Whose Morality Should We Legislate? 44 Quotes from Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

"We're living in a society in which people feel no obligation to control their own actions. Instead, we rationalize and justify every aberrant behavior under the umbrella of freedom granted by the First Amendment, never admitting that freedom without reasonable and responsible limits destroys individual lives and ultimately destroys the fabric of a civilized society."

Norman Geisler- 10 Quotes on Logic and Christianity

Introduction

Over the years Dr. Norman Geisler has had a profound effect on the way that I think philosophically and theologically. Through his defenses of the Christian worldview (the essentials and nonessentials) in his numerous books and lectures I have been better equipped analyze views, defend the Gospel, and "worship the Father in spirit and in truth" (John 4)

One of the early books that set my path to being able to logically evaluate arguments was "Come, Let Us Reason" (click or tap the title for my full chapter-by-chapter review). In the book, he provides Christians with an introduction to logical thinking that will help them in identifying false claims (that may sound correct on the surface) and in defending true claims. I have compiled a few of my favorite quotes from that excellent book in this post. If you have not picked up a copy yet, I highly recommend that you do.

Why Do Christians Need Logic?- Logic and God

"Logic is a way to think so that we can come to correct conclusions by understanding implications and the mistakes people often make in thinking."

"From the standpoint of reality, we understand that God is the basis of all logic. As the ultimate reality, all truth is ultimately found in him. He has created the reality that we know and in which we have discovered the laws of logic. Even Jesus said, 'I am...the truth' (John 14:6). He has structured the world in such a way that these laws cannot be denied; however, we did not know God first and then learn logic from him. He exists as the basis of all logic (in reality), but we discovered logic first and came to know God through it. This is true even if we came to know God through his revelation, because we understand the revelation through logic. In the order of being. God is first; but in the order of knowing, logic leads us to all knowledge of God. God is the basis of all logic (in the order of being), but logic is the basis of all knowledge of God (in the order of knowing)."

"We use logic in the process of knowing God, but that does not mean that God came after logic in reality. without God, nothing could have existence. God is the basis of all logic in reality and he is in no way inferior to logic. Logic comes from God, not God from logic. But when it comes to how we know things, logic is the basis of all thought, and it must come before any thought about anything, including God. For example, I need a map before I can get to Washington, D.C. But Washington must exist before the map can help me get there. Even so, we use logic first to come to know God, but God exists first before we can know him."

"Unless valid inferences can be made from what is known to what is unknown, there can be no theological argumentation. Whether in a discussion between Christians on a matter of interpretation or in a debate with a non-Christian, no one could prove any point without the laws of rational inference."

How Do You Think Correctly?- Using Logic

"Using syllogisms is called deductive logic because it involves deducing particular conclusions from general statements. In inductive logic, we start with the particulars and reason to general principles. Deductive logic starts with the cause and reasons to the effect, while inductive logic starts with the effects and attempts to find the cause. That is why deductive reasoning is called a prior (prior to looking at the facts) and inductive reasoning is called a posteriori (after seeing the evidence). Syllogisms are more philosophical, and inductive arguments are more scientific. The biggest difference, though, is that deductive arguments yield necessary conclusions (that is, the conclusions are necessarily true if the premises are true and the inferences are valid), but inductive reasoning yields only probable conclusions. The conclusions might have a high degree of probability, but they are still not as certain as deductive conclusions."

"You may not know what the significance of some piece of information is, but you must note it in case it becomes important later. Even the smallest clue may change the whole direction of your understanding."

"Analogies can be used to present very strong and effective arguments, but analogies are good only when there are strong similarities and only nonessential differences between the things being compared."

How Can Thinking Go Wrong?- Fallacies In Logic

"Whenever there is controversy over an issue, the appeal to authority is weakened in direct proportion to the strength of the controversy...All appeals to authority ultimately rest on the evidence that the authority has. The only reason to quote an authority is that he knows the evidence better than we do. The letters after his name don't mean a thing without the evidence to back up his position."

"[Special pleading] is [a] way to make certain the opposing view doesn't get a fair shake. Here only the evidence that supports one view is cited, and the rest is left out...If there are ten studies that show your view to be false, ignore them and make a big point about the one that confirms your conclusion. Really, this argument counts on the listener to be ignorant of the facts. That way anything can be claimed, and no objection can be raised. However, if someone knows about the other ten studies, you're in trouble. This kind of argument can be torn apart easily if all the facts are made known."

"[No] view should be accepted on the basis of ignorance. That is no way to find truth! Let positive evidence be presented and evaluated for both sides, and the truth can be known...If a conclusion is false, it is only a matter of finding the fallacy or the untrue premises (or both)."

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

 

For more great quotes from Dr. Geisler on various other topics, see these posts:

• There Is Some Truth In False Views
• Legislating Tolerance
• Christians Must Build A Positive Case for Creation
• 17 Quotes From Norman Geisler On Evidence for Special Creation

Here are my chapter-by-chapter reviews of other books he (co)authored:

• Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible?
• Christian Ethics: Options and Issues
• Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation-Evolution Controversy
• Creating God In The Image of Man: The New "Open" View of God- Neotheism's Dangerous Drift
• Chosen But Free: A Balanced View of God's Sovereignty and Free Will

Norman Geisler: Christians Must Build a Positive Case For Creation

Introduction

As a defender of the Christian worldview it is important for me to show how other worldviews fall short of reality. In my discussions regarding the specifics of the biblical model for the origins of the universe, life, and humanity, I do this quite a bit. However, as Norman Geisler emphasizes in his book "Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation/Evolution Controversy," that is not sufficient:

"If Creationist views are to gain scientific credibility then they must follow the principles of origin science and build a positive case for a primary cause, rather than relying on the ineffective means of pointing out flaws in various evolutionary hypotheses."

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

  

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

17 Quotes from Norman Geisler On Evidence for Special Creation

"It will not suffice for the creationist simply to point to the lack of evidence for a secondary cause of life. From no evidence no scientific conclusion follow. Some positive evidence for creation must be presented before a positive conclusion can be drawn."

"It is true that special creation is not testable against any regularly recurring pattern of events in the present. But neither is macroevolution. Both views involve unobserved past singularities. That is, they involve rare occurrences. For example, so far as we can tell, life did not emerge from nonlife over and over. Nor were the great transitions between major forms of life repeated again and again. Hence there is no recurring patterns of events against which to test how the universe began, how life began, or how diverse life forms originated. So neither macroevolution nor creation comes within the discipline of operation science. This does not mean that there is no sense in which macroevolution and creation are scientific. Although they are not an empirical science, nevertheless they function like a forensic science. Just as a forensic scientist tries to make a plausible reconstruction of an unobserved (and unrepeatable) murder, so the evolutionist and creationist attempt to construct a plausible scenario of the unobserved past singularities of origin. So neither view is operation science. Rather both are in the domain of origin science."

Philosophy of Science, Circumstantial Evidence, and Creation

Introduction

For those who have followed me for some time, you know that I take a strong stance on the importance of defending the Christian worldview in its specific claims about reality, as opposed to only defending general claims. For those who are not familiar with my reasons for this position, please see my posts here and here. One of the theological debates that I defend specifically is a particular view on creation. I take the old-earth creation (OEC) position that holds to the literal historicity of the records of Genesis 1-11. I came from a position of young-earth creationism (YEC) but changed due to the lack of scientific evidence supporting the view and the complete compatibility of OEC with Christianity. A couple years ago, a prominent YEC leader (Ken Ham of Answers in Genesis) debated Bill Nye on the scientific status on YECism. Ham constantly drew a distinction between "observational/operational science" and "historical science" to say that what happened in the past cannot be known. I wrote a post last year critiquing this philosophy of science and provided a followup clarification on my position (here and here, respectively).

Since then I have read and reviewed one of the foundational works on the philosophical distinction (Origin Science: A Proposal for the Creation/Evolution Controversy by Norman Geisler and J. Kirby Anderson). My previous posts dealt with the distinction as presented by Ken Ham (and many other YEC proponents); however, today I want to deal with the distinction as presented by Geisler and Anderson. There is a wide chasm between the two understandings, and if Ken Ham is getting the distinction from the work of Geisler and Kirby (or someone who agree with their distinctions), then he has misunderstood the distinctions. My goal is to explain the distinctions made by Geisler and Anderson and show how they have been misunderstood by Ken Ham and other YEC proponents. I will also show that the rejection of circumstantial evidence in Ham's understanding necessarily undermines the presuppositional grounding of knowledge of all events recorded in the Bible, which is what Ken Ham promotes in place of a circumstantial, evidential approach to discovering the mechanisms, timing, and purposes of creation.