RESPONDblogs: T2 and the Free Will Dilemma

36202201321_fe156ab502_h

 

I sat in a packed cinema tonight to watch the newly restored 4K/3D release of Terminator 2. I know this movie so well – its over 25 years old now – yet it looks and sounds like it was just made last week. I genuinely appreciated the 3D conversion on the film – combined with the new sound mix – it really brought out details that I’d simply never seen and heard before.

The experience has never been better. And the various messages contained within it have never seemed more relevant!

It struck me tonight that – this story is about free will. Specifically, the struggle to regain the free will that’s been lost. It vividly illustrates how important it is that people are given the option to choose our future, rather than have it cruelly and inevitably determined for us.

 

The Importance of FREEDOM in the Terminator Universe

John Connor is destined to lead the fight against the machines in the year 2029. There appears to be no choice for him in this. The machines will inevitably trigger the nuclear fire that will exterminate the majority of the human race – leaving John to lead the human resistance against them. This is a future that mankind is hurtling toward with no seeming hope of rescue.

But the movie doesn’t dwell so much on this future struggle. Rather, it focusses on the inevitable and impending nuclear holocaust we face in the here and now (actually…in the 1990s. T2 is now a period piece…). The movie asks whether or not this awful fate can be averted? And if so…how?

 

This is a story about the battle of wills – the machines against the humans – and the battle ground is free will vs determinism. The freedom to live one’s life and to make choices…verses the tyranny of a determined existence. I hesitate to call spoiler alert on a 25 year old movie…but spoiler alert if you’ve not seen it yet:

The future machine army is trying to regain their future freedom by sending back Robert Patrick’s T1000 Terminator to kill John Connor in the past (makes perfect sense to me). Using the T1000, they plan to be free of John’s annoying resistance.

Meanwhile, the core family of John, his mother Sarah Connor and Arnie’s ageing T101 fight for the present freedom of humanity. They are fighting to somehow achieve freedom from the inevitable, horrifying nuclear fire that…if it occurs…will act as a prelude to the future man-machine war that John will lead. Yet perhaps freedom from this impending future is possible? And if so – this could mean that the holocaust is averted and the machine uprising is prevented?

 

Everyone is trying to regain their freedom in this film. Does the family succeed? Perhaps – with the awful cost of Arnie’s T101. Man – this scene tugs at one’s heart strings even more in 3D!

 

The Importance of Freedom to the Christian Worldview

James Cameron’s T2  has endured for many reasons. One of them – is the theme of human freedom that runs deeply through it. “There’s no fate,” Sarah Connor carves in a tabletop. There’s no fate but what we make. The future’s not set. At least it shouldn’t be set…

This is all a very Christian perspective on life. We are made with free will, the Bible tells us. We are urged to choose a life of obedience to God and his ways, going all the way back to Adam in the garden. You’re free to eat from any tree…except that one, because the results will be bad for you.[1] But the fact Adam…and we are urged to obey, tacitly assumes we have a choice in the matter. We don’t have to and we’re free to choose. God doesn’t set the future for us. We are not determined – we are free.

 

Whether or not God knows who WILL choose to obey him in the end or not (Molinism) we are free to choose now…and rightly so. We are built to exercise our free wills.

 

That’s why movies like T2 resonate so strongly. That’s why news reports where people have their human rights curtailed – and their freedom denied to them – provoke such outrage in people. Freedom is a core human value

 

The Problem of Human Free Will and the Consequences to Evil

What a shame then that this world contains so many examples where people exercise their freedom to curtail and remove the freedom of others. Nations threaten and intimidate other nations by firing missiles at them. Individuals find themselves being trafficked as a sexual commodity that is bought and sold to the highest bidder. Populations are wiped out in genocide.

 

Why doesn’t God do something about it?

If he’s there…and he cares…wouldn’t he intervene and rescue the suffering people now? Wouldn’t a loving God step in? Not necessarily. God created us with free will. He clearly wants us to exercise it. He wants people to have the freedom to live their lives…whether those people accept him or reject him. He’s not interested in coercing us. Rather, He’s looking for those who freely choose him and his ways.

 

Clay Jones makes the point that, when people ask why God doesn’t intervene in this world, they are not considering the outcome of that sort of intervention. If God somehow supernaturally intervenes every time someone begins to outwork acts of evil…causing others to lose their freedom….life would be very different for all of us. Actually, no one would be free any more.[2]

 

Yet as T2 reminds us…freedom is part of the core of who we are. We demand it – and rightly so.

What does this mean?

 

Imagine you are sitting at home with your partner and children, working on your laptop, and a pornographic image flashes up in your web browser…with a link urging you to explore further. What do you do? Your family are sitting there with you. At that moment – your freedom is curtailed. You might want to explore further – but you cannot. You aren’t free to do so because of the negative impact this would surely have on your partner and your children at that moment.

 

Now – perhaps in this instance, that’s a good thing. You’ve been given an easy way out to avoid the pornography. But if you lived every moment of your life with the gaze of a controlling deity…you would not ever be free in ANYTHING.

 

So it would be if God intervened miraculously every time someone began to cruelly remove someone else’s freedom. Everyone would be forced to acknowledge God whether they wanted to, or not. We would resent being coerced into worshipping him.

But that’s not what God wants. That’s not the way God works. He gives enough evidence for people to find him and engage with him if they wish to. But he doesn’t give himself away too much. One reason is, He wants to protect our free will.

 

That’s not to say there won’t be a final accounting for our use of our free will…because the Bible warns of a final judgement when everything concealed will be revealed…when justice will be seen to be done by every person. We’re accounted to live once…and then there’s the judgement.[3] Judgement Day is real…but it’s not Cameron’s proposed nuclear fire. It happens subsequently. (Aside: 4Ward’s VFX work showing the nuclear fire consuming LA really SHINES in the new T2 release. Chilling…yet you have to watch it.)

 

But in the here and now, in the same way we are free to exercise our wills, God’s also free to exercise his. He is free NOT to intervene…to ensure our freedom in the here and now. Yet whether we like it or not…it seems that our future is bound up with him. There are positive and negative consequences to the free will choices that we make in our lives now.

 

Image courtesy of Phil Cooden, https://flic.kr/p/Xa4KbR.

[1] Genesis 2:16-17.

[2] Clay Jones, Why Does God Allow Evil, (Eugene: Harvest House Publishers, 2017), 109-158.

[3] Hebrews 9:27.

Advertisements

RESPONDblogs: Have Scientists Just Disproved a Major Biblical Event?

The LADbible reported on a cool scientific discovery that was made recently.

LADbible – Science Has Just Disproved a Major Biblical Event

 

Their report says the scientific discovery shows that a well known event mentioned by the Old Testament – that Richard Dawkins has famously mocked – did not happen. The event is the Israelite invasion of Canaan.

 

The LADbible article:

  1. Reports that Lebanese people share 90 percent of their genetic material today with 5 ancient Canaanite human remains from the city state of Sidon.
  2. Refers to the Bible passage where Israel destroyed all the Canaanite cities and annihilated its people.
  3. Suggests that if the Canaanite peoples were annihilated, they could not have directly contributed genetic material to the region’s present-day population. So, the Bible claim is false.
  4. Suggests if the Canaanite cities were destroyed, there would be archaeological evidence of this mass destruction dated to between the Bronze and Iron Ages. But there isn’t any. Again…the Bible claim is false.

 

So is the article right; does the science disprove the Bible? Or does it reveal Professor Dawkins’ famous rant to be nothing more than empty rhetoric?

 

I’m taking my lead here from Paul Copan, PhD. He’s the Pledger Family Chair of Philosophy and Ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University.

 

Here’s my response:

1.Reports that Lebanese people share 90 percent of their genetic material today with 5 ancient Canaanite human remains from the city state of Sidon.

Ok. It’s incredibly cool that scientists can parse our generic material this way and detect geographic markers in the code. Amazing stuff…I want to read more.

 

2. Refers to the Bible passage where Israel destroyed all the Canaanite cities and annihilated its people.

I’d like to make 3 points here:

2.1 – The historical Yahweh Canaanite wars were unique for Israel.

The Old Testament records that Israel attacked three Canaanite cities – Hazor, Jericho, and Ai.[1]

Unlike other ancient near eastern nations, Israel was conspicuous for its humane treatment of foreigners. Its neighbours were not normally to be attacked, and foreigners who lived in Israel were respected and had the same rights as the Israelites themselves. They were not known for being a xenophobic people.

The Canaanite attack happened for a specific purpose at a point in time.

Further, scholars believe these three fortified cities were essentially military forts manned largely by soldiers rather than the general Canaanite population.[2]

 

2.2 The ancient historical setting takes some sting out of the language.

For example:

“Joshua…destroyed the Anakites from the hill country…totally destroyed them.”[3]

Yet a couple of chapters later:

“the Anakites were there and their cities were large and fortified…”[4]

But weren’t the Anakites (a Canaanite tribe) destroyed? Not so much!

 

There are loads of examples like this thru the Canaanite period.

For example, elsewhere talking about the conquest of Canaan, it says “you must destroy them totally….Do not intermarry with them.”[5] How do you intermarry with people who you have totally destroyed?

 

Scholar Paul Copan explains that, what’s happening in the Bible text is it is using traditional ancient near eastern language of the time. He calls it hyperbole…a bit like when we say, “Rangers played Celtic at the football today and slaughtered them.” They didn’t literally kill all of them…but they beat them soundly. The Bible’s not misleading or showing Israel up to be inept…it’s just using the language that the other nations used at the time for war. Again, Copan has specific examples of the other nations talking like this.[6]

 

So, if the Canaanite cities were military bases, then why does it say it was “destroyed with the sword every living thing in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep and donkeys.”[7] Copan opines that this was a stock phrase that doesn’t imply non-combatants were there, the language was used to mean take the military installation.[8]

 

 

2.3 The Old Testament texts of Joshua and Judges do not therefore claim that Israel annihilated everyone in Canaan.

When we read the Bible text all the way through, rather than stop at the difficult bits, we find that while a military engagement did occur and Canaanite soldiers and leaders were killed, these people were not totally wiped out by Israel. As Copan says, “The people’s who had apparently been wiped out reappear in the story. Many Canaanite inhabitants simply stuck around.”[9]

 

 

3. Suggests that if the Canaanite peoples were annihilated, they could not have directly contributed genetic material to the region’s present-day population. So, the Bible claim is false.

But who’s saying the Canaanite people were totally annihilated? As we’ve seen, it’s not the Bible. No, it’s Professor Dawkins who says this.

The cool genetic data actually confirms what the Bible has been saying all along, that the Canaanites stuck around and became part of the Israelite nation after they invaded.

If anyone is challenged by the science, it’s actually Professor Dawkins, not the Bible.

 

4. Suggests if the Canaanite cities were destroyed, there would be archaeological evidence of this mass destruction dated to between the Bronze and Iron Ages. But there isn’t any. Again…the Bible claim is false.

Where’s the evidence of mass destruction? Well – there wasn’t any mass destruction. Israel had very specific battles in three fortified cities. Archaeologists are working to identify these areas and they have some clues as to where they were. But the destruction was minimal and contained.

Copan again – “The archaeological language support the biblical text…minimal observable material destruction in Canaan as well as Israel’s gradual infiltration, assimilation and eventual dominance there.”[10]

Besides, there is other archaeological evidence that Israel was in Canaan at this time. So, the invasion’s not really in doubt historically.[11]

 

 

Conclusion

The LADbible are right – the science is disproving something here. But I would suggest it’s not the Bible. The science doesn’t reveal Bible deficiencies, but it does ironically show up Professor Dawkins and his faulty understanding of the Bible. So, can we lay his well-worn, false rhetoric to rest now?

The science affirms the Bible’s claim that the Canaanite people gradually became part of the Israelite nation[12] following Israel’s invasion. God’s not shown to be an “ethnic cleanser” in the Bible.

 

But does it still bug you that Israel invaded Canaan in the first place? Me too. But, again, Copan has some ideas on that that are worth exploring…

”think along the lines of the Sicilian police invading a Mafia stronghold to remove a corrupting network of crime so that citizens can live in peace, rather than fear.”[13]

 

Image is Public Domain.

[1] Joshua 8:18-19, Joshua 9:3, Joshua 11:10-11.

[2] Paul Copan, Is God a Moral Monster: Making Sense of the Old Testament God, (Grand Rapids: Baker Books, 2011), 176.

[3] Joshua 11:21-22.

[4] Joshua 14:12-15.

[5] Deuteronomy 7:2-3.

[6] Copan, 172.

[7] Joshua 6:21

[8] Copan, 176.

[9] Copan, 171.

[10] Copan, 185.

[11] The Merneptah Stele: Earliest evidence for Israel in Canaan? Bible Apologetics, https://bibleapologetics.wordpress.com/2011/04/21/the-merneptah-stele-earliest-evidence-for-israel-in-canaan/, accessed 31st July 2017.

[12] Joshua 13:1-7.

[13] Copan, 167.

RESPONDblog: Why is there Something Rather than Nothing?

gervais

I found this discussion on prime time US TV to be pretty fascinating! I’m always pleased to see when discussion about God comes out of the private places and into the public square where it belongs.

Ricky’s a sharp and witty comedian…and I do enjoy his irreverent humor. But I honestly find his atheism troubling. Not because I find his arguments compelling…its just the way he immediately seems closed to the idea of God.

I thought Colbert asked a great question out of the gate on his show…and he let Ricky off very lightly by allowing him to sidestep his good question.

 

Why is there something instead of nothing?

Why does the universe exist at all? Why are we here?

 

Ricky’s response was,

“That makes no sense at all…surely the bigger question is not why, but how?”

 

Interesting.

 

First – Ricky’s saying first that the question makes no sense. Sure it does. The sentence conforms to the laws of English grammar and syntax. But that’s not what he means. What he means is that naturalism and his materialistic worldview has no good answer to the question “why”. And so rather than admit that, he moves the discussion to “how”. Interesting sleight of hand. But it seems to me that it would have been more honest to admit that he has no answer to the question “why”.

 

Second – he says that the bigger question is not why, but how. Of course…Ricky thinks he’s on solid ground now about the “how” because…well…science. He can engage on that topic because of the great work in cosmology, biology, etc. But is he right? Is “how” a bigger question? I personally don’t think so.

  • Human beings have been asking “why” for millennia. It’s the oldest philosophical question. And I’ve experienced the “why” question many times in my discussions with atheists to this day. “Why” always matters to people – whether you have an answer or not.
  • Why do we exist? That is MASSIVE. I think its short sighted to skip that one because it feeds directly into our own purpose in life. Are you saying you don’t care about that?

 

Personally – I’m of the opinion that BOTH the “why” AND the “how” are important questions. And rather than dodge them…we need to work on them. Maybe we don’t have all the answers yet – which is why we are working on them. David Robertson makes an interesting point,

“Don’t be so dismissive of the very questions that make us human.   Humans are the only animal who ask the why question.  Please don’t dehumanise us.”[1]

Too right – you are worth more than that, Ricky.

 

I also love the part in the interview when Ricky says,

“Can you prove there is a God? You say no. So I don’t believe you.”

I’ve hit this so many times myself. And it’s like…we are stuck together in this odd discussion on proof for God…with the definition of the word “prove” getting tougher and tougher by the second. Yet there are so many things in life that we naturally accept, even though there is no empirical, cast iron proof of them.

  • I have a mind as I am writing this. You are reading this and you are using your mind. You have no empirical proof of my mind. You just choose to accept it. The same for me with yours.
  • What’s more…can we prove we are not plugged into the Matrix as we read and write? No. And neither can I.
  • Can you prove there is a God? No – because someone always pushes the definition of “prove” that bit higher each time.

BUT – is there EVIDENCE for God. Now – that’s a whole different question. Of course there is evidence that points towards the existence of God. For example…

https://respondblogs.wordpress.com/2014/06/17/does-human-reason-point-toward-gods-existence-or-gods-absence/

https://respondblogs.wordpress.com/2014/09/06/respondblog-doesnt-order-in-nature-provide-circumstantial-evidence-for-god/

 

And yet…again as Robertson points out about Ricky,

“you have already pre-determined that there can be no such evidence and therefore you automatically dismiss or explain away any such evidence.”[2]

Isn’t that the truth. We come back to what is permitted or allowed by the atheist belief system. Robertson engages with many more of Ricky’s points during this brief exchange…it worth taking a read of his blog.

[1] Ricky Gervais v Stephen Colbert – The Real Answers – An Open Letter, https://theweeflea.com/2017/02/03/ricky-gervais-v-stephen-colbert-the-real-answers-an-open-letter/, accessed 13th Feb 2017.

[2] Ibid.

RESPONDblog: Terror and the Horns of a Dilemma

blog

We live in a post 9-11 world.

Religiously fuelled terrorism is a tragic staple on our news feeds. At a time where people fly planes into skyscrapers, randomly shoot holiday makers at the beach and drive trucks into crowded Christmas markets, man’s inhumanity to man seems to be in no risk of letting up.

What’s fascinating to me is the way many terrorists justify their horrific acts by appealing to God and their religious outlook. For example, “Allah told me to do it.”[1] And I’m sure this line of reasoning isn’t solely limited to Islamic terrorism.

But I feel I need to point something out here.

While this is a common radicalised religious view (referred to theistic voluntarism) …it is not and has never been the Bible’s view of God as properly understood. And despite the Christian church’s failures in living up to it over the centuries…it is not the way ethics is supposed to work in the world.

God is good. It’s his nature. Ontologically speaking, it’s his being. And his offer to all of us – is that with his help, we can be restored to the goodness that he intended for us from the beginning.

“God, God, a God of mercy and grace, endlessly patient—so much love, so deeply true—loyal in love for a thousand generations, forgiving iniquity, rebellion, and sin.”[2]

Now at this point…my philosopher friends may nod their heads…and raise their hands. Because one of the founding fathers of modern philosophy, Plato, posed an interesting dilemma that relates to this very issue. It’s become known as Euthyphro’s Dilemma.

There are two horns of this dilemma.

First – is something good because God commands it?

If I say yes…then I’m faced with the possibility of terrorist morality. “God told me to crash the plane – there’s a greater good being done here thru terror – I must obey.” And even though the average person recoils in horror at this…the terrorist feels morally justified. But that wouldn’t make God very good tho…would it? Not by our intuitive sense of right and wrong.

If I say no…then I have another problem. God no longer becomes the source of all moral goodness. And in that case…he ceases to be God. He has no moral basis with which to command anything of me. He “promptly disappears in a puff of logic.”[3]

 

What about the second horn? It goes like this.

Second – does God command something because it is good?

If I say yes…then again, something is already good before God does it. Goodness and morality must exist separately from God. God is expected to obey these moral laws like us. He’s not God any more. He’s irrelevant. Puff of logic again!

If I say no…then this opens the door again to God commanding us to do morally questionable actions.

 

If this mind bender sounds irrelevant…I understand…but actually it isn’t irrelevant. Because it challenges us to answer the question – “What is good, and where does good come from?” If there is no God after all…then good is simply a person’s point of view. And if that’s the case then we’re in BIG trouble.

Relativism might be the law of the jungle ethics for many people…but that does not make it right and good. Christianity demonstrates that this is not how ethics is supposed to work at all.

The point that the Bible makes about God is that he is good…it is his being…it is who he is.

And so the Christian perspective doesn’t respond to Euthyphro’s Dilemma. Instead the Christian understanding of God demands that we reject it altogether. On what grounds, do we reject it?

 

First – is something good BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS IT?

Scott Smith draws a distinction between two forms of goodness. Metaphysical goodness and moral goodness[4]. God is revealed to be metaphysically good. He is transcendent…he just is good. Yet people are different. We are moral beings. There is the potential within us of moral goodness. But there is also the potential that we choose actions which are the very opposite to moral goodness.

Another way to put it – is like this. People’s behaviour is arbitrary. If I have a bad day at work, I’m much more likely to snap at my family and say something I regret afterwards. Yet God’s not like that. He’s good…all the time. People are therefore essentially…ontologically (relating to our being) different to God.

How are we different? Well there’s always a question over my goodness. And for that reason, we have an “ought” hanging over us. There is a way we “ought” to behave and it is good. Yet no such “ought” exists for God. Because there is no question over how he will behave. He is predictable and reliable. God is good – all the time.

Another way to put it is like this. God doesn’t make commands for his benefit. He doesn’t choose whether to obey them or not. We do. And there’s no guarantee we will. But the command itself – by the nature of its existence – performs a governing function for us. It works to try to keep us on the straight and narrow path that God is always on anyway.

So – is something good BECAUSE GOD COMMANDS IT? The question doesn’t work for the Christian understanding of God.

“’God does not, say, keep promises because he ought to (which would imply some external moral standard). Rather, the theist claims that God will keep promises,’ since it is impossible for God not to act morally.”[5]

God simply is goodness. Whatever people choose to say or do.

 

Now the second horn – does God command it BECAUSE IT IS GOOD?

Again, the question doesn’t make sense. Because if God is good, if his nature embodies goodness in a complete way, then there is no risk of arbitrary behaviour and no goodness beyond Him.

Someone might say, “Hang on. I didn’t learn to be polite and act in a good and proper way because God taught me.” Absolutely right. It was probably your mother or a significant adult in your life. But just because there are many ways that we learn how to act in good and proper ways does not mean that there is no God underpinning it after all. Both things are true. Your mum’s moral goodness can ultimately be traced back to the very heart of God. It’s impossible for him to act any differently.

Someone else might say, “God’s redundant. I have a conscience, after all. I have a sense of right and wrong. I don’t need him telling me what to do.” Speaking personally – I respectfully disagree. If only that were true! I have many times seared my own conscience thru my own thoughtlessness and selfishness. And besides, people often disagree over the right thing to do and say. We need an objective standard and his gentle reminder.

 

Euthyphro’s Dilemma might have been relevant as Plato was musing on mankind’s interactions with the fictional, created Greek gods. But it has no place in relation to the God who is revealed through the Bible.

When a religiously motivated person hurts someone else under the banner of “the end justifies the means”, they are on their own. They do not have God in their corner at all. It’s an appalling fantasy that must be rejected…and strongly challenged.

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/mar/15/canada-stabbings-allah-police.

[2] Exodus 34:6-7, The Message.

[3] Douglas Adams, The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy.

[4] R. Scott Smith, In Search of Moral Knowledge: Overcoming the Fact-Value Dichotomy, IVP Academic 2014, p. 32.

[5] R. Scott Smith, p. 34.

RESPONDblogs: God, Morals and Steven Avery

murderer

Over the past few posts, I’ve done my best to lay out the moral argument for God as I understand it.

While doing so…I’ve also been watching “Making a Murderer” on Netflix…which has been a fascinating experience…and resonates strongly with the argument I have been making. I’ll explain why I think that in a moment.

For now – here’s what I’ve been exploring on this blog: 

 

 

1 – The claim that human morality is simply just what society does as it evolves. I’ve explored reasons why this cannot be the case.

2 – The claim that each different human society has its own particular moral code. I’ve discussed why I think this misunderstands what morality is.

3 – I’ve gone on to explore what moral absolutes look like.

4 – And I’ve said that – this state of affairs only really makes any sense if there is a God to provide the code in the first place.

 

 

But – so what? If there’s a moral code imprinted onto each human heart that urges us to look after the poor and the helpless, to care for and respect our children and our elders, to seek justice in this world…so what?

 

 

Here are a couple of thoughts.

First – I think it’s easy to forget just how strong the force of the moral code really is in our lives. The stronger something is – the more important it is to explore its cause and its reason.

Just after the Christmas holiday, Janet and I watched the Netflix series that’s getting a lot of buzz right now. It’s called “Making a Murderer” and it’s a series that documents the life and misfortunes of Steven Avery who has spent most of his life in prison. And the series lays out – using a creative mix of interviews, news clips and recovered footage during the events – that Avery has been sent to prison twice for crimes that he did not commit. And as things stand today – he may never manage to gain his release.

What affect has this had on the people of have watched it? Well – those who I have spoken to, those who I have listened to – have been full of moral outrage on behalf of Steven and his nephew Brendan Dassey. That he would be misrepresented in such a crushing way twice, leading to decades behind bars, makes people angry…and it makes them call for change. Some people take it further…and seek to punish the poor prosecutor Ken Kratz for putting Steven in prison. Kratz seems to have done a good job of punishing himself, if the reports of his impropriety are to be believed!

Director Peter Jackson has written about his feelings on his public Facebook page:

“it’s only by watching the 10 hours of riveting documentary that you will really understand how faulty the U.S justice system currently is, and how badly it needs fixing. That will only happen if you are angry enough to demand it, and “Making a Murderer” does a pretty good job of achieving that!”

This TV show has made a massive impact. Netflix hasn’t released viewing figures…but its impact on social media has been enormous between December and January 2016. The first episode was uploaded to YouTube to encourage non-Netflix subscribers to get on board…and that episode has achieved 1.6 million views since 18th December when it was posted. The official @MakingAMurderer twitter account went from 4000 to 114000 followers over the same period. This show has made a big impact on an international viewing audience, and it highlights just how important the moral absolute of “justice in court” is to the average person.

Our shared call for legal justice in a corrupt justice system points to the creator God who makes sense of our moral outrage. That’s an important point to consider here.

 

 

Second – if God has given us a humane and protective moral code, then that tells us a lot about what his character is like. Because it’s going to reflect the caring protective heart laws we have explored.

Now some would reply – “Stuart, the Bible is the most immoral work of fiction I’ve ever read!” Really? You call the Bible a work of fiction? Are you sure you read it? But I do agree it is full of immoral acts. And I think there are some reasons for this:

1 – The Bible is not completely prescriptive. It does not spend all of its time telling us how we should behave. It doesn’t need to do that because the moral law is written elsewhere (on our hearts). What it does however spend a lot of time doing – is describing the human condition. The immoral problems that humanity wrestles with. The problem is the human heart – the problem is my heart. And the Bible spends a lot of time showing us why we need God’s help.

2 – The Bible was written at a different time in a different culture. For example, the ancient near east was nowhere near as humane a society as the western countries are today. Yet ISIS seems to be trying to take us back into those dark ages. The behaviour of God’s people seems very harsh to 21st century eyes. Yet when viewed alongside the evils of the time that were wrought by other nations…Israel was always progressive in its humanity. An example of this is the way it treated slaves – who were limited in their engagement to 7 years (Exodus 21:2).

3 – When we hear non-Bible scholars accusing God of heinous immoral acts in the Old Testament, you’ve got to ask:

  • where are you getting your sense of morality from in the first place?
  • why do you think you are properly understanding these ancient texts that come from a particular place and time – and are not prescriptive today.

 

 

Humanity is capable of incredible acts of selflessness, love and faithfulness. And I suggest that they reflect the character of the God who made us, who loves us and who has imprinted his goodness onto us.

“May the Lord bless you and protect you. May the Lord smile on you and be gracious to you. May the Lord show you his favour and give you his peace.” Numbers 6:24-26, NLT

RESPONDblogs: Does Society Decide What Is Moral?

chaplin

In my previous blog I talked about why I thought that a relativistic, “Who are you to judge?” culture was so dangerous.

https://respondblogs.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/respondblogs-who-are-we-to-judge/

I’m going to claim that human beings aren’t actually wired up to live this way anyway. And we can see that when we look at people and how we function as part of society. We might live in a culture that is becoming increasingly relativistic, but our intuitive reactions actually rail against the very relativism we are living within.

 

What do I mean?

 

Well – very often, I hear the claim from people that moral absolutes don’t exist. Rather, society itself just evolves …and our moral sensibilities evolve with it. Really? I would suggest that…while a nice theory…that this is patently false when we look at how human beings operate in the real world.

 

First – if it was true that human society decided human ethics, then we would intuitively know that no other society would be at liberty to criticise our society. We would know that…when it came to ethics…we could only act as passive observers of another society’s ethical system. Yet this is clearly not the case. Human history is stuffed full of commentary and judgement on past cultures and societies from ancient Rome to modern day Northern Korea and everything in between. We aren’t passive – we are quick to judge the choices people make, whatever their culture or society.

The hilarious irony here for me is that – usually when this comes up in discussion – the person proposing relativistic, societal ethics will often do so with an air of judgement on my own absolute moral position…thus underlining the brokenness of their own theory. I’m not saying I’ve got a perfect understanding of ethics and morality…but eyes, specks and planks spring to mind (if you get my meaning!)

 

Second – if it is society’s job to decide what is morally right and wrong, then our laws would be unassailable by definition. They would be right by default. Yet this is clearly not the case! There’s a very BIG difference between something being legal, and something being morally permissible. We see this played out in the abortion debate. Yes – it’s legal to terminate a pregnancy during the first 24 weeks in the UK[1]. But is it ethical? There are people on both sides of that debate.

And this issue gets thornier as technology evolves. Recently in the US, the Planned Parenthood organization has been faced with moral outrage over their harvesting of aborted foetal tissue; of going to market with valuable body parts gleaned from the aborted foetus. They are arguing that they are not operating outside the law. And they have a strong legal case.[2]  After all…this is a lucrative business for them. But surely the bigger question has got nothing to do with the legality of their business. The bigger question is this. Is their business morally permissible…or completely morally bankrupt and reprehensible? I know where I stand on that.

My point is – just because something is legal does NOT automatically make it moral. Ethics are not legislated for. Society’s laws are measured by a higher law. Human beings intuitively know this is how it works, and are quick to exercise their right as a moral human being to do so.

If it is right that an evolving society defines its own ethical system – then we have only one option in the face of Planned Parenthood. Or indeed any other atrocity that is committed within the bounds of the law. Our only option is – silence and acceptance. Is that what we see in society? Not at all! We don’t have to go far before we find someone with a moral opinion that they loudly express…I might not even have to go beyond myself. Moral reformers in society act out of a sense that there is a higher moral order that exists…a measuring line. And when we look at the moral reformers of the past, this gives us the third problem with the theory that says, “society defines an evolving morality.”

 

Third – this theory forces us to view moral reformers as the worst kind of immoral reprobate possible, because they are seeking to reform society and society defines what is moral and what isn’t. Consider Corrie Ten Boom who worked to reform Germany under the Nazi Party. She opposed her society’s moral system and, if moral relativism is true, she should be viewed as a highly immoral person. Yet history does not view her as a criminal. Quite the opposite – she is held up as someone who worked to make a positive difference in people’s lives. She rejected Nazi Germany’s ethnic cleansing laws because she was a human being. It had nothing to do with her German nationality.

Social reformers are heroes to us, not villains. And this shows up moral relativism as an incoherent theory.

 

 

Human beings are moral beings by definition; we exercise it. We do not like to keep quiet about it. Silence and acceptance is probably not the pattern in the comment section of a blog discussing moral relativism! And so – Society Says types of moral theories are incoherent.  We don’t sit back and accept every law as right. We don’t hold up moral reformers as evil; very often it is quite the opposite. Ethics is a measuring line that we intuitively appeal to when measuring human society. Therefore, the measuring line exists somewhere else…it is beyond society.

 

But maybe morality works differently. Maybe it’s not the claims of society that define what is moral, maybe it’s just what we do? Or maybe it goes even further. Maybe at the end of the day it all just comes down to personal preference. My conscience is the only thing guiding my own personal morality. Could that be how ethics actually works? More to come in part 3.

[1] “Abortion,” NHS choices, July 18, 2014, accessed July 10, 2015, http://www.nhs.uk/conditions/Abortion/Pages/Introduction.aspx.

 

[2] https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/health-and-human-services-planned-parenthood-not-breaking-the-law.

RESPONDblogs: Who are We to Judge?

dont judge

There’s a growing sense in our society that…at the end of the day…relax! Everyone is entitled to their opinion. About everything. And on one level I completely agree and think that is quite right. I have opinions…and I blog about them. Others have opinions about what I say…and so they respond to me with questions. This is all good and right.

But a growing problem in our culture is that people are taking the right to opinion…and turning it into something else. Something that’s not relaxing at all…something downright dangerous.

Some years ago, Francis Beckwith participated in a panel discussion that looked at the possible dangers of violence and sexual content on broadcast media to children. This debate happened years before always on, instantly accessible torrent sites, Netflix accounts…and the shrinkage of traditional TV broadcasters. During the debate, Beckwith suggested that Government censorship was not the answer. Rather, the media outlets themselves had a responsibility to make moral judgements about how their programming may affect young people.

One woman in the audience bristled at that suggestion and raised her hand. “Who are you to judge?” she asked. She wasn’t expecting an answer. She was making the point that – no one has the right to make an absolute moral judgement about an individual or society in general.

This is the dangerous problem I’m talking about. We are taking everyone’s right to opinion – and we are using it in an unhelpful…and actually quite dangerous way. Beckwith’s answer explains why.

“I certainly do have a right to make moral judgements. I am a rational human person who is aware of certain fundamental principles of logical and moral reasoning. I think I’m qualified. Your claim that I have no right to make judgements is ITSELF a judgement about me. Your claim, therefore, is self-refuting.”[1]

 

“Who are you to judge?”

It’s a powerful rhetorical putdown, isn’t it? Yet it poses a great danger to our society. Why? Because it encourages and pushes us towards a place of moral vacuum. Where no one feels free to take responsibility to stand up for what is morally right. The long term effects of this on society are going to be felt as the years pass. But they won’t be good.

Why not? Well – when we are encouraged to deny moral absolutes, then that gives free reign for anyone to do whatever they feel like. Whether it is good and uplifting for society, or whether it wreaks horror and terror on people in society. Both are encouraged in a society where morals are relativized. Both are permissible in a “Who are you to judge?” society.

This society also just plainly doesn’t make any sense!! Beckwith described “Who are you to judge” as a self-refuting statement. What does that mean? Well – a self-refuting statement is one where the statement talks about itself and then makes the statement false. A part of the statement denies the whole. Here are some examples.

“No sentence is longer than 3 words.” Well – that sentence is 7 words long. Because this sentence exists, it denies the premise behind the statement itself. It is a self-refuting claim.

“There is no truth.” This is itself a statement OF truth. And so because this statement of truth exists…it denies the premise of the statement itself. It is a self-refuting claim.

“No one has the right to make a moral judgement about a person or society in general.” Do you see the problem? This statement is ITSELF a moral judgement. It is a heavy burden of judgement for moral human beings to bear. The person who fires this statement at us is themselves declaring a moral judgement. And so it is a self-refuting claim.

 

I think we live in an increasingly toxic culture where no one is allowed to express moral opinion. It’s often called Moral Relativism…its dangerous and illogical…

 

…and I think Moral Relativism flies in the face of how human beings are wired. Why do I say that? More to come in part 2!

[1] Francis J. Beckwith and Gregory Koukl, Relativism Feet Planted in Mid-Air, (BakerBooks, 2011), 12.