Showing posts with label government. Show all posts

Secularism: A World of Propaganda and Power

Logic is a reliable tool of knowledge because it is grounded in the eternal nature of God. Humans have access to this tool because they are created in the image of God. If God does not exist, then neither does the reliable tool nor the access to it (even if it did exist). The world of being a functional atheist outside the privacy of our homes (secularism) is a world with no knowledge and only propaganda and power.

There is a concerted effort to remove God from the public consciousness of America. If God is removed, then there is no higher moral authority by which to judge one party as moral or immoral, and no foundation on which to challenge the party in power.

While it seems that American politics is increasingly being characterized by secularism (regardless of which political party), it is important that we consider this trajectory when we go to the polls in November. If God is removed from the consciousness of America, there will never be an end to the power struggles among those who disagree until one has so overwhelmed the other that there is no discussion or intellectual debate allowed publicly or privately; even the implication of a challenge to those in power will be punished.

Quote from "Time for Truth" by Os Guinness - “What happens when we succeed in cutting away truth-claims to expose the web of power games only to find we have less power than the players we face? If truth is dead, right and wrong are neither, and all that remains is the will to power, then the conclusion is simple: Might makes right. Logic is only a power conspiracy. Victory goes to the strong, and the weak go to the wall.”

For more please check out these posts and books:

Human Depravity and American Government

Quote from "Time for Truth" by Os Guinness - “Few understand that the United States, because of the convictions of its founders, is a nation with a realistic view of evil embedded in its constitutional checks and balances.”

Human Depravity and American Government

“The depravity of man is at once the most empirically verifiable reality but at the same time the most intellectually resisted fact.”- Malcolm Muggeridge

"Few understand that the United States, because of the convictions of its founders, is a nation with a realistic view of evil embedded in its constitutional checks and balances."- Os Guinness

It seems that both parties in America are increasingly attempting to execute their policies without the objective moral foundations and boundaries of God's character or the truth of man's sinfulness. The "separation of Church and state" has been misunderstood, and that misunderstanding has necessarily led to this result. Both parties' policies will, when unrestrained by the recognition of these two realities, result in the abuse of citizens and the destruction of the nation. The only difference in the abuse and destruction will be the direction from which the they come.

"Like the physical universe, the moral universe is governed by unforgiving laws that we do not have the power to alter."- Frank Turek and Norman Geisler

Each party seems to operate on the idea that they are "God's gift" to this nation and cannot do or think any wrong. The lack of humility and lack of willingness to have intellectual discussions about policies in our nation's leaders is quite frustrating and even maddening. America's three-branch system was designed as a "check and balance" on such attitudes of those in power, for if there is no recognized moral authority above the government, then those in power will determine what is right and what is wrong for those they govern or dictate.

No matter which party "wins" in November, the American people cannot allow that party to undermine, override, or dismantle the checks and balances that exist in our governmental system. If we allow either party to do so, the depravity in the hearts of those in power will make itself known in painful ways.

For more please check out these posts and books:

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

"Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible" by Dr. Frank Turek and Dr. Norman Geisler #government #legislation #politics #morality #ethics #tolerance #intolerance

"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."

Introduction

It was brought to my attention a few weeks ago that the notorious atheist Richard Dawkins may be changing his tune regarding the necessity of belief in God in human society (click or tap text to see the article). I do recall hearing winds of this change a couple years ago when he seemed to make a distinction between the religions of Islam (threatening) and Christianity (benign). It seems that Dawkins recognizes that without the belief that people will be held responsible to a higher power, those people who are in power (the State) will push society further and further into harmful and devastating behaviors, but he recognizes the dangers of certain theistic religions. Dawkins seems concerned that without the (false on his view) belief that the Christian God exists, then society will crumble, yet with the (also false on his view) belief that the Islamic god exists, then society will be destroyed. Dawkins seems to be now telling people to not be concerned with what is true, but be concerned with what is pragmatic. Unfortunately, this is nothing new and seems to have been the strategy of many States for quite some time. Allow me to explain.

Introduction

Whether humans possess intrinsic value or instrumental value is a debate that often runs parallel to discussions about the true worldview. This debate also often fuels the passion behind worldview discussions because it has implications for ethics and morality, which are directly tied to how people ought to live and how people ought to hold each other responsible to those expectations. Such accountability can take a range of forms from personal and private conversations to legal and very public repercussions. And because one's politics are an extension of their ethics, the passion associated with politics is also added to the mix.

Because all the emotions that accompany ethical and political discussions can easily cloud the issue, it is important that it is approached more objectively and philosophically, if we are to have a calm and reasonable discussion. Today, I want to take a few minutes to examine the philosophical implications and examine some scientific evidence for one side to assist with bringing calm to this important debate.

Intrinsic Value

If humans are intrinsically valuable, then there are a set of objective (and even absolute) duties that cannot be violated. This view holds that humans possess objective value regardless of their situation, condition, social or economic status, skin color, sex, location, beliefs, or any host of other characteristics that people try to judge others' value. This allows for objective condemnation and consequences of particular choices and behaviors, which many people do not appreciate, especially if they are accused of committing the atrocities. This view also makes even government and governmental officials responsible to the greater reality of this moral law, which justifies political reform- something that certain rulers and politicians do not appreciate.

Instrumental Value

On the other hand, if humans are merely instrumentally valuable, then treatment of them (regardless of the particular treatment- including murder, rape, torture, or any host of traditionally unthinkable treatments) can only be judged based on their utility towards a particular goal. This view permits the affirmation of the "goodness" of even the most egregious behaviors if a "greater" goal is in view. This view allows for anyone to be able to justify any behavior if they can make their goal sound good or acceptable. There is no objective standard by which to judge the morality of a behavior, only to judge its utility. There is also no objective standard by which to judge a particular goal. Since the goal is subjective, so is the behavior, and no moral judgement is actually permitted. This ultimately reduces to "might makes right:" whoever holds the power to punish holds the power to dictate what is "right" and what is "wrong." Political reform has not justification other than a differing opinion of someone who may be able to challenge the power of those currently in power. If one holds to this view, they often confuse legality with morality.

The Christian worldview traditionally has held that humans possess intrinsic value in virtue of being created in the Image of God. If this is true, then the first set of implications described above are features of reality that all humans are subject to. Any worldview that cannot justify intrinsic human value is left with the second set of implications described. And, by necessary logical implication, if one wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must justify that appeal by grounding intrinsic human value outside the human race.

Origins Of The Image of God

If humans have intrinsic value, it had to come from somewhere (or Someone) outside of the human race. Otherwise, the value that is ascribed to humans is merely subjective and instrumental. As I have described in a previous post (Why Is The Image of God So Important), this discussion is tied to one's view of human origins. If someone wishes to appeal to intrinsic human value, they must accept some type of connection between humans and an eternally existing, absolute reality that is outside of (and is not) this universe. The only thing that fits this description is the Creator God of the Bible.

In order to argue for the intrinsic value of humans, Dr. Fazale Rana offers several lines of evidence for the sudden appearance of the Image of God in life's history (which happens to coincide with the sudden appearance of humans on the scene). He calls this sudden appearance a "cultural big bang":

These pieces of evidence include:

Advanced cognitive ability
The capacity for symbolic thought
A powerful imagination
Superior craftsmanship
Inventiveness and superior adaptability
A driving desire for artistic and musical expression

He goes into great detail about the anthropological discoveries of scientists over the years in his book "Who Was Adam." In the third section of the book, he addresses modern challenges to his conclusions and brings in the latest discoveries over the past decade. The cumulative, scientific case presented in the book for the Image of God coinciding with the appearance of the human race, by extension, is a powerful evidential case for humans possessing intrinsic value.

Conclusion

It is vital to a proper theory of ethics (and even politics) that we know whether humans possess intrinsic value or not. Ultimately, if humans are created in the Image of God, as argued by Dr. Rana, then the idea that humans possess intrinsic value accurately describes the reality of our species. If humans are intrinsically valuable, that serves as the foundation for how we ought to treat one another (ethics) and that further guides how we should govern one another. If humans are not created in the Image of God (do not possess intrinsic value), then all sorts of heinous treatment of them are permissible even by those who wield the most power (governments and politicians).

Follow Faithful Thinkers On Social Media

For more on the topic of the evidence for the Image of God and its implications, see these posts and books:

Why Must Christians Appeal to Science In Arguing Against Abortion?
Why Is The Image of God So Important?
Book Review: The Magna Carta of Humanity
Book Review: Who Was Adam
Book Review: Christian Ethics: Issues and Options
Book Review: Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible

Alfie Evans, Humanism, and Christ

Introduction

Those who have followed the Faithful Thinkers blog for a year or more know that I followed the case of Charlie Gard last summer. Gard was born with a rare disease that the medical facility that was treating him was ill-equipped to deal with. He died at the hand of the British courts and doctors because these ill-equipped doctors refused to recognize other possible solutions. Instead of seeking outside help to save the life of a defenseless child, they sought to legally kill him instead. Other nations and medical facilities offered to transport and treat Gard at their expense, but all volunteered help was rejected and condemned by the doctors, and courts were eventually appealed to by the British doctors to order that Gard be left in their knowingly-incapable hands. The courts granted that request much to the horror of the parents and the rest of the civilized world. And now in 2018, it is happening again; this time to a child by the name of Alfie Evans. LifeSiteNews has been following the story carefully, so for the details, please click the link. The suffering that is being endured by Alfie and his parents is unnecessary, gratuitous, and atrocious.

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

Relativism: Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-Air- Greg Koukl and Francis Beckwith
Christian Ethics: Options and Issues- Norman Geisler
Legislating Morality: Is It Wise, Is It Legal, Is It Possible- Norman Geisler and Frank Turek
The Case For Life- Scott Klusendorf
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

Top 5 Recommended Books for Ethics and Politics- Tactics: A Game Plan For Discussing Your Christian Convictions by Greg Koukl

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.

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.

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: