Does Scripture Ground Morality, Hope, and Meaning?

Introduction

I saw this meme on social media the other day. It states "Scripture abandoned in the culture leads to relative morality, hopelessness, and meaninglessness." It caught my attention because of how its author attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning. Even though skeptics of Christianity do not have the correct worldview, they still have the ability to identify contradictions, unsound arguments, and false claims made by adherents of other worldviews (in virtue of their being created in the Image of God). If a defender of the Christian worldview attempts to ground morality, hope, and meaning in an invalid source and defend that incorrect grounding, a knowledgeable skeptic will be able to identify the faulty claim and use that as a reason to remain skeptical of the claims of Jesus Christ. Unfortunately, this meme offers the incorrect grounding for morality, hope, and meaning. It is important that we understand how the grounding is incorrect, the implications of its being incorrect, and what the proper grounding is, so that we can be prepared to give a reason for the hope that we have when a skeptic challenges the claims of this meme.

📚 Top 5 Books For Ethics and Politics 🗽

Common Questions and Challenges in Political Discussions

• Who are you to judge someone else? 
• Who's ethical system are we to abide by (if anyone's)?
• Isn't it wrong to legislate a specific morality? 
• Isn't morality relative to each individual, anyway? 

These are questions that we often find in today's politically charged culture. One side says that morality is objective and should be legislated, while the other side says morality is relative and government should stay out of it. There is also in-fighting on both sides and a whole range of views between the two extremes. Many skeptics get caught up in all the different views that Christians hold and use that as a reason to not believe the Christian worldview and the ethical implications of it. How do we think logically about this and how do we discuss it in a calm but persuasive manner. I have put together my Top 5 Recommended Books to prepare you for these discussions in every encounters, whether you plan to engage others or merely listen and analyze. For your convenience I have linked to my chapter-by-chapter reviews of the books and provided a short reason why I chose the books for this list, but if you really want the details and wish to engage the content of the books, you will need to pick up a copy. Now, on to the list!

Top 5 Books for Discussing Ethics and Politics

1. Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air- Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith
2. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues- Norman Geisler
3. Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible- Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
4. The Case For Life- Scott Klusendorf
5. Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions- Greg Koukl

Why Did I Choose These Books? 

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air

In any discussion about ethics and politics, a foundation needs to be established. That foundation begins with whether or not morality is objective or relative. If relative, discussions are reduced to mere opinion. If objective, then there is a correct ethic and application in politics to be discovered, and discussion involves the defense of particular views. Greg Koukl and Frank Beckwith take everyday situations and show how relative morality cannot possibly be correct. It is philosophically deep yet written in an easy-to-digest style (its not boring). This book sets the foundation for discussing ethics and politics and helps the reader to defend objective morality in these discussions.

Christian Ethics: Options and Issues

Political discussions do not always take place between two people of completely divergent worldviews; many times they are between two of the same worldview. Many Christians believe different ethical systems that they have derived from the pages of the Bible. These systems result in different applications in everyday life and in politics, so it is important that Christians understand which ethical view makes the most consistent sense of the most biblical data. Norman Geisler examines different ethical views that Christians have proposed in history and compares them to the biblical data; he provides a philosophical critique of the various views; and defends the view he believes is the accurate view. This book made my list because it guides the reader through defending the proper view, which will help defend particular ethical and political views from a logical and biblical perspective. 

Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible

In political discussions it is common to hear an objector say that morality should not be legislated because it is not wise, legal, or even possible. Norman Geisler and Frank Turek take the reader through the philosophical foundations for the founding documents of the United States of America. They also examine the logical fallacies involved with the claims that morality cannot and should not be legislated. They also spend a large portion of the book describing a model for determining what morality should be legislated and what morality should not be legislated. And how this model plays out in various hot political topics is presented. If you engage in or just listen to discussions on politics, this book needs to be read. It will help provide a powerful context for analysis and discussion of ethical and political positions.

The Case For Life

One of the big ethical and political issues of today is the topic of abortion. Discussions of abortion are often emotionally heated and rarely go anywhere because of the usual lack of a persuasive case by either side. Scott Klusendorf takes a commonly accepted source for truth that both sides acknowledge: science. He presents a powerful positive case that the unborn are unique, alive, and human. He scientifically and philosophically critiques the most common and more philosophically rigorous pro-choice arguments. He presents them in a way that is easy to understand and present in everyday discussions. This book is indispensable for the pro-life defender to present a scientifically focused case to those who value the findings of the scientific disciplines. 

Tactics: A Gameplan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions

Finally, just possessing all the knowledge from the above books will not necessarily make conversations on ethics and politics productive. The person who wishes to persuade others in conversation must present their case in a winsome, respectful, and calm manner. Greg Koukl's book "Tactics" takes the reader through several different principles and real-life conversations to show how to intentionally discuss controversial issues in a non-combative posture. While this book is the last one listed, it could easily be the first one on the list that I recommend you read. You will be able to apply its principles throughout the time that you are reading through the other books and the books in any other Top 5 list.

Related Posts: Conducting Controversial Conversations

• 8 Tips To Discuss Politics, Race, Religion, and Other Controversial Topics
• 4 Questions To Ask Before You Hit SEND
• Top 5 Books For Having Productive Conversations
• Gentleness and Respect in Discussions
• Greg Koukl: A Challenge To Your View Could Be A Blessing

Related Posts: Ethics and Politics

• The Scourge of Racism in America
• How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections?
• Would Jesus Participate In Politics?
• Why Is The Image of God So Important? 
• What Is The Intellectual Cost Of The Pro-Choice Position?
• Providing The Case Against and Solutions for Abortion

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

    

Norman Geisler: There Is Some Truth In False Views

Introduction

In the process of defending views (whether they are worldview, political, or others) we will always come across people who hold to other views. Usually people hold to a particular view because they believe the view accurately reflects reality. However, since no two contradicting views can both be correct, one or both must be incorrect. But why would someone believe a false view? Norman Geisler provides insight into this in his book "Christian Ethics: Options and Issues":

"Few positions are totally without any merit. There is usually enough truth in any false view to make it hold water."

Distinguishing the True and False Parts

It is often difficult to persuade someone of the truth of your view if they believe that their view is accurate. The fact that their view may be able to explain certain parts of reality is what is the foundation for their holding their view. If their view did not have portions of it that were correct, they would not believe it. It is important to recognize these true parts as areas of agreement between the two different views. This will usually establish some trust between the two parties and allow for intellectual (rather than emotive and rhetorical) discussion about the false areas of their opposing view. We can then challenge the false views and show how our view not only explains the true views we've already agreed upon but better explains the areas of reality that the other view cannot.

Could WE Have The False View?

It is important that we also recognize the fact that none of us is omniscient. It is very possible that we would be the one with the incorrect view and are holding to that view because it explains enough (has enough truth) to appear accurate. The difficulty in persuading someone thatbelieve our view is correct could be founded in the fact that our view is actually false. We need to be willing to not only challenge other views but allow our views to be challenged. If our views are the false views, we must change them.

Conclusion

All views that people hold to explain reality contain some portion of truth that allows them a logical reason to believe the view. However, if the true parts are the only part they focus on, they can be blinded to the falsehood of their overall view. It is important that we recognize the true parts of their view to establish unity, but we do that in order to show them where they have gone wrong. If we expect others to recognize that their views may be false and need changing, we must be willing to examine our own views and change them when the evidence and logic is against our view.

To Investigate More, I Recommend:

• Reasons In And Out of a Worldview
• 3 Good Reasons to Question What You Believe
• Is Your View Falsifiable? 
• Book Review: Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussion Your Christian Convictions

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

  

John Oswalt: Progress Requires God

Introduction

Nobody likes to think that they are holding back progress. The idea of progress is used in many areas of political and moral debate as a weapon against those who tend to hold to "traditional" values. "Progressives" argue against the objective truth of Judeo-Christian morality in an effort to legalize their particular desires. In an effort to do so, though, "progressives' are trying to eliminate the only foundation for judging what can be rightly called "progress" and what can rightly be called "regress." In his book The Bible Among The Myths, John N. Oswalt uses philosophy of history to show the necessity of the Creator for progress to even be possible:

"The idea of progress is dependent on the idea that our Creator has a goal for us, outside of ourselves, toward which we humans were made to progress and against which our progress can be measured. Give up that truth, and 'progress' becomes a chimera."

The Foundation Removed

Without an objective goal set, there is no way to determine what truly is progressive and what is not. If an event or action moves a group closer to the realization of the goal, then progress has taken place. If an event or action moves a group away from the realization of the goal, then progress has not taken place. Without a goal, this cannot be judged. In their efforts to eliminate objective morality from public life, "progressives" must argue against God's existence in order to show that morality is relative. But in doing so, they have also forfeited the right to call themselves "progressives."

Conclusion

Interestingly enough, if a "progressive" skeptic wishes to assert and be committed to the idea that progress can objectively be made (by judging those who stand against their views as "regressive"), they implicitly assume that an objective purpose exists outside themselves and outside humanity as a whole. It is up to them to ground such an obligation without God. The reality that progress can be judged against an ideal purpose is evidence that an ideal purpose exists, and that ideal purpose must have a Purposer. If "progress" is possible, God exists.

The Bible Among The Myths contains several nuggets regarding the existence of God, like this one. If you have not taken the time to read this book, you will not be disappointed.

For further investigation into moral relativism, ethics, politics, and purpose, I highly recommend checking out these books:

• Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted In Mid-Air
• Christian Ethics: Issues and Options
• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible
• The Grand Weaver: How God Shapes Us Through the Events of Our Lives

Norm Geisler and Frank Turek: Legislating Tolerance

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview, I often defend the rightness or wrongness of certain acts, and with that, whether they should be made legal or illegal. I will usually appeal science and logic in these discussions. If the person is a Christian, then I will also appeal to the Bible, if it speaks specifically or general to the topic at hand. When it is clear that all the evidence stands against their view, in a "last-ditch" effort to undermine my arguments the challenger often resorts to appealing to "tolerance." This comes in the form of the person who wants to legalize some particular act saying that by not permitting the act (legalizing it), those in opposition to the legalization (conservatives, usually) are being intolerant and trying to force their morality on the world.

I recently finished reading the book "Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible" by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek. Here is their response to such a challenge:

"When libertarians or liberals seek to give people more freedom (i.e., by passing a law that legalizes a formerly illegal activity), they do exactly what they condemn conservatives for doing. They impose their morals (and thereby the associated effects) on people who do not agree with those morals."

Who's Legislating Their Morality, Again?

The problem with any law is that it affirms that something is right and its violation is wrong. Laws often include penalties for violating the right that has been provided by the law. What is right and what is wrong is morality. If we truly want to avoid legalizing morality then no law should ever be created. So, if someone is successful in getting their particular behavior legalized, they have just legalized their morality and have successfully forced it on the masses. This means that the complaint of the person trying to get their act to be made legal has just violated their own moral standard of "tolerance."

Conclusion

The next time that someone complains that you just want to force your morality on them, remind them that they are in the same position- they are, in fact, attempting to force their morality on you. Ask them to explain how their doing so is right and your doing so is wrong. This is not something that can be logically defended without affirming the right of the other to do the same. This results in a "stale-mate" and requires that both sides go back to the evidence. This will (hopefully) keep the discussion focused on actual reasons and not go down the "rabbit hole" is emotive rhetoric.

To Investigate Further, I recommend:

• How Should Christians Vote In Political Elections?
• Book Review: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible? 
• Book Review: Tactics: A Game Plan for Discussing Your Christian Convictions
• Book Review: Relativism: Feet Planted In Mid-Air

How Should Christians Vote in Political Elections?

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview, I do not defend just a "mere Christianity" but an entire worldview that encompasses morality and ethics. Unfortunately, politics is necessarily dependent upon those two. How a person governs, legislates, judges, and even votes all comes down to their view of morality and ethics. In any political season, it is necessary for the Christian to understand the proper (true) ethical view to guide their decision in how they vote. They need to not only be grounded for their own decisions, but they need to be prepared for the times in which they can have intelligent discussions on the topic, rather than contributing to the simplistic emoting that we see on the internet today. In this post, I want to take a look at how (if) a Christian should vote when the given option is not clear (who or if we should vote). I will conclude with books that I highly recommend for everyone interested in ethics and politics to read. Please take the time to read this post carefully and the links provided at the end. I believe that they will help prepare you for making the right decision when you go to the voting booth and will help you intelligently discuss and defend your decision.

Book Review: Legislating Morality- Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible

Introduction

Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible by Norman Geisler and Frank Turek has been on my reading list for quite some time. It is often brought up by skeptics that Christians do not have a consistent view of morality, especially when it comes to government. This is often used as evidence of internal inconsistency within the Christian worldview and often leads to the conclusion that Christianity is false. And with the political season upon us yet again, I have been involved in many discussions about morality and politics. When defending the existence of God by using the moral argument, it is important to recognize the difference between moral ontology and moral epistemology (does objective morality exist vs. which objective morality exists) to address the claim of an internal inconsistency; however, we cannot stop there. Often the challenge comes from a genuine concern about the consistency of the moral code that Christians say is objectively established by the God of the Bible. So, it is important that defenders of the Christian worldview educate themselves on views of morality, and in political seasons, the morality of legislating morality.

A few weeks ago I decided to put reading two other books on hold and go through this one to better prepare myself as these discussions become more and more common with the season. Was I disappointed with that decision? I will give this book my usual chapter-by-chapter summary treatment then provide my recommendations at the end.

Religious Refugees and the Mission Field

Introduction

Since the recent attacks by Muslim extremists in Paris, there has been much debate on the internet and in the media about whether or not it is wise for America (or any other western country) to accept refugees from Islamic countries. I've heard the arguments for both sides. One side says we must accept every refugee that seeks asylum because it is our duty to protect their lives, while the other side says that we should not because it is our duty to protect our own lives. The debate in America has even become politically polarized. Liberals tend to be on the side of accepting them, and conservatives are saying to reject them. Liberals are accusing conservatives (mainly conservative Christians) of being hypocritical in refusing to care for the widows and orphans (James 1:27); while conservatives accuse liberals of refusing to protect the people God has placed under their protection. I have seen Christians taking both sides (yes, I'm guilty too). Since this is an issue that I do not see going away as long as evil exists in our world (it is not just an issue that we will deal with today), I do feel the need to address it.

My intention with this post is not to get political, but to help Christians think through the situation given the truth of the Christian worldview. It is important that Christians take a position that is consistent with their worldview; otherwise, they will be accused of hypocrisy, and that will be used by the skeptic as a reason to believe that Christianity is not true. This is not only a practical issue, it is an apologetic issue.

SCOTUS' Decision on Gay Marriage: A Philosophical Critique

Introduction

As the entire world is probably aware by now, the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) ruled in late June 2015 that "marriage" does include same-sex couples. The majority opinion (written and presented by Justice Kennedy) includes the recognition that historically "marriage" has been defined as being a union between two individuals of the opposite sex. The opinion describes three cases that the SCOTUS heard and its reasoning for its conclusion that it was time to redefine "marriage."

As a defender of the Christian worldview, which includes objective value and objective morality, I feel that it is necessary to comment on this highly emotional and political issue. I have read and heard several opinion pieces from various sources (my favorites on linked at the end of this article), and I hope to not be redundant with this article's more philosophical approach to critiquing the ruling. I also hope to provide a reasoned and gracious response that, I pray, will speak to the hearts and minds of those caught in the middle of this battle. I want to start with two important recognitions:

Book Review: The Case For Life

***With the recent SCOTUS overturn of Roe v. Wade, the publisher has released the PDF version of "The Case For Life" for free. Click or tap the link to get your copy (I'm not sure how long it will be available).***

Introduction

I have been quite excited to read Scott Klusendorf's "The Case For Life: Equipping Christians to Engage the Culture" (paperback, Kindle, GoodReads, Video Trailer, Interview, Life Training Institute). From my elementary school days, I have been exposed to pro-life Christians who have faced ridicule, fines, physical harm, and even jail time for their commitment to the unborn's right to life. It was not until my exposure to Christian apologetics that I became aware that the fight was more than each side just emoting at one another. In this book, Klusendorf provides the scientific case for the humanity of the unborn and the objective moral wrongness of killing them. He addresses many common and powerful challenges to the prolife position. The book is divided into four parts and is 243 pages in length. This review will provide a chapter-by-chapter summary then conclude with my comments. But before I get to my review, check out this introduction to the book from the author in his own words:

Is Animal Death Really Evil?

Introduction
Within Christian circles a large debate is taking place regarding the age of the earth. One of the contentions that young-earth creationists (YECs) promote is that millions of years of animal suffering and death before sin entered the world (The Fall) is incompatible with Christianity because animal death is evil and not compatible with God's declaration that the creation was "very good.". A while back I wrote a post explaining that too often man anthropomorphizes animals, and that is the source of our belief that all suffering of animals is evil. In that post I explain that what could ground the idea that the animals suffering (over millions of years before man came on the scene) was evil was if animals were moral beings (via being created in the Image of God). Since they are not moral beings, they cannot commit moral (evil) acts. Since they cannot commit morally evil acts, suffering of the animals as the result of other animals was and is not morally evil.

However, that is only part of the story. I did not speak much on natural evil or man's treatment of animals as moral or natural evil. Recently a commenter asked that I speak to these issues to help further show logical compatibility of my old-earth creation (OEC) view, with biblical Christianity.

Hunger Games: The Atheist's Utopia Revealed

My Past Week
I've noticed lately that I have a harder and harder time going to see movies purely for the entertainment value of the show. This weekend I went to see one that really made me step back and look at society, not just as portrayed in the movie, but the society of the audience. Last week I had a conversation with a person that was still fresh on my mind, and I finished reading a specific book on the topic. Those allowed my mind to make some interesting connections.

What Conversation?
Last week's conversation was a political/worldview discussion with a friend on Facebook. This person was more concerned that he be allowed to believe whatever he wanted to believe rather than be concerned about the truth of the content of his belief. He stated that he was a moral relativist and that nothing could be considered "right" or "wrong" on his view; he also believed that the government and its official documents (the US Constitution, in this case) is from where people derive "intrinsic" rights. When he asked me moral questions, I asked if he was asking from within his worldview or mine. He told me to just answer the question however best suits me.

Book Review: Christian Ethics

Introduction

Well, its been on my shelf for almost a year, and I finally got to it. Christian Ethics: Options and Issues by Norman Geisler is quite a read. Like Giesler's other books that I've read, this one is divided and outlined very clearly. It is easy to follow, but has lots of stimulating content. It is broken into two different parts with 310 pages.

Part 1

Chapter 1: All the Options

In Chapter 1 Geisler introduces the philosophical topic of ethics. He quickly summarizes ten different proposed foundations for ethics (including power, pleasure, human survival, and God's will). He then examines five unique attributes of Christian ethics and concludes by providing examples (using lying) of the different views of ethics.

Martin Luther King Jr. vs. Evolution

On Monday (Jan 21st, 2013), America will celebrate the life of Reverend Martin Luther King Jr.- a man dedicated to the fact that all men are created equal and should be treated that way. Americans owe humble respect to Reverend King for his dedication (that led to his assassination) to this noble ideal.

I find it extremely interesting that many naturalists promote King's idea of human equality. But is that promotion compatible with naturalism? Human equality is a Judeo-Christian concept that is foreign to any worldview that must rely upon naturalistic evolution to explain the existence of the human race. Here's what I mean:

Survival of the Fittest
One of the major pillars of naturalistic, evolution is "survival of the fittest". This simply means that the lifeforms most fit for a certain environment will propagate their offspring into the next generation; lifeforms that possess any feature that inhibits their survival, will eventually die off. Value is assigned based on this survivability.


Notice the superlative language of the pillar- "fittest". In order for a superlative to exist, there must exist another that it is superlative when compared to. If humans are the result of "survival of the fittest" and we are not the end of evolution (mutations are still taking place today, so I guess we're not), then some members of our species are superlative to others. The genes of the superlative humans will survive into the future.

Evolution, Morality, and Transformers

Introduction
Recently I saw the movie "Transformers: The Dark of the Moon". I almost made it through the whole thing without a single thought about worldviews, philosophy, or apologetics. But, alas, near the end, something happened that my mind couldn't ignore (I pulled out my phone and immediately started taking notes).

For those who are unfamiliar with the Transformers' basic premise: there exists three species in the universe that are essentially battling for survival and a "leg up" on the others: humans, Autobots, and Decepticons. Typically, the Decepticons are trying to achieve something that would have the implication of destroying the humans and/or Autobots. The Autobots are the more "noble" of the two robotic species that join forces with the humans against the Decepticons. This particular installment had two characters that I will be focusing on here: Optimus Prime and Sential Prime (Primes are the leaders of the Autobots; they tend to be the wiser and more powerful individuals). SPOILER ALERT: the rest of this post contains storyline details that take place in the last minutes of the movie, so if you haven't seen it and plan to (and don't want it ruined), stop reading now.

Opinion vs. Truth-Claim

This post is more of an addendum to my post "Positive vs. Negative Arguments". Please read that post first.

Opinions reflect feelings and may or may not be true. If one claims that their thoughts are simply "opinions" (not claiming to actually be truth- even though it might be) then they have no responsibility to provide a reasoned defense of the position.

Interesting Thought About The Brain

Lately I've been reading a few books about raising kids, specifically about the father's role. One of the many common themes in them is that you must teach your kids not only by verbal instruction and correction, but also by example. They all stress that even if we are not active in any of those three, we are still teaching. Our children watch us intently and learn from everything we do and don't do, whether we intend to teach or not. This kind of behavior by children is recognized all over the psychological community. Kids do because we do, even though they may not have a deeper reason.