PZ Myers' Morality

You may not be familiar with PZ Myers; however, he is one of the vocal new atheists out there ranting against the existence of God, and Christianity in particular. Myers is an associate professor of biology at University of Minnesota, Morris and publishes a blog by the name of Pharyngula.

I recently came across a post by Myers entitled I'm so sorry for you, Indiana in which he comments about an interview given by Mitch Daniels, governor of Indiana where Daniels addresses the topic of morality and Christianity that Myers says was "embarrassingly bad." Daniels makes the point:

To me, the core of the Christian faith is humility, which starts with recognizing that you're as fallen as anyone else. And we're all constantly trying to get better, but... so I'm sure I come up short on way too many occasions.

Myers responds that he believes the "core of Christianity has never been humility , but arrogance." Why does he draw this assessment? Simply because Christianity claims that we can know and have a personal relationship with God. In fact, he believes that all this Christian talk about being fallen sinners is false modesty. What Myers is claiming is to know the minds of every single Christian living such that he knows that any claim of being a fallen sinner is really just the false modesty of an arrogant person! It seems that Myers, who denies the existence of an omniscient being, is somehow claiming to be one. I've often heard that those who deny the existence of God will find a replacement, oftentimes in their own mirror.

Yet, the point of this post is to discuss Myers claim that morality doesn't need to be grounded in God, but can simply be grounded in man. In fact, Myers makes the audacious claim that there "is no eternal standard of right and wrong." His claim is that standards change with time. Really what he is claiming is that there is no objective standard of right and wrong.

Myers has already, in his post, castigated the Bible for justifying slavery and God for ordering the slaughter of women and children. Even more, he claims that equality was an ideal of the Enlightenment rather than Christianity. He claims that a 1st century B.C. Judean priest would be calling for the wrath of Jehovah on the likes of Pat Robertson and James Dobson "who lead millions into a life antithetical to ancient Jewish custom."

Myers, however, has a different answer from Daniels and other Christians when it comes to morality. He says,

I'd answer differently. In the absence of a god-given absolute morality, all that matters is how we treat one another in this one life we have. What flows naturally to me is not brutality, which requires an absence of awareness of the suffering of others, but recognition of the fact that my fellow human beings really are my equals: we're all going to die, we only have these few brief decades of life, and who am I to deny someone else the same opportunities I've been given?

My question to Myers is if morality is not grounded in anything objective or eternal, then why is his answer any better than Daniels' or Hitler's for that matter (he also refers to Hitler in his post - for what would a discussion of morality be without invoking Hitler?) Who says that it matters how we treat one another? On what basis does he consider suffering to be bad? We would all agree that not all suffering is bad as many of us willingly expose ourselves to suffering when we go to the dentist or college or even to a football game in temperatures that are below zero (I grew up in Green Bay, WI and did this on a number of occasions). So, obviously suffering is not a universal wrong, on what basis does Myers determine some suffering to be wrong?

Now, I am not saying that these behaviors are right, simply saying that when Myers rejects objective standards, he must then defend why I should consider his standards to be binding on me or anyone else. If morality is not grounded objectively, then he is merely expressing his opinion, or maybe the opinions of a group with whom he happens to agree, but he is not expressing objective morality.

Myers is holds to what is known as hard atheism, in other words, he holds a belief that God does not exist. He says, "There are no gods, no objective enforcement of a benign morality on us." Since there is no God (or as he says, gods), then that means that we need to figure out our own morality. Myers says that we "should build our morality on reason." But how is this done? How do we figure out what is right or wrong based upon observation and reason alone without an objective basis against which to test our reason. It is like measuring without an objective standard by which to measure or reasoning without an objective truth by which to check our reason. Whose reason reigns supreme?

C.S. Lewis spoke about this in his book Abolition of Man when he speaks of the Innovator in values, the one who tries to arrive at moral values through reason alone. He explains that reason can be broken out into two categories. First is practical reason which "confess that judgements such as society ought to be preserved...are not mere sentiments but are rationality itself; or else we must give up at once, and for ever, the attempt to find a core of 'rational' value behind all the sentiments we have debunked." He says that the Innovator will not take this alternative as it seems too much like objective morality. So, it seems that Myers must explain what he means by reason. Maybe he takes Lewis' second alternative, which fits better with an evolutionary framework, that of instinct.

This seems to be the only alternative left for the naturalist as reason would require some sort of plumb line against which to assess our reason. There has to be an objective standard or reason will be left to the individual's own judgment. However, instinct leaves us no better off, for we would ask, whose instinct should we trust? How do we know who is more highly evolved and therefore whose instincts are more trustworthy if we have no objective standard against which to measure?

You see, Lewis had it right 65 years ago when he wrote this Abolition of Man, yet, somehow the new atheists still haven't figured out that reason alone cannot get one to objective morality. Unless we are all using the same external standard to measure weight, length, height or depth; unless we are using the same mathematics and rules of logic (which themselves are not arrived at by logic, but simply known to be true); unless we trust an objective external ground of logic which itself is eternal and to which we are bound, then morality is simply a matter of one's tastes and preferences and nothing more.

One can deny the existence of God, as does Myers; yet at the same time, one also is denying the existence of objective morality, along with a host of other ideas and concepts which I don't believe we can live without. Myers wants to give up God, but still retain all of the benefits of what God brings to us. It is time that he faces the reality that if he gives up God, he also gives up objective morality and has no right to say that anyone is wrong; at best, he can say that he simply doesn't prefer their behavior and ideas. I will take his displeasure into consideration and go on trusting God and living with the reality of real objective morality.

Abolition of Man

This week the book discussion group in which I participate gathered for our final discussion on Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis and again had a great discussion. It is amazing how in three chapters and less than 100 pages Lewis could weave together such a compelling argument, yet that is just what he has done in this book.

To review his argument, Lewis began the first chapter discussing two actual authors whom he pseudonymously referred to as Gaius and Titius (G&T) and their book to which he referred to as The Green Book. In this book, in which G&T set out to write about writing styles and the proper use of grammar, the two actually instead write about philosophy, describing how a writer doesn't describe a thing in itself, but only how they feel about that thing. They used Coleridge's story of a couple at a waterfall, one who described it as sublimeand the other describing it as pretty. Lewis tells us that "Coleridge mentally endorsed the first judgment and rejected the second in disgust." However, he goes on to tell us that G&T explain that they were not giving an actual judgment or description of the waterfall, but only theirfeelings about the waterfall.

Lewis tells us that in The Green Book the schoolboy will learn two things: first, that "all sentences containing a predicate of value are statements about the emotional state of the speaker"; and second, "that all such statements are unimportant." In contrast to these postmodern ideas of truth and reality, Lewis introduces the concept of the Tao, a shorthand word to refer to objective reality and truth. Lewis also explains that when filtering reality the head rules the belly through the chest. In other words, reason or intellect rules emotion or instinct through sentiment, magnanimity or nobility. This ruling is governed by the Tao. He explains that G&T and their kind are producing Men without Chests, those who are either all head or all belly but without the chest to govern the two.

Lewis explains that even though G&T attempt to tear down objective truth, they seem to believe in an inherent objective standard toward which they are driving the readers of their book. They imply that certain states of mind are intrinsically good. They are promoting their own dogmatism while tearing away at traditional values. Yet the standards that they are trying to establish are built upon reason and pragmatism alone and Lewis shows how this attempt at values breaks down in the end as it does not have the force ofoughtness to it; there is no reason one should be compelled to follow them. Lewis also argues that following instinct won't lead us to workable morality either. We have competing instincts and yet, who or what is to govern between them.

In the final chapter, entitledAbolition of Man, Lewis argues that man in his attempt to conquer nature, will in the end only be conquered by nature. He shows how man has advanced in developing technology to, in a sense, conquer nature. One of those technologies is contraceptives. Contraceptives allow people to engage in certain behavior without all of the "consequences" entailed in these practices. Lewis makes an interesting point in regard to the usage of contraceptives in that "there is a paradoxical, negative sense in which all possible future generations are the patients or subjects of a power wielded by those already alive." In other words, the user of contraceptives is impacting and exercising control over future generations; they are denying them existence.

Lewis tells us that eventually all species will end up in extinction and the closer we come to extinction, the easier it will be to take control of Nature, especially our Human Nature. He writes:

I am only making clear what Man's conquest of Nature really means and especially that final stage in the conquest, which, perhaps, is not far off. The final stage is come when Man by eugenics, by pre-natal conditioning, and by an education and propaganda based on a perfect applied psychology, has obtained full control over himself. Human nature will be the last part of Nature to surrender to Man. The battle will then be won. We shall have `taken the thread of life out of the hand of Clotho' and be henceforth free to make our species whatever we wish it to be. The battle will indeed be won. But who, precisely, will have won it?

He argues that Conditioners will be developed, people who will train the coming generations to follow the artificial Tao that they have developed. However, as one of the conditions that they will instill will be to break from past traditions and develop new ones, those taught by the Conditioners will also eventually be abandoned in place of new ones. We will have people conditioned to act in a purely natural manner, according to natural impulses, yet in man's attempt to conquer nature, acting naturally, he will eventually conquer himself, thus in the pursuit of the abolition of man, man will be destroyed.

Without objective truth and morality, what Lewis in this book refers to as the Tao, there is no way to make sense of moral behavior at all. At best, all we can say is that we have certain behavior, but we cannot call it moral, or even good as that would imply an objective standard. If a person were to love another person or hurt another person we could only say that they were acting differently from one another, not better or worse.

The conclusion of this argument has implications for a naturalist who believes that morality can be determined by evolution. Lewis debunks such an idea and tells us that we need an objective standard to truly have morality at all. Apart from God, that objective standard cannot exist. Does this mean that a naturalist cannot live a moral life? No, they certainly can. However, it does mean that they don't have a basis for that behavior according to their worldview. It is only by what Lewis calls the Tao, an objective standard that requires a transcendent source, that man has a basis for this objective morality.

Are We Merely Creatures of Instinct?

This week in a book discussion of which I am a part, the discussion centered around Lewis' discussion of the concept of instinct. What he says is that if we are merely evolved beings then we should operate on instinct rather than intentionality. There should be no oughtness to our behavior, simply an isness. What he means is that we should only be able to describe how a person behaves, not how they ought to behave, as ought would imply that there is a right and wrong way to behave, which cannot come via natural processes.

Often evolutionists will argue that survival is the result of evolution, and some will take an extra and unwarranted step of saying that survival is the "goal" of the evolutionary process, thus implying a purpose for evolution. I say that this is an unwarranted step as evolution is a blind process according to people like Richard Dawkins and others, and therefore cannot have a purpose or goal. So, survival is just a chance result of the evolutionary process rather than a goal or purposeful end.

What one of our members did to test this idea was to pose a case in which a person (A) had a choice to make between B, C & D to achieve the end of fulfilling a desire (sorry for all the letters, but it is the best way to explain the situation). His instincts were equally divided between the options and he had no history with any of the choices, so he arbitrarily chose B, which gave him fulfillment of his desire. The next time, given the same choices, instinct should direct A to choose B again to fulfill A's desire, as B fulfilled A's desire the first time.

Now the scenario changes and the option for B is taken out of the mix of choices, leaving A to choose between C & D. A arbitrarily chooses C, and A finds that C fulfills him even better than did B. The next time, given the choices of B, C and D, instinct should drive A to choose C over B & D.

In these scenarios we are assuming that A does not reason or is not influenced by anything other than instinct. Suppose that A, driven by the instinct to survive, began to steal food from Y who had more than needed to survive. If we are truly driven by instinct alone, we could not say that A has done anything wrong, even if our instincts tell us that stealing is wrong. We could only say that A has done something different from what our instincts would drive us to do. That would include every other behavior that we consider moral or immoral. Those actions would not be truly moral or immoral, just different.

Neither can we determine what actions would have ultimate survival value as we cannot determine how a certain action will impact the future. For example, suppose society judged murder to be an action that impeded survival, yet A were to murder a person who would have become a Stalin or a Hitler should he have lived, that murder would have actually had a greater impact on survival than not murdering the Stalin or Hitler. Yet, we cannot determine who will become a Stalin, Hitler, or Mother Teresa. In other words, we don't truly know which of our actions will have greater impact for survival and which will not. Yet, to not murder will generally have greater survival impact than to murder. The choice not to abort the unborn should also have greater survival value as well, yet, it has not led us to ban abortion.

The other challenge with the instinct driven scenario is that often we have competing instincts and are left to "decide" between them. I put decide in quotes as we aren't, in the case, making rational decisions, but somehow our instincts are arbitrating between them and one ends up "winning." We are told that we have an instinct to survive by evolutionists, yet, we often see situations in which a person will put him or herself in harms way for no "good" reason from a survival viewpoint.

For example, on 9.11.01 we saw the efforts of the NYC fire fighters as they rushed into a burning building that they knew could be hazardous and possibly lethal to them. The higher up they went, the lower the chances of their survival as well as the survival of the victims inside the buildings. Yet, we saw these men and women rushing into the building and up to the higher floors against their instinct to survive. There was no guarantee that their efforts would have led to the ultimate survival of the species or even the improvement of the odds of the survival of the species. So, how does one explain that these people gave their lives and why do we call them heroes if instinct is the driver?

I think the reason that we consider them to be heroes is the same that we consider the person who does what we consider to be immoral to be an immoral person. We know that people act on more than just instinct, we know that they also act based upon reason and that reason is directed by a moral code that exists outside of us. C.S. Lewis calls this the Tao, a shorthand name for what we know to be objective moral values that really exist and by which our actions are judged and which also directs our conscience. We are driven by more than just instincts as we consider criminals to be truly guilty of doing wrong and someone like Mother Teresa to be truly virtuous. We don't just chalk it up to instinct and leave it at that. We are not indifferent to these behaviors as we should be if we were truly driven by instinct as the instincts of those people would be no better or worse, just different.

We celebrate the heroes of 9.11, those who have given their lives for our country in war, and many others who made conscious choices to resist the instinct to survive as the highest good and chose instead to put their lives on the line for the good of country and those who were in need.

Men Without Chests

Men Without Chests is the intriguing title to the first chapter of C.S. Lewis' Abolition of Man. It is not only an intriguing title, but it is a compelling topic in today's culture where we are told to tolerate lifestyles and ideas, but not truth or necessarily, people.

Lewis begins the chapter with the discussion of a book, a real book by real authors; however, he masks both the name of the book and the names of the authors as an act of kindness toward them, a kindness, although undeserved, is displayed out of Christian charity (this is my interpretation, not his). Lewis writes, "I shall refer to these gentlemen as Gaius and Titius and to their book as The Green Book. But I promise you there is such a book and I have it on my shelves." (2)

The book was intended to be a book on writing and literary style, yet, as Lewis points out in this chapter, the book turns out to be a insidious book of philosophy. Lewis discusses a portion of the book in which they discuss Samuel Taylor Coleridge, a poet and philosopher, who wrote of a couple of tourists viewing a waterfall. One says that the waterfall is sublime while the other says that it is pretty. Now, since we don't use the word sublime commonly in our vernacular, let me give you the definition: impressing the mind with a sense of grandeur or power; inspiring awe, veneration, etc.

My wife and I have had the opportunity to go to Niagara Falls years ago and I will tell you that neither of us would have described the falls as simply, pretty. To do so would have done an injustice to the grandeur of the falls. The same could be said of the Rocky Mountains, the Alps, the Grand Canyon and many other natural wonders of this world. Coleridge as well endorsed the observation of the first tourist and rejected that of the second.

This is where Gaius and Titius step in to introduce philosophy to the conversation. They tell the reader that the tourists were not making an observation about the waterfall itself, but an observation about their own feelings. Lewis quotes Titius as saying, "When the man said This is sublime, he appeared to be making a remark about the waterfall...Actually...he was not making a remark about the waterfall, but a remark about his own feelings. What he was saying was really I have feelings associated in my mind with the word "Sublime", or shortly, I have sublime feelings." (2)

In other words, we are not making objective observations about a thing, in fact we cannot, we can only express the feelings or emotions brought about when observing a thing. I called this insidious on the part of Gaius and Titius and here is why. In the name of teaching the proper use of the English language, they are implanting ideas about the world into the heads of school children in a somewhat subversive manner. They are not coming out and telling them that they are discussion philosophy and a worldview, they are merely slipping it in the back door, as it were, in the guise of an English lesson.

Gaius and Titius go on to give another example of this in the fourth chapter of their book where they take an advertisement for a cruise line and again slip in philosophy under the cover of English composition. The ad encourages the reader to buy a ticket to sail the "Western Oceans where Drake and Devon sailed" seeking the adventures and treasures of the Indies. Lewis criticizes the ad as a poor piece of writing, but criticizes Gaius and Titius for not only overlooking the poor writing, but instead focusing on the idea that the cruise ship won't sail were these adventurers sailed and that any treasures that they bring home will be metaphorical. In other words, instead of dealing with the grammar and syntax, these men attack the philosophical and literary underpinnings of the ad. Lewis points out that they could do the same with Wordsworth and many of the other great writers in literary history as most of them used metaphor in their writing.

Lewis explains that up until recently our emotions and observations were connected to something real, something objective. Our observations could be judged to be right or wrong as they were compared to the reality of that which was being observed or judged. He explains that every culture had an understanding of a good that is beyond the physical world and that is objective in nature. He illustrates this by using the Chinese concept of the Tao, "the reality beyond all predicates", or as Plato called it, the forms. Again, he uses the Tao not necessarily as a reference to Chinese thought, but to a concept that he says spans all major worldviews and that represents an objective reality beyond the physical world. Readers can get tripped up on this concept and I will say that I am not in full agreement with Lewis' presentation of this concept; however, it is helpful in understanding that there is a reality beyond this physical world that can be understood and grasped by us.

It is those who not only deny this reality but also convince others that this reality is no reality at all that Lewis calls men without chests. These people claim the title of intellectual and yet set out to destroy. In destroying a person's confidence in being able to grasp objective truth and in the very existence of objective truth, these people destroy hope, meaning and purpose in the person's life as well. If there is no objective truth, there can be no real meaning to life. Morality becomes a quaint concept with no grounding in reality. The Apostle Paul said that if the reality of the resurrection does not exist, “Let us eat and drink, for tomorrow we die.” (1 Cor. 15:32) In other words, if there is no hope beyond this world, we might as well live it up in this world as it is all we have.

Yet, Paul says the same thing of these people that Lewis says of Gaius and Titius, "Do not be deceived: 'Bad company ruins good morals.'” (v.33) Paul tells us that there is a reality beyond this physical existence and that Jesus is the demonstration of that through his death, burial and resurrection. So, let us heed the words of Paul:

But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore, my beloved brothers, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, knowing that in the Lord your labor is not in vain." (vv. 57-58)

Is Morality the Product of Evolution

Last week, we considered the question of whether religion could be explained by evolution alone, and this week we will do the same with the question of morality and ethics. I hear quite often in discussions with skeptics that morality is simply the product of evolution, something that has just helped our species to survive. Let's begin by considering that possibility and find out what would be true of ethics and morality if it were merely a trait or mechanism that evolved to aid our survival as a species.

The first thing that would be true of morality would be that it would not be objective in nature. In other words, what we consider to be moral or immoral would not be a fact independent of our belief in the same. Murder would not be objectively wrong or evil, nor would rape, racism, or a whole host of other actions that we deem to be wrong, or even evil. In the same way, actions like helping the poor and needy, rescuing a drowning child, or being kind would not be objectively good things. It is possible, given evolution, that we could just as easily live in a world where killing the disabled or even people with certain characteristics would be considered to be good, or preventing the torture of animals would be evil.

After all, as the famous evolutionist, Stephen Jay Gould, in his book Wonderful life: the Burgess Shale and the nature of history (the name is a takeoff of the holiday favorite "It's a Wonderful Life") said that if we replay the tape of evolution "a million times...I doubt that anything like Homo sapiens would ever evolve again." (289) He believed that because evolution involves chance mutations and that there is no telos (purpose or end goal), that if evolution were to be rerun, it would produce different results each time, including that Homo sapiens would not be a part of the other permutations.

We could equally extrapolate out for morality that it would turn out different each time, if it evolved at all! So, we could quite likely see a world where acts that we consider evil might be considered to be good and vice versa. Richard Dawkins, in a post debate radio interview, he would be OK with the idea of rape being acceptable if evolution had turned out differently. Dawkins replied that he would not like to live in such a world. In other words, Dawkins believed rape to be objectively evil, wrong despite what evolution would lead us to believe.

The second thing that would be true of morality, given evolution, would be that it would be possible for each person to evolve in a slightly different way such that we would each see morality differently from other people. In other words, morality would be person-subjective. No one would be able to say that their evolutionary view of morality was "better" than another person's. So, if I evolved such that my morality allowed me to steal from others, the one from whom I have stolen could not say that I have done anything really wrong. It may be wrong to them to steal, but they would be in no position to impose that morality on me.

The third problem is also an epistemological problem (a how we know problem) in that evolution would not necessarily lead us to be able to distinguish truth as evolution (according to evolutionary experts) only puts our bodies in the right place at the right time so that we can survive as an entity and as a species. Now, I have problems with this view that evolution has this "goal" of survival as evolution is a blind process and has no goals or direction, it just is a process. However, even if evolution were capable of creating within us the ability to get our bodies in the right place at the right time, it would not necessitate that we would do so in a manner that would be considered moral or ethical. The fact is that we would not really have need for objective morality, just a need to make sure that we survive.

Morality, according to philosopher J.P. Moreland, implies a design or telos to our existence. Why, you might ask? Moreland uses a couple of illustrations to make the point. First, Moreland uses the example of an automobile carburetor, the part of the car that used to (carburetors are not found in many modern cars with fuel injectors) that would atomize gasoline so that it could be ignited by the spark plugs. Moreland asks whether there there could be a bad carburetor. Those of us who used to drive cars with carburetors would answer that yes, there could be a car with a bad carburetor, in fact, I a lot of time trying to start cars with bad carburetors. How do we know the carburetor is a bad one? Because we know how a carburetor is supposed to work, we know how it was designed to work. When it doesn't work according to the design, we know it is bad.

So, are people designed to work a certain way, or are we the product of a blind chance process operating by selection? The answer obviously has implications. If it is the former, then there is a design according to which we are to live our lives and when we don't live according to that plan, we are acting in a bad manner. However, if we are the product of a blind process, then there is no plan or design and no wrong way to live. Even if we are living in such a way that would lead to the extinction of the species, we can't even say that this behavior is bad since the system is not "designed" for our survival, survival is merely a byproduct of how the system has worked out.

Moreland also uses an example of playing a game of Monopoly. He tells his opponent that the rules of the game are that his opponent can do anything he wants when it is his turn. He can make a sandwich, turn on the TV, ring a bell, or anything else he wants. His opponent begins his turn by loading up properties with hotels. Moreland counters by tipping over the board and ringing the bell. His opponent is confused by that move and proceeds to load up the properties with hotels once again. Moreland counters by wiping the board clear and turning on the TV. On and on it could go and since there is no ultimate purpose to the game with these rules, there is no right or wrong to the moves. The same is true of our lives, if there is no ultimate purpose, then there is no right or wrong behavior. We can either tip the board or put on the hotels and either move is just as "meaningful" or "meaningless" as the other. If life has no ultimate meaning, it has no ultimate morality and if it has no ultimate morality, then it has no ultimate meaning either.

These are the reasons that I believe that morality and meaning cannot be ultimately explained by evolution. Life has too much evidence of design, and design begs for a designer.

Did Religion Merely Evolve?

This week, the book discussion group of which I am a part considered the idea of whether religion and religious beliefs are merely the product of evolution. Of course the author, Paul Ehrlich, assumes that this is the case as he is a naturalist and committed to explaining everything in life and culture via the evolutionary model. However, Ehrlich is not the first to have come up with this idea, nor is he the most recent to make this claim.

On the way home from the book discussion, I happened to catch a radio conversation between a couple of authors on this very subject. The first was Robert Wright, author of The Evolution of God, a new book that takes that to which Ehrlich devoted one chapter and expands it out over 400 pages. I have not personally read this book; however, his counterpoint on this radio program was one of my own professors, John Mark Reynolds, from Biola University. Reynolds is a philosopher and the author of his latest book, When Athens Met Jerusalem: An Introduction to Classical and Christian Thought. Reynolds' critique of Wright covered a number of issues; however, one of his main critiques of Wright was his lack of interaction with some of the more recent philosophers of religion and his failure to cite references for many of his assertions. Again, I won't comment further since I have not read Wright's book.

I did read Ehrlich's treatment of this topic and in reading some of the reviews of Wright's book, it seems that they are arguing the same case, with Ehrlich doing it in a more summary fashion. So, back to the main question, did religion merely evolve?

Ehrlich's contention regarding religion, as it is for many of his arguments regarding the development of human culture, is that we developed this trait or capacity due to the increasing size of our brains which resulted from the addition of meats and other proteins to our diets. Ehrlich argues that the capacity of our brains (not our minds) has given us awareness of the temporary nature of our lives and that there are places beyond where we live, potentially places that are up to this point, unknowable.

Religion to Ehrlich is a way of trying to reconcile the anxiety that we experience in life, as well as a way to create within us a certain emotion or exhilaration; the same type of exhilaration he says he gets when he sees his granddaughter, hears a well-drilled band, or pushes the throttle of an airplane. Ehrlich does see a difference between homo sapiens and Neanderthals in that we have more of a religious experience and ceremony when we bury our dead including the decoration of the body. Ehrlich also believes that seeing cause and effect patterns is hardwired into our systems and that we may also have invented causes for observed, yet currently unexplained effects in order to quell the anxiety of those unexplained events.

Ehrlich goes on to explain other behaviors and phenomena, all through a purely evolutionary paradigm, while not really giving an actual basis for drawing these conclusions. It seems that when one starts with evolutionary naturalism, one also has to try to fit all the pieces of the puzzle into that model, even if it means the person has to force the pieces to fit at times, and our group came to that conclusion about him in our discussion of this chapter. Although some of his explanations seem plausible, evolution still doesn't explain how the universe (all matter, space, and time) came to be, why morality seems to be objective in nature (which it could not be given naturalism), the fine tuning of the universe, the existence of the mind, the resurrection of Jesus, and many other issues related to religion and science.

Ehrlich could be completely correct in his explanation of how religion came to be and yet, God could still actually exist. Yet, I find the whole explanation to be somewhat ad hoc. In other words, evolution is assumed to begin with and then religion is explained in light of the assumed evolutionary framework. I don't see in these explanations such a slam dunk case being presented that it could not just as plausibly be explained via the Biblical model. To be more specific, if the biblical model is correct, which I think for many reasons it is, it tells us that man's understanding of God has been corrupted by sin. Even though we have God's written word, we still get things wrong. Now, go back to a time when people didn't have a written revelation of God, nor regular direct interaction with God, and we can understand how so many different religious strains grew up over time.

Combine all of this with man's autonomous nature and we can also understand how so many of these religions put man at the center and God at the periphery. It is man, in most religions (with the exception of Christianity and Judaism, before it was corrupted), who is responsible for working his way to God and earning heaven, paradise, or whatever form of eternal reward the religion describes.

I also think that most evolutionists underestimate how intelligent people were in past ages. When we think of the great classical thinkers of Homer, Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle, there are not many today that could probably produce the level of thinking that they produced without the benefit of our technological advances. When we look at engineering feats like the pyramids of Egypt and Central and South America which were produced without hydrolics and the heavy equipment that we have today, it is a marvel. I believe that we often look to the past with a chronological bias, thinking that we are somehow smarter because we have devices like computers, when what they produced in their day is technologically more amazing given their lack of the types of aids that we have today.

Did religion evolve to help us to answer those unanswered questions and deal with our anxieties? I find this explanation to lack explanatory scope. There are too many issues that remain unresolved by positing this explanation for religion and religious belief. Sure, it may address these issues like trying to explain the unknown or as a way to resolve anxiety. Yet, do we really think that morality is not objective as it would be if the concept of God merely evolved? Do we really think that the universe is either eternal, uncaused, or somehow self-caused as it must be if God really doesn't exist? I don't think that many, if any of us would be satisfied with these consequences that seem follow from the religious evolutionary hypothesis. I think when all the evidence is taken together, it is more reasonable to conclude that God exists, then to believe that he does not. If God exists, then it is also possible that he could have revealed himself to us and that is what is reported and recorded in the Bible. If Jesus existed, as history seems to indicate, then he isn't a concoction of evolutionary thought as some would suggest. I find it more reasonable to suggest that the supernatural does exist and that God is a better explanation for the existence of matter, space and time, then to believe that it simply popped into being. The concept of religion as an evolved concept is simply too difficult for me to believe.

On Death, Dying, and Eternity

We have heard it said that death is the great equalizer, everyone who is born will, if the Lord doesn't return first, also die. As we have watched my father-in-law decline in health over the past year, we have been reminded of this grim fact. We live close to him and have had the chance to spend a fair amount of time with him at family gatherings and also on family vacations that we have taken with Andrea's family nearly every year over the past dozen or so years. He is a nice person and has been very generous over the years to his family; however, at this point he lacks the most important thing anyone could want or need, a relationship with his Creator.
It was last summer, while at a family gathering that Andrea asked her father why he didn't trust in Jesus. He said that he didn't believe that Jesus existed. Andrea asked him what it would take for him to believe and he answered that if Jesus were to appear next to him he might, but then he caught himself and said that maybe he would think he was crazy. It was the week later that he was diagnosed with the cancer that will eventually take his life.

Now, I don't believe that there is any connection to his rejection of Jesus and his cancer as he was already showing signs that something was wrong even the week or so before the gathering. However, the type of cancer with which he had been diagnosed that week was a very aggressive type and typically patients are given from months to a few years to live. His was caught early and the prognosis looked good, and he maintained very good health otherwise for an octogenarian (he ran three times per day, about two miles each time). He put his hope in science and medicine to cure him and it looked promising for a while.

Bert began to have more complications last December and, although the doctors didn't tell anyone, he was showing signs that chemo wasn't working. Now he is in a fast decline and has been confronted with the cold reality of what will be his eternal destiny. For him there is still the opportunity that he may repent and put his trust in Jesus; for the Christian, eternity is secured by Jesus' death and resurrection.

So, in a sense, death is not the great equalizer. For the Christian, physical death is a temporary setback on the way to an eternity with Jesus. During his life, Jesus announced that he would rise again, overcoming sin and death. On the cross he spoke the word that brought that reality to fruition - Tetelestai - it is finished. At that moment, Jesus proclaimed that death would no longer have a hold on those who trust in him, death had been conquered once and for those who are His. His resurrection showed the world that death and sin no longer reign.

“Death is swallowed up in victory.”
“O death, where is your victory?
O death, where is your sting?”
The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ.
1 Corinthians 15:54-56

Truth, a What and a Who

I have written on the concept of truth in previous posts (April 2009); however, it is an important topic and I would like to address it from a different direction in today's post. As many of you are aware, we live in a post-modern generation where truth is considered to be relative. In other words, a thing is true if you believe it to be true, but that same idea does not need to be true for me if I don't want it to be. Confused yet? Let me explain further.

Many are most familiar with this concept in the area of morals. We are often told, "that may be true for you, but not for me" when it comes to a person's favorite cause or sin (as the Bible would describe certain actions). This statement is often followed by an admonition to not be intolerant or try to force our beliefs on the other person (a principle that most people consider to be as close to absolute as possible!) I would like to look at whether this idea is true (objectively) and also whether a person could even live consistently with such a belief.

So, is it true that something could be true for one person but not for another, whether it is a moral truth, a scientific truth, or any other type of truth? I don't think so, let me explain. Could we ever conceive of an instance where murder (the taking of innocent life) could be justified? How about an issue that has been in the news recently, racism? I think in both of these cases one would have to say no to both questions, and those are just two of a number of cases in which I am sure we would also give the same answer. However, I only need to show one case in which a moral value is objective, that is, that it is true whether or not anyone on earth believes it to be true, to make the case that morals are objective in nature.

This week we saw the "Beer Summit" in which a white police officer and a black professor sat down with our President (himself black) and our Vice President (who is white) to discuss a recent incident in which the black professor was arrested by the white officer. Apparently, the officer was provoked by the professor according to witnesses, some of whom were black, when the professor broke into a tirade after being questioned about breaking into his own house when he apparently forgot his keys. The President was asked about the incident at a press conference, not knowing all of the facts surrounding the case, and claimed that the police officer "acted stupidly" and the race discussion was set off in the media.

The question is whether it is ever justified to be a racist, no matter what a person's skin color? When we say that someone is a racist, I mean that they judge a person solely by the color of their skin, not, as Martin Luther King, Jr. hoped for, by the content of their character. I submit that it is never justified to judge a person solely by the color of their skin and would challenge anyone who tried to justify such behavior. However, according to the postmodernist, it is possible that it may be justified for a person to be a racist, or a murderer, or exhibit any number of other behaviors that the average person would call immoral. We simply cannot say that anyone is really wrong as that would be imposing our beliefs on them.

Now, let's look at whether a person could consistently live by this belief or philosophy. Again, I would say that a person could not and have challenged many who espouse this belief. In fact, I was temporarily suspended from a message board recently when I challenged a poster on this issue. What is interesting is that he was willing to impose his morality on me when I offended him. Fortunately, we were able to exchange some messages and have actually begun some good dialog with each other.

The question is whether a postmodern would fly with a postmodern airline pilot who believed that landing in the ocean is the same as landing on the runway. Or, would a postmodern go to a postmodern surgeon who believed that removing the liver is the same as removing a kidney, or a heart bypass can be done using a piece of the intestine. Postmoderns obey traffic signals, read labels on medicine bottles to make sure they are taking the right one in the right dosage, and get highly offended when told that they are wrong. In fact, I heard the story of a postmodern who fired off a terse letter to a reviewer of his book claiming that the reviewer didn't understand his book! In other words, his words did have objective meaning after all.

So, truth is something. It is often described as that which corresponds to reality. If I say rock, you know what I am talking about, even though you may not be picturing the same rock that I am, you know what a rock is. If I say look up, we all would look in the same general direction. Words mean things and we usually all understand them to mean the same thing. Jesus spoke often about truth, telling the woman at the well that we must worship God in spirit and truth. He often started important statements with "truly, truly" to let us know that these were important statements and that they were true statements.

However, the Bible tells us that truth is not just a what, but it is also a who. Jesus told Thomas and the disciples, "I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." (John 14:6) Jesus also told us, "If you abide in my word, you are truly my disciples, and you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free." (John 8:31-32) I don't believe that Jesus meant that we must simply understand some ideas or concepts to be free, although we must understand and trust the gospel, but we must also know Jesus, the truth, in order to be set free.

D.A. Carson quotes Dodd in his The Gospel according to John, saying, Because of truth's intimate connection with Jesus, true disciples 'must not only hear his words: they must in some sort be united with him who is the truth'" (349). So, when your friends ask you, as Pilate did to Jesus, "what is truth?" (veritas) (John 18:38) you can tell them that it is a what and a who and it is found in Jesus.

Evidence for the Resurrection

Two weeks ago today I was finishing up a class on the Resurrection of Jesus Christ taught by Dr. Gary Habermas, one of the foremost experts on the resurrection in the world. Dr. Habermass was instrumental in the life of Antony Flew, one of the leading atheists of the 20th century in moving him away from atheism. Habermas has debated many of the leading skeptics around the world on the issue of the resurrection of Jesus. One of the things that I appreciate about Dr. Habermas is that he is willing to test his argument with these skeptics to make sure that he is not misrepresenting them or over stating his own arguments. He counts many of these skeptics to be friends even though they which keeps their exchanges from getting acrimonious. He mentioned the number of times he would have Antony Flew over to his house to spend time with his family.

Habermass has developed what he calls the minimal facts approach to arguing for the resurrection of Jesus Christ. He presents 12 facts from the gospels that are generally accepted by New Testament scholars from both the conservative and the liberal sides (even scholars who remain skeptical of the resurrection or deity of Jesus Christ). This would include approximately 95% of NT scholars.

The minimal facts that Habermas lays out include the following:

1. Jesus' death via crucifixion
2. The despair of the disciples
3. The disciples believed that they had seen the risen Jesus
4. The transformation of the disciples such that they were willing to die for their convictions
5. Paul's conversion after reporting seeing the risen Jesus
6. James' (the brother of Jesus) conversion after reporting seeing the risen Jesus

In addition to these six which are agreed to be very reliable by NT scholars, Habermas lays out other bits of evidence that are not considered as reliable by skeptical NT scholars, but still held as reliable by a majority of NT scholars.

7. Jesus burial in the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea
8. The tomb in which Jesus was laid being found empty
9. The resurrection was the central message of their preaching
10. They preached that message in Jerusalem
11. The birth of the church
12. Sunday worship in remembrance of the resurrection (moved from Saturday, the Sabbath)

Using these minimal facts, and even limiting the discussion to the first six which are generally accepted by even the most skeptical of scholars, one can present a case for the resurrection that stands up to all of the counter arguments. Some of those arguments (followed by the number of the argument for which this counter-argument fails to account) include:

1. The disciples stole the body (3,4,5,6)
2. Jesus merely appeared to have died, but revived in the tomb (3,4,5,6,9, as well as other reasons not contained within these arguments)
3. Hallucination (8, and other reasons not contained within these arguments)
4. Legend or myth (3,4,5,6,8,11,12, and other reasons not contained within these arguments)
5. Many other naturalistic explanations are also defeated by these points above.

This is an effective way to present evidence for the resurrection and a presentation that has been made and defended by Dr. Habermas in a number of written and live debates with skeptics. It is worth memorizing these points for those occasions when you are asked why you believe that Jesus rose from the dead.

Moral Argument Revisited

It has been a few months since I have written about the moral argument, so I thought I would revisit this issue again. I think that the moral argument is one of the cornerstone arguments for the existence of God. The key to the argument is not whether we can know how to live morally apart from God, we know that we can as we all have consciences. However, the key question is whether objective moral values exist at all.

So, what do we mean by objective moral values? These are values that would be true whether or not anyone ever believed them to be true. They are true independent of every single person on earth. They derive from outside of our existence, for if they were derived from man in any way, they would be subjective in nature (derived from the subjects).

This is a very important distinction to keep in mind when discussing the moral argument, their origin versus how we know them. This is where the conversation so often gets off track as the person with whom I am speaking wants to jump to the how we know question from the do they exist question. Skeptics want to discuss ideas like how could God command the slaughter of the Canaanites or some related accusatory question against God. In those cases I simply steer the conversation back to the question of origins by asking them on what objective basis they are accusing God of wrong doing.

The first thing a court must establish before allowing a case to move forward is whether the plaintiff has grounds to bring the charges (i.e., was a law broken, are they in the right jurisdiction, etc.). Unless the plaintiff has grounds to bring the charge the judge has to throw the case out of court or redirect them to the right jurisdiction. So, does the atheist have proper grounds to bring charges against God? I would argue that they do not since they don't have an objective basis for morality.

Suppose I made up a rule that said that any car passing within 15 feet of my driveway without permission will be fined $100. Well, as I look out my window I have dozens of cars that pass my driveway on the street in front of my house ever day that come within 15 feet, so I would be rich. But wait a minute, first I must go to court and get the judge to find them guilty of the violation and impose the fine on them. What judge is going to uphold a law that I arbitrarily imposed on the passing motorists? The answer is that I would be tossed out for having no grounds to bring charges.

Now, suppose there is no objective basis for morality and morality is what we create and that is as real as it gets. And, suppose this person creates a rule that says that what God has done in the Old Testament is wrong, is it really wrong? Why would it be wrong if I don't recognize the jurisdiction of the accuser? Why should I recognize that persons jurisdiction when I have my own? You see, it ends up that morality is ultimately meaningless as we are all a law unto ourselves. We can bring accusation all we want, but no one is obliged to recognize our jurisdiction.

I won't get into the conversation of whether God was justified with a skeptic until he has established that he has grounds to bring the charge, he must show that morals are objective in nature apart from God's existence, which is usually their position. I have gone around this discussion a few times now with skeptics and have yet to have one establish that morality is objective apart from God. Most either assert that they are without evidence, or simply say that they are subjective but still meaningful. Neither argument is acceptable or logical.

We are living in a time much like that depicted in the book of Judges in the Old Testament, twice it says (and if fact the book ends with these words) "In those days there was no king in Israel. Everyone did what was right in his own eyes." Everyone was a law unto themselves and lived according to their own code of ethics. If you have read the book lately, you remember that the time of the Judges was a time of turmoil and cycles of rebellion, followed by the people being trounced by a foreign army, followed by woe, sorrow and repentance, followed by God's rescue of Israel, followed by more rebellion.

If God doesn't exist, then we truly do live in a time when everyman will do what is right in his own eyes - and be justified in doing so. Some will try to explain morality through evolution saying that it is conducive to survival, yet that simply begs the question why should survival be an end to a people without a purpose? Evolutionary biologist and atheist, Richard Dawkins was recently asked whether it would have been alright with him if evolution turned out different such that rape was considered normal. Dawkins' reply was telling as he said that he was glad that he lived in a society where rape was considered to be wrong. In essence, Dawkins was saying that rape was objectively wrong and he was glad it was, while still trying to hold onto evolution as its origin - the problem is he can't have it both ways, either evolution produced morals and they are subjective, or morals came from an objective source - which must be God.

I pray that Christians, myself included, will live in the reality of objective moral values and not live like Israel in the time of the judges - let us do what is right in God's eyes.

Evidence for the Existence of God - The Ontological Argument

This week I am going to help you to do a little brain exercising. The ontological argument has been an argument that has intrigued me from the first time I heard it 20 years ago as a Moody Bible Institute student. Now, some of you are going to think I am weird for making that statement and others will probably do so after familiarizing yourself with the argument. I also know that many in the New Atheist camp like Richard Dawkins give it short shrift in their books, but there are a lot of bright young philosophers who are building on the work of people like Alvin Plantinga and the argument has gained new attention.

I just finished a class in Philosophy of Religion during which I re-read Alvin Plantinga's treatment of the ontological argument. Now, if you are ever having a problem with pride because you think you are really smart, I would suggest that you read an article from Plantinga, I am sure that it will plant your feet back on Terra firma. I did a brief synopsis of Plantiga's treatment of the ontological argument and will review it below:

Overview of the argument

1. There is a world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.

2. A being has maximal greatness in a world only if it exists in every possible world.

3. The property has maximal greatness entails the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.

4. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.

5. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.

6. There is a world W* and an essence E* such that E* is exemplified in W* and E* entails has maximal greatness in W*

7. For any object x, if x exemplifies E*, then x exemplifies the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.

8. If W* had been actual, it would have been impossible that E* fail to be exemplified.

9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.

Argument explained

I think that it is helpful to look at his premises (numbered) and conclusions on their own without the related commentary. I find that the key to Plantinga's argument is that he states it somewhat differently from what I have heard before in that his initial statement is:

1. There is a world W in which there exists a being with maximal greatness.

This statement, I believe puts the skeptic in the defensive position of trying to prove that this world could not exist. Plantinga goes on:

2. A being has maximal greatness in a world only if it exists in every possible world.

A fancy way of saying that if this being exists, this being would have to exist where ever existence could happen. This would be true since a being that existed in every possible world would certainly be greater than a being that only existed in a limited number of possible worlds.

3. The property has maximal greatness entails (results in) the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.

Simply stated, if the being is maximally great, it has the property of maximal greatness in every possible existence.

4. Maximal excellence entails omniscience, omnipotence, and moral perfection.

Omniscience (maximal knowledge or seeing), omnipotence (maximal power), moral perfection (self-explanatory) are qualities we would expect from a maximally great being.

5. Maximal greatness is possibly exemplified.

The first of these statements seem fairly straightforward and non-controversial. The second is definitional as to what is entailed in maximal greatness and, although it is not a comprehensive definition, it also seems not to be controversial. The third statement is the one that a skeptic may push back on. However, they are still in the defensive position showing why this could not possibly be the case.

6. There is a world W* and an essence E* such that E* is exemplified in W* and E* entails has maximal greatness in W*

So, what he is saying is that there is a possible world in which an essence, has maximal greatness entails or would be exhibited. This is a follow on to the prior statement and just showing that a possible world could exist where this essence would entail. The skeptic is still on the defensive to prove otherwise.

7. For any object x, if x exemplifies E*, then x exemplifies the property has maximal excellence in every possible world.

So, if an object exemplified the essence that was described in the previous step, it would follow that that object would exemplify maximal excellence in every possible world. In other words, going back to his previous description that maximal greatness would be exhibited in every possible world (for otherwise it would be limited and not maximal), and maximal greatness exhibits maximal excellence, therefore maximal excellence would be exhibited in every possible world.

8. If W* had been actual, it would have been impossible that E* fail to be exemplified.

This just means that if possible world W* actually existed, then E* (maximal greatness) would have to be exemplified in that world. This relates back to #6. So, since there is a possible world in which E* is exemplified and, therefore, by definition established in the argument, E* entails maximal greatness and maximal greatness would be exhibited in every possible world, then,

9. There exists a being that has maximal excellence in every world.

Here is where brains can melt down and people throw up their hands, scratch their heads and say "huh?" But keep reading until it sinks in and you will almost visibly see the light bulb go on and should say aloud, "Aha!". The conclusion is that if that possible world exists where the maximally great being exists and, by definition that being would exist in all possible worlds since that follows from maximal greatness. Since it is impossible for E* (maximal greatness) not to be exemplified in W* (a possible world), then if follows that it is impossible for E* to be exemplified in every possible world, therefore, that being exists and that being is God.

Again, it is worth pondering this argument until it makes sense to you. If you still find yourself scratching your head and in utter confusion, feel free to drop me an email and I will try to clarify it further. Now that you have had your minds exercised,go take a cool down lap outside in the fresh air!