Purpose and Morals without God

During the past week I read the second chapter of Christian apologist Dr. William Lane Craig’s book, Reasonable Faith, which is titled “The Absurdity of Life without God”. In it, Dr. Craig discusses what is called in philosophy “the human predicament,” which deals with the value of human life without God.

While reading this chapter, I couldn’t help but think of the post I wrote almost four months (four months?!) ago titled “Sense in a Senseless World.” In it I questioned how an atheist or an agnostic could handle the ideas of suffering and death without God to make sense of it.

By the way, after writing that post, in the comments I acknowledge that I probably focused too much on fear (specifically, fear of death). Ubiquitous Che countered my assumption of fear of death by essentially stating (more eloquently) “When I’m dead, I won’t know it,” or something thereabout, and while I don’t completely believe that philosophy will hold as death draws closer, I can understand how it can at least intellectually justify a lack of fear of death.

Dr. Craig talks about several different facets of the human predicament, but one thing he asserts is that man can find no purpose, value, or meaning in life, and he cannot make any claims to objective moral truth, without God. If he tries, he will end up making irrational and arbitrary claims of moral truth.

For example, while preparing to write this, I stumbled across a post on Che’s blog, rhetoric sans pareil. In it, Che reprints a comment he wrote on an article on Secular Philosophy. As I understand it, part of the post argues that objective morals truths can be claimed while holding a naturalistic worldview:

I’m convinced that there IS a moral truth about the world, and we CAN discover it through evidence-based reasoning. Morality and ethics are more like trigonometry than legislation.

Consider this: Practicing genuine compassion will lead to an increase in personal happiness. That increase will be proportional to the intensity of the practice. Hence, our personal quest for happiness provides a solid rationale for self-transcendence. It’s not a question of opinion. It’s an empirically testable statement about how morality and ethics function, and as such evidence-based reasoning DOES have something to say on the subject.

[...]

If a man should kill his daughter in cold blood because he perceives that she has committed some slight against his honor, there IS a moral and ethical truth to be discerned that is not relative to culture or perspective. That daughter had a long life ahead of her. Life itself is the very basis of compassion and happiness. Considering that life is also fragile, and we have a strong basis for regarding life as something precious. Far more precious than any perceived slight of honor could ever be. As such, the act of sacrificing a precious human life for the restoration of mere honor is in direct violation of basic moral and ethical principles.

If I read this correctly, Che argues that, for example, a man killing his daughter because she dishonored him is objectively morally wrong, because if the daughter had been permitted to live, she would have experienced happiness that she now will now not experience. This claims that the denial of potential happiness is something morally wrong, which ( at least in this passage) is arbitrary. What warrant does Che have for saying that happiness is something that should not be denied, or that the daughter’s happiness is more valuable than the man’s happiness cause by his “regained honor”?

Now, very importantly, I acknowledge that Che was not entirely trying to make a complete, airtight, philosophical argument out of this. Also, please refer to the comments on his post for a discussion he and some others had of this argument. I’m using his argument in this case as an example.

This brings me to the point of this post. As I was reading this chapter and the assertions Dr. Craig made, I became curious as to how atheists and agnostics would respond to this. I learned from my experiences with the “fear of death” discussion in my old post not to underestimate the innovation of philosophical arguments for either side, so I’d like to get some atheist and agnostic opinions while I’m still forming my thoughts on the issue. I know I have a few who have commented on this site, such as Ubiquitous Che and Mardé. I’d to pose this question to them, and to anyone else who cares to reply:

How can one hold an atheistic or agnostic view and still make rational claims of meaning and value in life, and objective moral truths?

In this particular case, I’m only concerned with naturalistic philosophies that believe in objective moral truth and meaning in life. I acknowledge that there are plenty that don’t, but for this particular discussion I only want to deal with those that do.

I look foward to your responses.

Revisiting the Place of Apologetics

A while ago (a few months short of a year), I wrote a post titled “The Place of Apologetics”. In it, I discussed the what I believed was the proper use of apologetics (rational defenses of Christianity). I stated that apologetics is needed to make Christianity intellectually justifiable, but had no role beyond that.

I recently started reading Reasonable Faith, written by Dr. William Lane Craig. I’ve been meaning to read this book for a long time, and finally got around to it. Dr. Craig is a well-known and highly-regarded Christian apologist, and Reasonable Faith is probably his best-known book, with a third edition just published this year. He also is the founder of a website that shares his book’s name, Reasonable Faith, which offers a variety of apologetics resources, including two podcasts, which of both I’ve been a regular listener at some time, and I highly recommend.

In the introduction to his book (readable online here), Dr. Craig discusses the same question I wrote about in my post: What good is apologetics?

Some people depreciate the importance of apologetics as a theoretical discipline. “Nobody comes to Christ through arguments,” they’ll tell you. “People aren’t interested in what’s true, but in what works for them. They don’t want intellectual answers; they want to see Christianity lived out.” I believe that the attitude expressed in these statements is both shortsighted and mistaken. Let me explain three vital roles which the discipline of apologetics plays today.

The first of the three roles of apologetics, Dr. Craig states, is “shaping culture.” He examines how modern western culture is becoming increasingly more secular and post-modern. Society is turning indifferent toward Christianity, and objective claims for religion in general. This is at least partially due to a fall in apologetics in the past. While some may say “no one comes to Christ through arguments,” if society comes to completely view Christianity as intellectually irrational and unjustified, evangelism will be severely hampered. Christianity might simply fall into the ranks of post-modernism, “no better” than any other belief. Apologetics serves the important role of raising Christianity out of the crowds of post-modernism by providing it with objective claims to truth.

The second role of apologetics, according to Dr. Craig, is to strengthen believers. As post-modernism rises and culture continues to turn hostile towards objective claims in the spiritual realm, many Christians (especially new or young believers) begin to question their faith. Although everyone has doubts sometimes, without apologetics these doubts may grow and eventually cause a believer to turn away from Christianity. Apologetics helps these people combat their doubts and ultimately become better Christians in the end.

The last of the three roles of apologetics presented by Dr. Craig is to evangelize unbelievers. Introducing this point, he writes:

Few people would disagree with me that apologetics strengthens the faith of Christian believers. But many will say that apologetics is not very useful in evangelism. As noted earlier, they claim that nobody comes to Christ through arguments. (I don’t know how many times I’ve heard this said.)

Now this dismissive attitude toward apologetics’ role in evangelism is certainly not the biblical view. As one reads the Acts of the Apostles, it’s evident that it was the apostles’ standard procedure to argue for the truth of the Christian worldview, both with Jews and pagans (e.g., Acts 17:2–3, 17; 19:8; 28:23–24). In dealing with Jewish audiences, the apostles appealed to fulfilled prophecy, Jesus’ miracles, and especially Jesus’ resurrection as evidence that he was the Messiah (Acts 2:22–32). When they confronted Gentile audiences who did not accept Jewish Scripture, the apostles appealed to God’s handiwork in nature as evidence of the existence of the Creator (Acts 14:17). Then appeal was made to the eyewitness testimony to the resurrection of Jesus to show specifically that God had revealed himself in Jesus Christ (Acts 17:30–31; 1 Cor. 15:3–8).

While not everyone will be convinced by apologetic arguments, they certainly can benefit evangelism. I won’t claim that rational reasons are required to be a good Christian (I don’t think they are), but I do believe that they are an important part of a believer’s training and offer tremendous benefit to Christianity as a whole.

As I read Reasonable Faith, expect to see quotes or topics from it popping up from time to time, much like when I was reading a lot of C. S. Lewis. And with apologetics, the most important thing to remember is what I concluded my old post with:

Apologetics can tell someone why we believe what we we believe, but it can’t tell someone the nature and strength of that belief. We can tell people time and time again why we believe what we do, that two thousand years ago one man who claimed to be the Son of God was killed and rose from the dead. We won’t get anywhere, however, until we start telling them what it means.

The Perfect Judge and Amazing Grace

In his recent post, Ubiquitous Che (surprise!) of rheroic sans pareil asked two questions. Although these questions were not the main point of his post (they were being used as a counterattack against an essay criticizing atheism), they are very common objections raised against Christian theology, and I wanted to address them in more than just a comment on his blog.

Che asks if a monk living in India, who has heard of Christianity and rejected it, yet still lives a life of compassion and charity towards his community would be condemned because he did not accept Jesus. Would a criminal on death row who confesses right before his execution go to Heaven?

In his first letter to the Christians in Corinth, the apostle Paul wrote the following words:

Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait till the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of men’s hearts. At that time each will receive his praise from God.

It is not for the Christian to pass judgment on the monk and the criminal, for we cannot know the heart of each man. Moreover, we do not possess the wisdom to be able to render justice in this situation, as both sides have strong points. What do we do, then?

We leave the issue up to God, who is the perfect judge. We do not know the hearts of men, but He does, and He, the one who gave Solomon his wisdom, certainly is capable of administering justice in the situation. We do not know the answer to the question; we must leave it up to God.

Christians are called to preach the good news, not fire and brimstone. Although warnings may be necessary at times, we need to keep ourselves from passing judgments on others by ordering them to get saved or face hellfire. However, I know that I personally am not even close to perfect, and that I need forgiveness from my sins; I need a savior. We shouldn’t require this feeling of others, but simply spread the good news that, if they also need forgiveness from their sins, they shall find a savior in Jesus Christ the Messiah.

Che’s other question was whether it was “good” or “moral” for Jesus to be killed in the way He was. After all, even if Jesus was not divine, He was at least good, and such a cruel punishment should not be put upon anyone but the worst offenders.

The answer to this question is simple: no, it was not just for Jesus to be killed. Both Roman officials He was brought before during His trial, Pontius Pilate and Herod Antipas, found Him innocent of any charge that would warrant death. Despite this, the crowd insisted that Jesus be crucified, and Pilate gave in. I agree with Che; this was a perversion of justice.

However, looking deeper into the situation, we realize there are things happening here that aren’t immediately visible to the people involved. Jesus wasn’t being cornered into His execution- He was willingly going.

When the crowd came to arrest Him, Peter, one of the closest companions of Jesus, drew His sword and attacked the servant of the high priest. Jesus healed this man’s ear, and said to Peter:

Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword. Do you think I cannot call on my Father, and He will at once put at my disposal more than twelve legions of angels?

Jesus had followers who would fight and would die for Him. Jesus could have called twelve legions of angels to save Him from His captors. However, He stilled His followers, and did not call the angels. He went, instead, to death; He went to this unjust cross. He went there, freely, to die. As the hymn goes:

He could have called ten-thousand angels
To destroy the world and set Him free
He could have called ten-thousand angels
But He died alone for you and me

That last line is important. Jesus certainly didn’t deserve the horrific execution He was given, but some do. I know I do. You might too. What I will say is that Jesus died for you, and for me, to take the punishment we deserve. It was not “just” for Him to die in our place, but He did so anyway, so that we could live.

That’s not the entire gospel though; that’s not the entire good news. There’s one more part. Jesus didn’t stay dead. After three days, He broken body rose from the tomb, and He walked in life again. He has since ascended into Heaven, and His resurrection gives us hope, that though our sins may warrant death, Jesus has washed us clean of them, and through His blood we may rise anew to be free from sin. Jesus’s willingness to go to the cross, to die this terrible death, and God’s forgiveness for us from our sins, is why Christians sing another old hymn:

Amazing grace, how sweet the sound
That saved a wretch like me
I once was lost, but now I’m found
Was blind, but now I see

Sense in a Senseless World

On my post on Approaching Atheists, Ubiquitous Che commented how my post could be reread in Steve Irwin’s voice, like the Crocodile Hunter was explaining how to approach a dangerous animal. What’s funny is this exact same thought occurred to me as I was writing it.

I went over and visited his blog (Che’s, not Steve Irwin’s), rhetoric sans pareil, where I can across a recent post of his. In it, he talks about the Brights movement.

I’ve heard about the Brights movement before, but only as a typical reactionary “They’re trying to make theists sound dim!” What it actually is, if I understand it right, is a simple attempt to promote understanding of the naturalistic worldview. In his post, Che says he will now more promote the positive points of naturalism, which he calls “beautiful and fulfilling,” instead of attacking differing worldviews.

(By the way, the Brights movement says the opposite of “Bright” isn’t “Dim”; it’s “Super,” because Supers believe in the supernatural. While it still sounds like they’re labeling atheism as something for smart people, anything that makes me feel closer to flying around and shooting lasers out of my eyes earns a point in my book.)

Ironically, this sounds suspiciously like a main way of evangelizing Christianity, summarized in a quote from Madeleine L’Engle (that was used in the Approaching Atheists series):

We do not draw people to Christ by loudly discrediting what they believe, by telling them how wrong they are and how right we are, but by showing them a light that is so lovely that they want with all their hearts to know the source of it.

My reaction to this? I actually view this as good news. Many of the atheists I’ve come in contact with have been completely focused on attacking theism- even to the point of simply mocking it while making no attempt to understand it. It’s nice to see them acknowledging that they won’t win people by simply attacking their worldview alone.

Moreover, I can understand how someone could be content, or even happy with a naturalistic worldview. Were it not for my belief that Christianity is the most rationally justified worldview, I might even be a Bright myself. Except for one thing…

It might be easy to be a Bright when life is good. When the sun is shining and everything is going right, the idea that God might not really exist is trivial- you are happy without God, so why do you need Him? He is only irrelevant clutter, and your worldview is better of without Him.

However, life is not always good. This is a fallen world, and bad, senseless things do happen. Things happen in life that make us question our sanity and whether we have any shred of meaning in the cruel, cold universe.

Times will come when you will wonder if, as Shakespeare wrote, it is “nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune, or to take arms against a sea of troubles, and by opposing end them? To die: to sleep.” But then you will come to the concept of death, and no matter how you rebrand it, as “peace” or “rest,” you will still have to come to the acknowledgment that, under the naturalistic worldview, death means an ending of your person- you will cease to exist.

Not only that, but this ending, this quick disintegration into nothingness, could happen anytime. It could come very suddenly- you could die tomorrow, or even today, or in fifty or sixty years. But one thing is for sure: death is certain; you will die.

And when life turns dark, and when death stares you right in the face, advancing on you or someone you love, there will be no order, no sense, no meaning. No comfort will be gleaned from the heavens, for even the stars themselves must die. The entire cold universe will eventually fade and end, and everything you did while on this tiny blue spec, all the pain you suffered, will be meaningless.

So if you are happy being a Bright, that’s fine, stay that way. I hesitate to say this, because it’s not really true; the message of the gospel is a message of urgency, for we do not know when we will die. However, I acknowledge that you may not be ready to accept the gospel yet. My job is to plant or water the seed. Only God can make it grow.

But please understand this:

You may not think you need God now. That is fine. But there will come a time when you will need Him. For your sake, please do not turn away from Him then. He’s not your enemy, someone you have to fight to the end. He’s your father, and He wants to comfort you. When the dark times come in your life, remember Him.

Many have turned to atheism when they look at the suffering and say “There is no God.” I believe many more look and say “God is our only hope.” Atheists often accuse theists of clinging to God because they are scared. Perhaps we just understand the implications better.

Approaching Atheists

Jason at The Cynical Christian is running a series, with Jennifer F. of “Et tu?” – the diary of a former atheist called “Approaching Atheists.” In it they discuss how Christians should interact with atheists. You can browse the whole series by checking out the posts labeled “approaching atheists”. I particularly thought the most recent two posts (as of now) were beneficial to read: the Top 9 Don’ts and Dos for Talking With Atheists.

Definitely check out the series. This is a very important issue for modern Christians in this society, as atheism is on the rise. We need to know how to talk with atheists, how to understand their position, and ultimately how to win some of them over.

Sadly, I think many times in interactions between Christians and atheists, the Christians end up doing more harm than good. Three don’ts for talking with atheists particularly jumped out at me as things I see a lot and that cause major problems: “Quote the Bible,” “Use a lot of Christian catchphrases,” and “Devalue the importance of science and logic.”

Often when talking with atheists, people quote the Bible. Although this is generally done with good intentions, and there is definitely a time and place to use the Bible, at least understand that an atheist does not believe in the Bible. As the article on Don’ts points out, quoting the Bible to an atheist would cause the atheist to feel like you would if your doctor used a Harry Potter book as his source of medical information.

Additionally, quoting the Bible without any sort of justification other than “it must be true because the Bible says it” to an atheist will only reaffirm his or her probable belief that all Christians are merely mindless sheep devoid of logic who couldn’t spot a circular argument if it bit them on the nose. Christians don’t need to be illogical to truly believe in their faith. We know that. We need to show the atheists that.

The next don’t I mentioned was the use of a lot of Christian catchphrases. If, right off the bat without much of an explanation, we tell an atheist to “Open your heart to Jesus, who died on the cross for you, and be washed in the waters of baptism, for the forgiveness of your sins that are covered with the blood of Chist and so that you may receive the gift of the Holy Spirit who will dwell in you,” chances are he or she will shut down right away. Although we know what these phrases mean, someone unversed in Christian theology will only hear religious mumbo-jumbo that will probably reinforce the belief that theists are illogical.

Finally, and importantly, many times Christians devalue the importance of science and logic while they talk with atheists. As the series points out, to many atheists, science and logic are the pinnacles of existence, as they are “what separates us from animals.” Science and logic have their uses, and to simply deny them will cause the atheist to close you out very fast. This isn’t to say that there is a place for pure faith, but it’s hard to convert someone on “blind faith” (although this isn’t to say that it can’t be done).

Also, keep in mind that science and logic are works of God. To refuse to give them the respect they deserve would be to dishonor a facet of God’s great creation.

One other thing to note is that, although atheism is increasing in our society, outright atheism is still in the minority. Far more common, however, are nonreligious people who act very much as if they don’t believe in God, and probably rarely think on the issue. For the most part, we should use these guidelines for talking with these people too, at least until we get to know them better.

In an increasingly secular society, it is very important we know how to interact with atheists, so we may sow good seeds among the still-white fields.

Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed

The movie Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed opens in theaters today. For those of you who haven’t heard, it is an Intelligent Design-related movie that attempts to show that scientists and educators are persecuted because of their religious faith or their questioning of evolution.

As one can imagine, it has generated a good deal of controversy. ID critics have attacked it in numerous ways, from claiming that they mislead interviewees, including Richard Dawkins (yeah, he’s one to talk), to complaining about who was allowed to see invitation-only advanced screenings.

As for me personally, I just hope that they did a good, honest job on the movie. So many times something big in the whole origins debate comes up and the theist end (ID or whatever it happens to be) falls flat and ends up being more of a detriment to Christian apologetics, which is unfortunate, because there really are good arguments for Christianity. Hopefully the movie is a quality, solid support of the ID movement, and not something that will give critics of theism and Christianity more stuff to blast while ignoring the real arguments.

Tom Gilson at Thinking Christian has a post reminding everyone, whatever the movie ends up being, to be calm and thoughtful about it. For more information, I’d recommend browsing through his posts tagged “expelled.”

The Place of Apologetics

In a comment on my post on The Golden Compass (and moreover the lacking of apologetics training in youth classes), Justin of Mission in Marseille brought up an important issue:

“…I do not think that apologetics can save our faith in our secular (aka atheist) society, simply because it’s human wisdom (meaning limited, not false). I believe what we should focus on is training our kids to see things in the light of God’s plan. Teach them to search for truth, holiness, beauty and, above all, Jesus’ presence in their lives.

If our heart’s deepest (i want to say only) desire is to know God, I believe he will give us strength to overcome this world. Look at the first Christians. Very few of them could publicly defend the truth of the Gospel with rational thought, but they did demonstrate it through their lives. And the Roman Empire could do nothing to stop them!

I do think apologetics are essential, but more useful for atheists than Christians. We can, and should, convince someone that Christianity is intellectually justifiable. But the next step is learning to trust God even when it doesn’t make sense.”

When confronted with anti-Christian arguments, the response of most Christians is that “you’ve just got to have faith.” While total faith in God is a very noble thing that we all should aspire to have, this doesn’t stop their opponent from blasting them for being “blind” or “ignorant to facts.”

On the opposite side of the coin are the Christians who, when their faith is challenged, go off like a firecracker and start presenting apologetic arguments. These arguments are countered by their opponent, and the result is logic taking a back seat to lengthy and complicated debates where both sides are convinced they are correct and refuse to give up.

In reality, the two extremes combine. There is a place for apologetics and a place for faith. As the lengthy debates show, both theism and atheism are intellectually satisfying and logically responsible (although atheism is not perfectly so). That’s the place of apologetics: to get theism and Christianity to an intellectually fulfilling level. However, something comes after the intellect and the logic.

The famous atheist Richard Dawkins stated “Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.” That might be, but there is something all humans yearn for more than intellectual fulfillment. This is what separates theism from atheism. Both appeal to logic and reason, but only theism appeals to something higher. One might call this something “spirituality.” It is this something that gives Christians the quiet assurance they possess, not the endless debating of the apologist.

Here’s another way of looking at it: science has many uses. It can tell us about the galaxies far across the universe, or tell us the nature of the tiny cells that make up our bodies. It can observe, analyze, and experiment. It can tell us the what, when, where, why, and how of an object, but there is something it cannot do. Although it can tell you the why of something, it can not tell you why it is. It can tell you why, when a bird flaps its wings, it lifts off the ground. What it can’t tell you is why the bird even bothers to flap its wings. It can tell you why, when given a population of organisms with many different alleles, natural selection will occur and the more favorable traits will survive in the population while the less favorable traits will not. What is can’t tell you is why the fittest even bother to survive.

It is the same with apologetics. Apologetics can tell someone why we believe what we we believe, but it can’t tell someone the nature and strength of that belief. We can tell people time and time again why we believe what we do, that two thousand years ago one man who claimed to be the Son of God was killed and rose from the dead. We won’t get anywhere, however, until we start telling them what it means.