least it entails that. Which makes my point that this description, based on evolution, does not do the job. It doesn't explain what it is supposedly meant to explain. It doesn't explain morality. It is simply reduced to a promotion of selfishness which isn't morality at all." 1

We can see from this observation that objective morality cannot have evolved over time. When dealing with evolution, it's all about the self. When dealing with morality, it's all about selflessness. 

What about good deeds? They're really done just so you can get something back right? The old "scratch my back I'll scratch your back." Well, I can think of a few things people do without getting anything back in return. I'm doing a good thing when I help someone that I do not know. So, I'm not trying to preserve my family, my "herd" at all, this person is a complete stranger. I'm in a restaurant waiting for a table, sitting down on an already crowded booth in the waiting area. An old man walks in and I give him my seat. Why do I do this? There's definitely not a reward; I'm not getting money or a free meal for this action, I'm not his grandson, cousin, brother; I'm simply a human being doing a good thing for another human being who is a complete stranger to me. 

Why does a soldier jump in front of enemy fire for an innocent bystander? There's definitely no reward for him in that action. There's no preservation of his species when he does that. He is not looking out for himself. When you see a person stranded with car trouble on the side of the parkway, you stop to help him. You have no connection with him, yet you help him. You don't help in hope of earning money or recognition; you help because you felt like you ought to help him. No one else had stopped to help and you felt it was the right thing to do. Objective morality imposes the ought on us whether you acknowledge it or not. Evolution can't explain morality. 

Can utilitarianism explain morality? First we should define what utilitarianism is. Utilitarianism (also called consequentialism) is a moral theory developed and refined in the modern world by Jeremy Bentham (1748-1832) and John Stuart Mill (1806-1873). It can be defined as follows: An action or moral rule is right if and only if it maximizes the amount of nonmoral good produced in the consequences that result from doing that act or following that rule compared with other acts or rules open to the agent. 2 I'm going to be borrowing heavily from J.P. Moreland's critique of utilitarianism because he answers my question quite well. In fact, I'll just post his rebuttals here. 

"Several objections show the inadequacy of utilitarianism as a normative moral theory. First, utilitarianism can be used to justify actions that are clearly immoral. Consider the case of a severely deformed fetus. The child is certain to live a brief, albeit painless life. He or she will make no contribution to society. Society, however, will bear great expense. Doctors and other caregivers will invest time, emotion, and effort in adding mere hours to the baby's life. The parents will know and love the child only long enough to be heartbroken at the inevitable loss. An abortion negates all those "utility" losses. There is no positive utility lost. Many of the same costs are involved in the care of the terminally ill elderly. They too may suffer no pain, but they may offer no benefit to society. In balancing positives and negatives, and excluding from the equation the objective sacredness of all human life, we arrive at morally repugnant decisions. Here deontological and virtue ethics steer us clear of what is easier to what is right.

Second, in a similar way, utilitarianism denies the existence of supererogatory acts. These are acts of moral heroism that are not morally obligatory but are still praiseworthy. Examples would be giving 75 percent of your income to the poor or throwing yourself on a bomb to save a stranger. Consider the bomb example. You have two choices — throwing yourself on the bomb or not doing so. Each choice would have consequences and, according to utilitarianism, you are morally obligated to do one or the other depending on which option maximized utility. Thus, there is no room for acts that go beyond the call of morality.

Third, utilitarianism has an inadequate view of human rights and human dignity. If enslaving a minority of people, say by a lottery, would produce the greatest good for the greatest number, or if conceiving children only to harvest their parts would do the same, then these could he justified in a utilitarian scheme. But enslavement and abortion violate individual rights and treat people as a means to an end, not as creatures with intrinsic dignity as human beings. If acts of abortion, active euthanasia, physician-assisted suicide, and so forth maximize utility, then they are morally obligatory for the utilitarian. But any moral system that makes abortion and suicide morally obligatory is surely flawed.

Finally, utilitarianism has an inadequate view of motives and character. We should praise good motives and seek good character because such motives and character are intrinsically valuable. But utilitarianism implies that the only reason we should praise good motives instead of bad ones, or seek good character instead of bad character, is because such acts would maximize utility. But this has the cart before the horse. We should praise good motives and blame bad ones because they are good or bad, not because such acts of praising and blaming produce good consequences.

In sum, it should be clear that utilitarianism is an inadequate moral theory. Unfortunately, ours is a pragmatic culture and utilitarianism is on the rise. But for those of us who follow Christ, a combination of virtue and deontological ethics is a more adequate view of common sense morality found in natural law and of the moral vision contained in the Bible." 3

Evolution and utilitarianism fail to explain morality, especially objective morality, which more and more people seem to be acknowledging. However, they're "accepting" it, then smuggling in their preferences, which is not adhering to an objective moral standard. Someone may say, "I believe in objective morality," but then he says that women should be beaten if they don't give in to sex. That's relativism. You cannot make objective moral statements when your worldview is relativism. On relativism, anything goes! What's true for you is not true for me goes both ways. On relativism, we wouldn't have women's rights or the abolition of slavery. On relativism, rape, murder, adultery, could not be wrong. Relativism is personal preference and guess what? Personal preferences are very diverse. Relativism if thought through critically is not what any sane person really wants to commit to because of its volatile nature. Relativism, evolution, and utilitarianism cannot explain morality. 

The major thing to realize here is that people want objective morality. People want to acknowledge that some things are objectively good and some things are objectively bad, and that we realize the ought in us pushing us to do the right thing. We all want to acknowledge that. Why do some dislike it though? Why do some people want objective morality in a different way? Because the objective moral standard can only be explained by God. Some people want the objective moral standard without the sufficient grounding for the moral standard, which is God. 

Sources

1. Evolution can't explain morality by Greg Koukl

2 Utilitarianism and the Moral Life by J.P. Moreland

3. ibid. 

Related content

My other posts on morality  

Clicking the above link will lead to more resources for morality.

Wintery Knight's morality posts (more resources here too.)