“The question isn’t so much whether it’s possible to be morally good without religion. It’s like saying is it possible to dig a hole with a teaspoon. Sure, but wouldn’t you rather do it with a backhoe?”
Gayle spoke with Father Thomas Williams LC about his book, Greater Than You Think. Father Williams, an American Moral Theologian, is a theology professor at the Regina Apostolorum University in Rome and Consultant on Vatican affairs for CBS News. In this capacity, Father Williams covered the U.S. Papal visit of Pope Benedict XVI in April 2008 and the Pope’s trip to the Holy Land in July 2009. From 2004 to 2007 Williams worked as Faith and Religion Analyst for NBC and MSNBC News, and during this time he appeared regularly on The Today Show, NBC Nightly News, Dateline, and MSNBC’s Ethical Edge. He has also worked extensively for Sky News in Britain covering Church and ethical issues. For both NBC and Sky News, Williams covered the final illness and death of Pope John Paul II, the 2005 papal conclave and the election of Pope Benedict XVI. To learn more about Father Williams, click here.
Click here to listen to our twelve minute discussion or read the transcript below.
Gayle Trotter: This is Gayle Trotter, and today I’m speaking with Father Thomas Williams about his book, Greater Than You Think. Thank you so much for joining me, Father Thomas.
Father Thomas Williams: It’s a pleasure. It’s a good topic to be talking about these days.
GT: Can you prove the existence of God?
TW: St. Thomas Aquinas thought you could. You can certainly give evidence that a reasonable person, if you don’t have any prejudices or biases, that you will admit that there must be an intelligence behind creation, that there must be an intelligence behind all the world that we see. The real goal of my book isn’t so much to absolutely prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God exists, but really kind of knock down the arguments that are typically used against God’s existence.
GT: And hasn’t science disproved God’s existence?
TW: Science can’t really disprove anything [about God’s existence]. You can prove something by showing it. But to say that something doesn’t exist, you can only go so far. You can say we haven’t found it yet. It is like the Russian cosmonaut is reputed to have said in the sixties when they sent their first man into space, “I didn’t see God up there.” Fine, that doesn’t mean that God doesn’t exist, the fact that you don’t see Him when you’re off in space. Right?
GT: Right.
TW: So science might say “Look, we can show you the causes for different things.” But a religious believer will always say, “But can you show me the first cause? What put everything in motion in the first place? Why there is something rather than nothing?” And science will never be able to tell us that. It goes beyond what science can show.
GT: You are speaking about faith. Some people have said that faith is a cop-out for those who can’t handle mortality. What is your opinion of that?
TW: If God doesn’t exist, if it is just a fantasy, sure. If the reason God was simply a fantasy we invented in order not to have to face reality, if it were our version of drugs or our version of whatever kind of escapism, fine. But the fact is that God does exist. So believing in God is not a cop-out. In fact, believing in God in some ways makes life more challenging, and it seems less of a cop-out because we actually have someone to give an accounting to. We know that we are going to meet our Creator one day, that we are going to have to be examined, that we are going to be judged. That’s very daunting. It seems to me more of a cop-out to say, “Ah, I don’t know if God exists. I’m going to do whatever I please.” That to me seems more like a cop-out.
GT: Do you think a person can be morally good without religion?
TW: There are morally good people, without a doubt, who don’t profess any religion. There are people who are very kind, who are very generous. But I think the question isn’t so much whether it is possible. It’s like saying when you dig a hole for a new septic tank, is it possible to dig a hole with a teaspoon. Sure. Is it feasible? Yes. Is it possible? Yes. But wouldn’t you rather do it with a backhoe? Wouldn’t you rather do it with a pick and shovel? In other words, is it absolutely possible through a superhuman effort for people to be morally good without admitting the existence of God? It is. But it is much, much easier to be good, you have a motivation to be good, you have a model of what goodness is, when you believe in God.
GT: So you think religion is a better tool for becoming a better person?
TW: I think undoubtedly it is a better tool. It doesn’t mean that every religious person is good. We know all sorts of examples, and atheists like to bring this up. They’ll say, “I know so-and-so, and so-and-so goes to church on Sundays, but so-and-so is no better than I am, or worse than I am, or cheats on his taxes” or whatever it might be. There are plenty of cases of that. But the fact is that religion gives us the wherewithal to become better if we want to. Some people say, “If I’m this bad with religion, imagine how much worse I’d be without it.” At least a religious person falls down, gets up and, especially a Christian, believes in the forgiveness of God and a second chance, and there is always a motivation there to do better.
GT: In your book, you write a little bit about the Christian view of sex. What do you think of the charge that faith encourages sexual repression?
TW: That is patently false. I think the people who say that don’t want any limitations or restrictions whatsoever on their sexual activity. The Church believes in the goodness of the human body, in the goodness of sexual relations. This is something that God created. This is not something that man made, this is something that God made. We believe it to be a holy and beautiful thing. Sure, religious people, particularly again Christians, believe that it has to be moderated, it has to be lived within a certain context of love and of commitment. There are some people who don’t want to accept that. If you look at the Bible, I think it is fascinating that when God creates Adam and Eve, the whole story in Genesis of the creation of the world and of human beings, the very first commandment He gives is, “Be fruitful and multiply.” This is something that God intends us to do. So I think it is really false and it’s unfair to say that religion encourages sexual repression. It is just the opposite.
GT: We have six children so I think we took that command to heart.
TW: [Laughs]. I think you did. I think God is not going to be able to fault you on that one.
GT: In your book, you address what some of the famous atheists claim about religion and atheists. They make the statement that atheists are more tolerant, ethical, happy, and generous. Would you agree with that assessment?
TW: The nice thing about that particular charge is that we have now enough statistical evidence to say that this is not only untrue because I say so, it is untrue because there are sociological studies that tell us. There are surveys that have been done of people first asking them their religious practice, their religious belief, and then asking them how happy they generally consider themselves to be, how happy their marriages are, their families, etc. There are studies done about a person’s religiosity and their generosity in terms of philanthropic giving to others. All these things have been studied, and religious believers come out shining compared to atheists. They give more than twice as much, just to take an example, both of their time and their money, than people who don’t believe in God or consider themselves secular, do. That’s a claim that is belied by the facts and the studies that exist.
GT: What surprised you most in writing this book?
TW: Reading through all the atheist literature can be a little bit depressing because it’s filled with anger and it’s filled with, at times — lies, honestly — things that we know are not true and very harsh claims against religion, against religious belief. The big surprise for me in reading all this was to get an insight into the heart of atheists. I think, many times, atheists are very sad and very angry people. Yes, we have to stand up to them because their ideas are harmful to others, especially the young. I think of teenagers who get infected with these ideas and fall prey to them. But at the same time, they definitely deserve our compassion and our prayers as well. Many times atheists are people who feel like they’ve been betrayed or let down by God. They are not indifferent to God. They’re actually angry at God. I think for that reason, they really do merit our prayers and our compassion.
GT: You conclude your book by encouraging the reader to examine her conscience to see if she is leading a life filled with the Holy Spirit. Did you ask this question of yourself?
TW: I ask this question of myself everyday and unfortunately, I don’t always come up roses everyday. I think it’s something that we as Christians, we have to do. We have to ask ourselves everyday. One thing is to know that right answers to questions and to be given the gift of faith. And another thing is to really be living in accordance with what we believe. And that is something that is the biggest challenge of the Christian life. It is not so much being able to recite the creed and know what we believe. That is extremely important. It is the groundwork for everything. But then, our choices have to reflect that we really believe that in practice and not just in our words. That’s where I find in my own examination of conscience that I often fall short. It is something that everyday I have to push myself on. I have to ask God to forgive me and to give me the strength to do better the next day.
GT: Does that discourage you or does that give you renewed energy for tackling the next day?
TW: It can be discouraging, but I was taught long ago that discouragement is a tool of the devil, and I really take that to heart. I think discouragement doesn’t help me. It doesn’t make God happy. I don’t think it really serves any purpose. The best thing is to humbly recognize my real failures and my real weaknesses, and know how much God loves me. He doesn’t love me because I’m a great guy. He doesn’t love me because I’ve got talents. He loves me simply because he loves me. That’s what encourages me to be better, to respond better to that love that I didn’t deserve. That for me is a source of great hope and great joy.
GT: This weekend, Pope John Paul II will be beatified, and you’re calling from Rome so you’re right in the middle of all the excitement. Would you say that his life is a good defense of the Christian faith?
TW: Pope John Paul is for sure the most amazing man I’ve ever had the privilege to meet. He was for me, wow, such an example and one of the main reasons I became a priest. Someone who had so much going for him: so talented, so great in theatre and drama — and I love theater — and a great sportsman, a skier, and a swimmer and a mountain climber, and someone so intelligent and so capable socially. And he said, “Well, I’m going to give all this to God and serve Him.” It wasn’t a last resort, I’m going to go into the seminary because I can’t do anything else. It was giving God the best of himself. For me and for many of my generation, that was incredibly moving. And to see how he lived out his life as a priest, as a bishop, and then as pope, up to the last days and his suffering was an incredible witness. And I think the good that he did was incalculable. It’s really great this weekend that we have a chance to thank him publicly, to honor him, and to thank God for giving us this great hero of the faith in our generation. We got to live at a privileged moment in history when this great man was alive.
GT: Would you say that he was a key figure in your formation as a Catholic?
TW: Absolutely. He was elected Pope when I was sixteen years old. So all my adult life, he was the Pope that I knew. I remember especially in those early years when he was so young and vigorous and traveling all over the world, he really, forgive the expression, he made it cool to be Catholic again. He made it cool to be religious. He made it something to be proud of and not to be ashamed of. He was so filled with the Holy Spirit and so much in love with Christ that he preached Him with enthusiasm. As a young person, that really motivated me. It gave me an ideal to strive after and it continues to shape my life.
GT: Is that your charge to readers of your book who are believers and looking for some spiritual succor?
TW: It is. We all need that. We all need a big push. We all need encouragement. We all need consolation. Life is tough. Today, for Catholics, I think it is particularly tough. We need a shot in the arm. We need points of light around us that give us hope. I think that John Paul II was a huge one of those. He was a shining star, and he continues to be. Now that he will be blessed, we can turn to him to his intercession, we can ask him for his help to continue guiding us. I remember I was in Rome when John Paul died and Benedict was elected. I remember just before the election, Benedict looked up to heaven, and said, “Continue to bless us, John Paul. Bless us the way you blessed us when you were our Pope here on earth. Continue to bless us from heaven.” And I’m convinced that that’s what he is doing.
GT: That’s very powerful. Thank you so much for speaking with us today, Father Thomas.
TW: It’s a great pleasure. And I’m grateful to your listeners that stuck with us, and I’m very grateful to you for this ministry of yours which is so important.
May 3rd, 2011 | 1:04 am | #1
“It’s like saying when you dig a hole for a new septic tank, is it possible to dig a hole with a teaspoon. Sure. Is it feasible? Yes. Is it possible? Yes. But wouldn’t you rather do it with a backhoe? Wouldn’t you rather do it with a pick and shovel? In other words, is it absolutely possible through a superhuman effort for people to be morally good without admitting the existence of God? It is. But it is much, much easier to be good, you have a motivation to be good, you have a model of what goodness is, when you believe in God.”
I haven’t read the book, and I’m sure that Father Williams is a brilliant man. However, I really don’t see the “Well, it’s easier to be moral if you’re Christian” is an argument that is really convincing of….well, anything. Especially after saying
“But the fact is that God does exist. So believing in God is not a cop-out. In fact, believing in God in some ways makes life more challenging, and it seems less of a cop-out because we actually have someone to give an accounting to. We know that we are going to meet our Creator one day, that we are going to have to be examined, that we are going to be judged. That’s very daunting. It seems to me more of a cop-out to say, “Ah, I don’t know if God exists. I’m going to do whatever I please.” That to me seems more like a cop-out.
Considering that for an Atheist, being “moral” could very likely mean “say, ‘Ah, I don’t know if God exists. I’m going to do whatever I please.”
If I were an atheist, being Christian and being moral would seem a lot harder. Although truths are given on a stable basis, rather than derived from human understanding, saying that “being Christian makes being moral easier” says nothing about the truth of Christianity to an atheist.
May 3rd, 2011 | 10:05 am | #2
Livingston Dell:
saying that “being Christian makes being moral easier” says nothing about the truth of Christianity to an atheist.
To say nothing of the fact that it doesn’t even address the atheist’s inability to justify ‘morality’ within his worldview. If there is no God, and we are simply here as a result of blind, unguided chance, then ‘what is’ is neither good nor bad. There is no rational basis for saying that anything is ‘good’, or ‘bad’, it simply ‘is’.
May 3rd, 2011 | 10:28 am | #3
The problem with Fr. Williams answer to the morality question is the question not the answer. He was asked “Do you think a person can be morally good without religion?”. So he talked about how belief can aid moral behavior.
However, it’s a misleading question. Everone has free will and can chose to act any way they want. Sure athiests can act morally and often do. What they can’t do is explain why they do, would want to, or what morality is.
May 3rd, 2011 | 2:54 pm | #4
Can you behave morally if you follow these three ideas? (And ideas number 2 and 3 really can be subsumed under 1/the Golden Rule.)
1. Treat others as you would like to be treated (lest others treat you badly).
2. Do not lie unless you would want to be lied to in a similar situation (this covers for little white lies.)
3. Do not take what is not yours.
No mention of God. Probably good enough to account for most questions of behavior. And I think most people try and adhere to these principles, and they probably do so without much thought any theological underpinings. Or they at least recognize these as admirable principles and feel bad when they fall short.
Why would you adhere to these rules? You expect others to behave similarly. I’ll be good to you, and I expect you to be good. I’ll tell the truth, because I don’t like being lied to. I’ll not steal because I don’t want others to take things from me.
Enlightened self-interest is not necessarily the best underpining of morality, but as far as non-theologically based models, it’s not that bad. (Yes, I know that sentence is hardly a ringing endorsement.) But I do think it is even how many believers actually operate on a practical day-to-day matter. When tempted to behave badly, I more readily think “I’d hate it if someone did that to me” rather than think about theological reasons for/against a behavior.
May 3rd, 2011 | 3:01 pm | #5
Hi Jim,
The problem comes in that the atheist has no justification for why he/she should obey any of the three ideas. His/her worldview of methodological naturalism/methodological materialsim makes those three ideas non-sensical.
May 3rd, 2011 | 3:02 pm | #6
Sorry,
Sould be ‘jm’, not ‘jim’.
May 3rd, 2011 | 5:23 pm | #7
Hi Steve Drake,
Wouldn’t those ideas work even in a materialistic worldview under the rubric of enlightened self-interest? You treat others well because you don’t want others to treat you badly. Early on in life, you learn basic self-discipline from parents, who teach you how to manage emotions and impulses. You learn from them and from others how to nagivate the world. And society’s laws, when they work well, should reflect the basic rules listed above, and they seem to do so without specific reference to God. (Indeed, I’d rather have laws that don’t mentionGod rather than having sharia laws or have to follow the strict Old Testament laws — I love bacon!)
It’s difficult, because I have two athiest friends whose behavior and values are as impressive to me as my friends from church. I struggle with the notion that athiests have no reason or worldview to define moral activities and to behave morally. I’m not sure how to flesh it out, though. I feel like I am back in Plato’s Euthyphro.
May 3rd, 2011 | 5:48 pm | #8
JM:
Wouldn’t those ideas work even in a materialistic worldview under the rubric of enlightened self-interest? You treat others well because you don’t want others to treat you badly.
Hi JM, from a pragmatic standpoint, maybe, but the question is whether the atheist can give reason for ‘why’ the pragmatic standpoint is even reasonable within his worldview. From within his worldview of methodological materialsm, or methodological naturalsim, the universe is ‘amoral’. There is no ‘right’ or ‘wrong’, only what ‘is’. They have no basis for telling you or I that we ‘should’ do this, or ‘shouldn’t’ do that. It boils down to simply ‘convention’, or ‘cultural norms’, but doesn’t answer the question of ‘why’ I or anyone else, should accept ‘cultural norms’ as unarbitrary. There is no ultimate standard in this case. What ‘ultimate standard’ do they appeal to? The Christian has an ultimate standard however, the unchanging character of God as revealed in Holy Scripture. ‘Right’ and ‘wrong’ are defined by God as the Sovereign Creator of the Universe.
Atheists do behave ‘morally’. Yet to do so they are borrowing on Judeo-Christian capital. You need to make sure you point this out to them.
May 4th, 2011 | 2:30 am | #9
Steve Drake,
“To say nothing of the fact that it doesn’t even address the atheist’s inability to justify ‘morality’ within his worldview. If there is no God, and we are simply here as a result of blind, unguided chance, then ‘what is’ is neither good nor bad. There is no rational basis for saying that anything is ‘good’, or ‘bad’, it simply ‘is’.”
Read my mind. This was a point that I was thinking about leading into, but it was late so I just decided not to.
Is it practical for a secular worldview to be moral? Yes, of course. Hence the laws of nations that derive power though secular means (such as democracy). However, I agree that there is no real stable basis for these laws that can completely separate itself from adhering to other ideas that are non-secular. For example, laws against stealing. These are laws that are enforced and brought into society by the Constitution (in the case of America), a completely secular document. However, where is the axiom for this ethical code? Is it possible that the idea for this law was derived from religious laws and applied to the secular document?
In fact, the only other possible axiom that this ethic could be derived from would be democratic consensus. Hence, “we the people”. However, if democratic consensus is the source of secular code of ethic, than it is inherently relative and subjective to cultural moods. “Right” and “wrong” are infinitely changing definitions, and therefore there is little weight to an atheist’s charge of “that’s wrong”, because saying X is Y is an ontological statement. However, in this secular worldview, there is no ontological “right” or “wrong” it is simply subjective to consensus. A great example is slavery. The only reason slavery was actually wrong (in this worldview) is because the new consensus said it was so.
JM,
“Or they at least recognize these as admirable principles and feel bad when they fall short.”
This is similar to a claim that many atheists make, which is that we are “hard-wired” to behave morally. Essentially, their argument is that we can always depend on people doing the right thing because we’ve evolved to feel that way, or at least culturally trained to be moral (Karl Marx’s economic determinism). They don’t go so far as to say people are “inherently” good, but rather that people are “generally” good (usually there is an arbitrary brightline). If they see a bum, they will give them food because people are altruistic and self-sacrificing. And often, just as your provided, they propose to golden rule as a system of morality.
But there’s an issue. The golden rule assumes self-interest, not that people are self-sacrificing. In fact, if people “recognize these as admirable principles and feel bad when they fall short.” why would the golden rule even be necessary? Simply to remind people of their already programmed morality? Even further, if people “recognize these as admirable principles and feel bad when they fall short.” then the system of “Enlightened self-interest” would ultimately fall apart, because the golden rule assume that people are obsessed with self-interest. By “obsessed” I mean to paint the picture that the golden rule can only work if we assume that people will always embrace self-interest over altruism. They only will not commit an act because they fear it happening to themselves, not because of genuine moral guidance.
So what do end up with? We have people who are actually naturally good and self-sacrificing, following a system that assumes that they will always chose self-interest over altruism. To add to it all, there is really no explanation as to why we should even follow this system. The only explanation is “You expect others to behave similarly.” . You’ll expect people to act “moral” even though the system they follow assumes that they act in self-interest. And, even on that note, what is considered “moral” is subjective to whatever the cultural mood is at the time. There’s no way to distinguish if something is actually “bad”, maybe it’s just a new movement (such as women’s and black’s rights).
Sounds pretty awful to me.
May 4th, 2011 | 6:04 pm | #10
Thanks for the comments Steve Drake and Livingston Dell – they are very helpful as I try and refine my thinking
1. What do you make of the differences between different theistic bases of morality? I would rather live in a society based on the non-theistic principles listed above than under Sharia Law. How do we reconcile the fact that most of the world believes in God (or gods) and yet there are many different ways of interpreting what is right and wrong? Is God really the basis of morality, or is my (or your) interpretation of God the basis of mine (or your) morality? How is this different from the athiestic subjectivity you mention above?
2. How do you get non-Judeo-Christian buy-in to moral principles derived from Judeo-Christian beliefs? Usually, there’s an appeal (like in secular laws) to general principles of how people get along together. Doesn’t this mean there might be some basic fundamental truths that both religiously-derived morality and non-religiously-derived morality share?
3. Re. Livingston Dell’s slavery example. There are different theologically based ways to look at slavery. Seems fine in the OT. I think Mormons were OK with it for a while. Both Greeks and Romans were fine with it. So was early America (mostly Christian). How is this different from the relativism you note in an athiest’s worldview? Aren’t there ‘evolving standards of decency’?
I keep struggling with the question – are behaviors/values good because God says they are, or are they good because they are good and God also says they are? Is there some way to have a moral foundation where, as Steve Drake mentions above, where athiests are ‘borrowing on Judeo-Christian capital’.
Thanks again, both, for your very insightful comments.
May 4th, 2011 | 6:38 pm | #11
JM:
How do we reconcile the fact that most of the world believes in God (or gods) and yet there are many different ways of interpreting what is right and wrong? Is God really the basis of morality, or is my (or your) interpretation of God the basis of mine (or your) morality? How is this different from the athiestic subjectivity you mention above?
Hi JM,
God, or gods, that is the question it seems.Our Holy Scripture is pretty clear on the fact that everyone who has ever existed ‘knows’ God, but suppresses this truth in unrighteousness (Rom. 1: 18-23). Every man, every woman, is not left with any mystery as to the knowledge of God. His/her own constitution, the answer to his/her own experience, ‘shouts’, ‘proclaims’, ‘heralds with loud trumpets’, that God exists. But according to Romans 1, sinful man, being without excuse, ‘knowing’ God did not honor Him as God, becoming ‘futile’ in their speculations, and ‘darkened’ in their foolish hearts.
The atheist ‘does’ know God. He/she refuses to acknowledge this knowledge however, and wishes to worship the creature (Mother Gaia?), instead of the Creator.
If you’ve ever studied the nature of logic, and logical reasoning in argumentation, you will quickly come to the conclusion that ‘worldviews’ and ‘presuppositions’ are a major tenet of any argumentative dialog. Even secular logicians realize that one must have an ‘ultimate standard’ by which to reason from, otherwise it is just a series of infinite regressions that never answer or give reason for the ‘justification’ of a particular position.
As I’ve said above in my posts to you, the atheist’s worldview of methodological materialism or methodological naturalism gives no justification for calling anything ‘good’ or ‘bad’. The universe is simply ‘amoral’.
If you as Christian, relying upon your presupposition that God exists, and is therefore self-contained, self-directing, self-attesting, uncaused, independent, and has chosen to reveal Himself (whereby the authenticity of His revelatory activity is internal to the revelation) in Holy Scripture, then the question of behaviors being ‘good’ because God says they are is already answered. Do you think behaviors/values exist independently of God and can therefore be acted upon and declared ‘good’ or ‘bad’ by finite people such as you and I?
May 4th, 2011 | 6:39 pm | #12
JM: “It’s difficult, because I have two athiest friends whose behavior and values are as impressive to me as my friends from church.”
Does it bother you JM that your two atheist friends will go to Hell unless they repent of being Christ-rejectors?
Have you already shared with them the Good News of Jesus Christ?
May 4th, 2011 | 9:17 pm | #13
“Re. Livingston Dell’s slavery example. There are different theologically based ways to look at slavery. Seems fine in the OT. I think Mormons were OK with it for a while. Both Greeks and Romans were fine with it. So was early America (mostly Christian). How is this different from the relativism you note in an athiest’s worldview? Aren’t there ‘evolving standards of decency’?”
JM, I can see where this would be a though that would arise. Although, there are some problems with the statement above that I would like to point out. And I don’t mean to be condescending in any way, and if I am, tell me.
First you assert “There are different theologically based ways to look at slavery.” Then you go on to say Seems fine in the OT. .
Let’s stop on that thought. After saying that there are several theological ways to look at slavery, then it would mean that the appearance of slavery being accepted in the Old Testament would simply be based on interpretation of scripture. So, rather, slavery only appears to be okay in the Bible because of certain verses, and certain interpretations. However, there are, of course, several theologians and Christians (including myself) that would argue that verses concerning slavery were instead descriptive verses rather than prescriptive (I’m trusting you know what i mean by this, if not, I’ll gladly explain in further detail). And, “slavery” in the OT and “slavery” in America were two very different things. “Slavery” in the OT and Hebrew culture was more like indentured servitude. If someone owed you a debt, and they failed to pay it off, they became your servant until the debt was paid. And, in fact, they were only temporarily your servant because they were relieved of all debt on the year of Jubilee (every 7 years).
This of course, contrasted with American slavery that was forced by foreign people. Many of the slaves used in America were captured by rival tribes and sold PERMANENTLY. They were actually property, considered sub-human because of their skin color. And if they produced offspring, they were also property. More like a rabbit than a human. However, in Hebrew culture, you had to treat your servants with respect and humanely. Anyone could become a slave, it was not a matter of race or ethnicity, it was because you owed a debt. So, a comparison to slavery in the OT and slavery on America would be in vain.
On to the point about theologically different ways of looking at slavery (And yes, LDS, for a long time, believed in slavery and radical racism). There have obviously been shifting views about every social issue within Christianity. And all of it (or at least most) was “biblically supported”. However, every claim and view about slavery was claimed to be “truth”. When someone holds a view about the Bible, you believe that it is ontologically and universally true. This contrasts with athiestic relativity because these “truths” are not ontologically and universally “true” they are simply subjective feelings. Biblical interpretations can be “wrong” and there is an ultimate standard of truth that they must adhere to. Someone can claim that stealing is right, and call it a Christian interpretation of the Bible. But, this would be a wrong interpretation because there is a set, objective universe of truths that exist regardless of our interpretations of them.
So, I would argue that Christians who believe that slavery is acceptable are ontologically wrong about that conclusion, and that this interpretations has always been wrong.
An Atheist arguing against past slavery can only argue that slavery is NOW “wrong”, not that it has always been “wrong” (working from the democratic secular model explained earlier). It is only wrong because we NOW feel that it is. But if an Atheist were to travel to the past, there is no argument he could make that could effectively show to a slave owner why slavery is wrong, because it is the consensus of that society that it is right.
So in theology, it is not “relativity” it is changing interpretations of truth and these all argue for an ontological position that adheres to truth universally .
1. “I would rather live in a society based on the non-theistic principles listed above than under Sharia Law . Agreed. I am not an advocate for a theocracy of any kind. The only theocracy that I believe was ever valid ended with Israel. Pragmatically, we know that it works to have a secular democracy. Everyone can agree to that (I think). This is really the only valid argument that an Atheist can make. “Doing X causes Y, which is pragmatically inefficient”. But then of course, why is efficiency a good thing? It’s infinitely regressive, as Steve pointed out. Secular government and laws work, on a pragmatic basis. But, eventually, there is no actual basis for government to ULTIMATELY decide what is “right” and “wrong” without appealing to religion. The government achieves it’s power from the people. Where do the people gain their moral guidance? Often religion. This is why religious right is so essential for a secular government to exist and operate efficiently. Government’s have never been able to do a good job of explaining complex concepts of morality and philosophy, but religions do. Two social contracts that synergize to help a stable society exist.
2. Doesn’t this mean there might be some basic fundamental truths that both religiously-derived morality and non-religiously-derived morality share . All morality and feelings of morality (true morality that is) is derived from divine transcendence. Yes, the secular American government has law against stealing that are consistent with the Biblical laws against stealing (except taxes =D), and people follow these laws. But can justification for these laws be axiomatically explained using a purely secular worldview? I would argue “no”, because there is no secular ability to establish an ontological, non-relative, right from wrong.
May 5th, 2011 | 12:10 am | #14
Livingston Dell and Steve Drake,
Many many thanks for your thoughtful responses. I cannot tell you how helpful these are to me.
May 5th, 2011 | 5:18 am | #15
The question, of morality’s origin, and its justification, has intrigued, and worried, many thinking people, I would assume. Must one believe in a God (or some equivalent supernatural source), to be moral? Clearly, this question, is easily answered, empirically: we have a large number of atheists, and agnostics, who, not only are very moral people, but in some, or even many cases, are more moral than religious people.
The purely philosophical question, is, what justifies moral belief? There are many atheists, as well as believers, of various gradations, who believe that, morality, is a form of a priori reasoning, and this reasoning, provides its justification, analogous to mathematical claims. The latter, don’t need anything outside themselves, to justify their truth claims, the evidence, is completely contained, in their axioms, and derived conclusions. And, we don’t (except for maybe Descartes) ever hear of the need for God’s existence, or to believe in Him, for us to believe in math.
Motivation, and justification, need to be distinguished: am I more motivated, to be moral, if I believe in God, and if so, why? Can morality be justified on purely logical grounds, and if so, what does God have to do with it?
May 5th, 2011 | 5:21 am | #16
Also, if morality can be justified entirely by reasoning, wouldn’t this be motivation enough, to behave morally?
May 5th, 2011 | 8:19 am | #17
Bret Lythgoe:
Must one believe in a God (or some equivalent supernatural source), to be moral? Clearly, this question, is easily answered, empirically: we have a large number of atheists, and agnostics, who, not only are very moral people, but in some, or even many cases, are more moral than religious people.
Dear Bret, this is not the question at hand. No one is in disagreement that atheist’s can and do behave morally. The question at hand is:
What justification do they have within their worldview of methodological naturalism or methodological materialism for ‘why’ they should behave morally, or for the ‘origin’ of morality in the first place? I think you realize this because you then go on to ask about the philosophical question. So no more telling us that atheists and agnostics behave morally, we are all agreed that they do. Focus on your next question only which is:
Bret Lythgoe:
The purely philosophical question, is, what justifies moral belief? There are many atheists, as well as believers, of various gradations, who believe that, morality, is a form of a priori reasoning, and this reasoning, provides its justification, analogous to mathematical claims.
If morality is a form of a priori reasoning for the atheist, then the next question would be ‘what justification within the naturalistic or materialistic worldview can you give for reason? For rational thought? Rational reasoning involves the use of the laws of logic. But ‘why’ are there laws of logic or any laws of reasoning, in a universe solely contingent upon blind, unguided chance?
So to say that some atheists or agnostics believe morality is a form of a priori reasoning is just to push the question back again in infinite regression. For now they have to explain the reason for ‘reason’ and ‘laws of logic’ within a methodological naturalistic worldview.
Bret Lythgoe:
Also, if morality can be justified entirely by reasoning, wouldn’t this be motivation enough, to behave morally?
See my answers above. Morality ‘cannot’ be justified by appealing to reason within a methodological naturalistic or materialistic worldview.
May 5th, 2011 | 8:39 am | #18
Dear JM,
You’re quite welcome, my friend. May we continue to sanctify Christ as Lord in our hearts, and may the LORD God continue to use you in defense of the faith, to everyone who asks you to give an account for the hope that is in you, yet with gentleness and reverence (1 Pet. 3:15).
May 5th, 2011 | 2:52 pm | #19
Dear JM,
Stay tuned. This discussion might get interesting once others weigh in tonight.
May 6th, 2011 | 3:12 am | #20
Dear Steve, thanks for your good comments. Although I believe in God, and obviously consider Theism, to be a better worldview, I’m not so sure it’s such a clear cut case that, Theism, better explains morality, than Atheism, does.
I concur with jm, when he says that he feels he’s back in Plato’s Euthyphro. Where does morality arise? Does God follow a moral code, or does He create a moral code? I believe the latter, but there are problems.
That is, 2+2=4, is an equation that, will never cease to exist. But does it makes sense to argue,at one point, it didn’t exist? Perhaps, if God created mathematics. If murdering the innocent is wrong, because God, at one point, made it wrong, then at one point, before God made it wrong, it wasn’t wrong? This seems strange. This cannot be how God created math and morality, in time. God also created time and space. I think that, these may be examples of the great eighteenth century thinker, Kant’s “antinomies”, where are ability to know certain things, transcends our cognitive capacities.
But, either God made all things, including morality, which means that, they’re dependent on God, for their existence, or moral propositions, have always existed. If the latter, why have God? Which is where many atheists are coming from. It seems superfluous, to bring in a supernatural being, to explain morality, if we can say that, math, logic, and morals, always existed.
But if God made morals, it’s conceivable that, since God caused their existence, He could cause them not to exist, which seems odd.
The atheist could argue that we just don’t know where morals, math, and logic, come from. But he could argue that, of course they exist, because we use them all the time.
May 6th, 2011 | 3:17 am | #21
Steve, if the atheist, can come up with moral reasoning that, relies ultimately, on self evident axioms, these self evident axioms, would be the justification for moral behavior. One could argue that, the very existence of these self evident axioms, points to a God ( I would argue this), but the atheist, could use the principle of parsimony, and say, I need to go no further, in explaining morality, because the self evident axioms have done the job.
May 6th, 2011 | 3:49 am | #22
http://www.nybooks.com/articles/archives/2011/may/12/science-right-and-wrong/ The above, is an excellent review, of Sam Harris’s latest book, where he attempts to provide a scientific, justification, for morals. H. Allen Orr, shows where Harris goes wrong here.
May 6th, 2011 | 5:18 am | #23
It does indeed seem odd that, in a universe (from the atheistic perspective) that, caused itself, or always existed, morality would exist as well. And, I consider it unpersuasive, to on the one hand, as Sam Harris argued (I think it was either in his “LETTER TO A CHRISTIAN NATION”, or his review of Francis Collin’s 2006 book, “THE LANGUANGE OF GOD: A SCIENTIST PRESENTS EVIDENCE FOR BELIEF, I can’t remember which) that, we cannot know the metaphysics of reality, enough to understand why the universe exists, to paraphrase him. But then on the other hand, argue so dogmatically against God’s existence. The former seems to imply agnosticism. If we cannot be sure of the metaphysics, of reality, what implications does this have, for his proposed “science of morality”? Of course, he could say, we can still proceed, with finding the science, behind morality, if it exists, without knowing the metaphysics of why the universe exists. Or, would an atheistic or agnostic world view, color the objectivity, of the scientists, doing the investigations, here? Intersting questions, and one could make a case, either way.
As Orr points out, in his review of Harris’s latest book, there’s a clear distinction between a science and a philosophy, of morality, and Harris has not successfully produced a science of morality.
May 6th, 2011 | 11:29 am | #24
Dear Bret,
Can we set some ground rules here? It looks like this could be another of our long discourses. One post at a time, dear brother. I realize you have a lot to say, but can you respond one post at a time, so that we can go back and forth one post at a time, and try to answer the questions raised within that ‘one’ post? I will try to answer your questions or comments, requoting them in my post, if I can answer them one or two at a time, and can you do the same? To my one post above (#17), you have posted four posts (#20, 21, 22 & 23). I get the feeling you’re trying to overwhelm with words, as if this alone will silence your critics, but it is hardly conducive to dialog and argumentation where we are analyzing each other’s presuppositions, premises and conclusions, in the manner of logical thinking and warranted or unwarranted truth claims. Does this sound reasonable?
I’m going to ignore your posts #21, #22, and #23 for the moment, and just respond to your post #20. If you wish to include information you have stated in those posts, in response to ‘my’ post to your #20 post, then that is fine, but let’s take it slooowww and easy, and see if we can’t take it one or two questions or comments at a time.
So, with that, to your post #20:
Bret Lythgoe:
I’m not so sure it’s such a clear cut case that, Theism, better explains morality, than Atheism, does.
and:
Where does morality arise? Does God follow a moral code, or does He create a moral code? I believe the latter, but there are problems.
It’s not a matter of one better explaining morality than the other, it’s that atheism can’t supply justification for even using the words ‘good’ and ‘bad’ within it’s system. These are non-sensical words within an impersonal, amoral, and chance begotten universe. They don’t come out of the ether on their own, for if the universe is simply matter, then where do ‘immaterial’ concepts come from?
‘Does God follow a moral code, or does He create a moral code? Neither. He ‘is’ the moral code. It is His character that ‘is’ the standard for morality. Do you see the distinction here?
That is, 2+2=4, is an equation that, will never cease to exist. But does it makes sense to argue,at one point, it didn’t exist?
Is 2+2=4 a property of matter, Bret? The atheist is confined to ‘matter’, as all there is, within the definition of his own materialistic system. Math is built on the laws of logic, but where do the laws of logic come from in a materialistic system?
So then the rest of your comments in post#20 are based on God creating morality, which as I have stated above is faulty reasoning. God didn’t ‘create’ morality. His character ‘is’ the standard for right and wrong, and He has revealed that standard to us in Scripture.
May 7th, 2011 | 2:29 am | #25
Dear Steve, thanks for your comments. Sorry about bringing the additional material in. That is better left, for another time.
I do think you make a good point about the atheist, being inconsistent. If materialism is true, and this notion, is what most atheists accept, vis a vis the metaphysics, of reality, it does seem strange that they could, consistently, believe in moral truths, or any truths, since truth, is immaterial.
You say God didn’t create morality. Could you clarify, what you mean? Since all of creation, is ultimately, dependent on God, how would morality escape His creation?
That is, all reality, whether material or immaterial, does not exist on its own steam, as it were. All of reality, is a manifestation of God’s creative power. Moral concepts, are immaterial. Therefore, they’re created by God.
If moral concepts are not created by God, either they have always existed, and God is merely adhering to these concepts, because God is good, and follows good morals, or morals are “social constructions” created by humans, as mere pragmatic devices, for humans to deal effectively, in a social context.
May 7th, 2011 | 2:43 am | #26
Steve are you saying that, God’s traits, His morality, are inextricably bound, to Himself? That is, is God’s goodness, etc., interwoven within Him, and part, of the essence, of what makes Him God? If so, I agree.
But, and please correct me, if I’m misinterpreting you, here, you seem to be saying that, morality itself, is part of the essence of God. This sounds plausible (Aquinas and others, I think, had a similar view), but there could be problems.
Would this entail, in your view that, God is “mathematical” or “logical”, in the sense that these properties, are inextricably bound to His nature?
I think a better approach is, God created all of reality, both material, and immaterial aspects. Naturally, these material and immaterial properties, will “imitate” or “resemble” their creator, but they’re distinct, from Him. Otherwise, isn’t there a danger of pantheism, arising here?
May 7th, 2011 | 2:49 am | #27
A better approach, in my view, is, God’s goodness, or morality, is part of His nature. But, He creates moral codes, for humans, that resemble, but are distinct, from His goodness essence, otherwise, our moral codes would have to be identical to God’s moral outlook, if this makes sense? In other words, He creates a moral code, specifically for humans, which is objective, for humans, but would be incomplete for angels, or himself. If all of morality is identical with His Goodness, how would we deliniate what is for us, verses what’s Goodness in itself?
May 7th, 2011 | 9:22 am | #28
Bret Lythgoe:
You say God didn’t create morality. Could you clarify, what you mean? Since all of creation, is ultimately, dependent on God, how would morality escape His creation?
Morality was not created ‘ex nihilo’ and before this didn’t exist. It is rooted in God’s character. Since God has always existed, His righteous, holy, and good character have always existed. It is not something outside of God to which God Himself must measure up, nor is it due to the sovereign determination of God (for then it could be argued that He could change notions of ‘good’). The reason the ‘law’ (moral code) is ‘good’ is because it reflects God’s own internal character, and is that which is revealed objectively to us in His Word. As Christians, we then have justified warrant for morality. It flows out of the nature of God’s character, of who God “is”. It is consistent within our ‘system’, or ‘worldview’.
The atheist cannot be consistent, does not have justified warrant, within his ‘system’ of methodological naturalism or materialism. What does the atheist mean by ‘good’, or by what ‘standard‘ does he determine what counts as ‘good’ (so that ‘evil’ is accordingly defined or identified)? What are the presuppositions in terms of which the atheist makes any moral judgments whatsoever? He must first be able to show that his judgments about the existence of ‘good’ or ‘evil’ are meaningful—which is precisely what his materialistic and naturalistic worldview is unable to do. When he attempts to be moral in word or action, he is ‘borrowing’ from the Christian worldview; his own worldview provides no justified warrant.
Bret Lythgoe:
If moral concepts are not created by God, either they have always existed, and God is merely adhering to these concepts, because God is good, and follows good morals, or morals are “social constructions” created by humans, as mere pragmatic devices, for humans to deal effectively, in a social context.
God’s righteous, holy, and good character have always existed. It is His character that are the standard for morals. God doesn’t need to follow good morals, or to ‘adhere’ to these concepts, He ‘is’ these concepts. They are part and parcel of who He ‘is’.
As Christians we have an absolute, unchanging, holy God who has revealed an absolute, unchanging, holy law to provide an absolute, unchanging, holy foundation for our ethical outlook and our moral conduct. The materialistic/naturalistic atheistic system cannot provide this.
May 7th, 2011 | 9:56 am | #29
Bret Lythgoe:
Would this entail, in your view that, God is “mathematical” or “logical”, in the sense that these properties, are inextricably bound to His nature?
Yes, mathematics and logic are part of who God is. Wasn’t it Kepler who said that the universe is essentially ‘geometry’? If math and logic are not part of who God is, then how do you think He could have used them to ‘create’ a ‘geometrical’ universe? Did they exist outside of who God is and He just ‘used’ them to create? That would then make them something greater than God, wouldn’t it?
Bret Lythgoe:
Naturally, these material and immaterial properties, will “imitate” or “resemble” their creator, but they’re distinct, from Him. Otherwise, isn’t there a danger of pantheism, arising here?
No, I don’t think there’s a danger of pantheism. They come out of the mind of God, and are infused into His Creation. Maybe we’re confusing the definition of pantheism?
May 7th, 2011 | 10:09 pm | #30
Steve, I really don’t disagree with what you wrote, in comments 28. I would say, however, that God’s moral essence, and what He requires of us, can be two distinct things. Consider the example of Abraham, being required to sacrifice, his son Issac. Normally, it’s morally abhorrent, to kill innocent humans. But God can supersede this, implying that, He has, as part of His moral essence, a difference, from what He commands of humans.
So, I gree with you that, God has a moral essence, that’s inextricably part of Himself, what makes Him God. Moral Goodness, is essentially what God is. However, this Moral Goodness, is not necessarily transmitted to humans, in the sense that humans must always faithfully be as Good as God. God has created a moral system, for humans, which is applicable for humans. Thus, we could not, legitimately, decide to sacrifice another human. For us, killing innocents, is always wrong. For
God, not always, because His moral essence, always guides His behavior, and He can supersede this, for a greater moral purpose.
Pantheism, is the notion that, there’s no distinction, between God, and His creation. Within mainstream Christianity, there has always been a clear distinction, between God, and His creation. When you talk about God not creating morality, it seemed like, perhaps, you were not making a proper distinction, between God, and His creation, by saying Morality, is part of God. However, you have clarified your views, and I don’t think you’re advocating pantheism.
May 7th, 2011 | 10:30 pm | #31
To clarify: when God has a moral system for humans, that could be different from His moral essence, this in no way, implies relativism, with respect to the moral system for humans. It’s a moral system that, fits with humans traits, and capacities. And, it reflects God’s moral essence, but not exactly, and is tailored to our specific capacities, and needs.
The corollary, of this is, God can allow earthquakes, tornadoes, etc., that kill people, without Him being morally culpable. Whereas, if humans did something, comparable, such as not helping a person who’s a victim of an earthquake, we would be morally culpable. This is the case, because God created a seperate moral system, for humans, that reflected, partially, His moral essence, but not completely, or even close.
this seems mysterious, and indeed it is. We don’t know, what constitutes all of God’s moral essence. It may transcend our fragile, cognitive capacities. I agree with Aquinas, when he asserted that, we know more of what God is NOT than what He IS.
I don’t really know, if we have much, if any disagreements, here, on this issue, once we clarify our views.
May 8th, 2011 | 1:53 am | #32
Is anyone here really convinced that the Euthyphro dilemma is a good argument?
May 8th, 2011 | 6:22 am | #33
It was a good argument with respect to the Greek gods. That was a long time ago.
May 8th, 2011 | 8:50 am | #34
Dear Bret,
Let’s get back to the original argument concerning the atheist and morality. Can you see that the atheist cannot provide warrant for ‘morality’ within his worldview, within his ‘system’? Within the methodological naturalistic and materialistic philosophical ‘system’, his ‘reasons’ for the origin of morality, of why the concepts of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ are meaningful, are reduced to absurdity?
Thanks Nikolai and Tom for your comments concerning Euthyphro. The dilemma might serve as a good topic for one of your posts ‘Tom’?
May 8th, 2011 | 5:10 pm | #35
My thing with the dilemma (false as it is) behind the Euthyphro argument is that if both prongs are problematic, and the dilemma is as damning as some atheists make it out to be, it’s just as problematic, if not moreso, for atheists. Are things good because humans love them or do humans love them because they are good?
May 8th, 2011 | 6:17 pm | #36
Steve, I think the argument, you provided, is a good one: since the atheist is a materialist, and truth is immaterial (it’s a Universal, it transcends particular forms of matter that it may be interwoven with; my brain, which is made of matter, knows that, say, loving one’s neighbor is moral, but you, Steve, know this too, as does Martha, down the street, Bill in England, John, who lived in 1320, and so forth) it seems inconsistent, for an atheist, to believe in moral truth.
Perhaps some atheists could join the discussion, to provide some insight that we may be missing?
May 9th, 2011 | 9:17 am | #37
Nikolai,
Yes, the logical fallacy of bifurcation. Presenting only two options (two horns?) when a third option should also be considered. Plato should have realized this, but as a secularist (did Plato ever admit or write that he was a God-fearer?), he was futile in his thinking here, and darkened in his understanding (Eph. 4:17-18).
May 9th, 2011 | 12:48 pm | #38
Bret Lythgoe:
loving one’s neighbor is moral, but you, Steve, know this too, as does Martha, down the street, Bill in England, John, who lived in 1320, and so forth)
C.S. Lewis in Mere Christianity put it beautifully when he said that we all have a sense of ‘ought’ and ‘ought not’. The argument is that we are imbued with a moral code from birth, not something that is ‘culturally’ conditioned. But why is this the case? Our Judeo-Christian Scriptures claim that this is because we are made in the image of God, and that moral concepts flow out of God’s character and are embedded in us as made in His image. There is a consistency here within our ‘system’.
The atheist, being also made in the image of God, loves his wife, his kids, his dog, tries to do ‘good’ by his neighbors, ‘cares’ about the environment, ‘grieves’ at a friend’s funeral, stops at a red light, pays his taxes, and seeks to live by this ought and ought not that Lewis speaks about, but from within his ‘system’ of blind, impersonal, unguided chance, he has no ‘warrant’ for behaving in this manner.
May 9th, 2011 | 12:52 pm | #39
Steve,
I’m not convinced Plato was a secularist.
May 9th, 2011 | 1:13 pm | #40
Hi Nikolai,
Is there anything in his writings that indicate he worshipped the ‘Jehovah Elohim’ of Judaism? Followed the ‘Torah’? Gave credence to the ‘Neviim’. What is it about his writings that would indicate he was ‘not’ a secularist?
May 9th, 2011 | 8:07 pm | #41
Plato believed in what he called “The God.” While that isn’t tantamount to affirming any Abrahamic god, he is still a theist.
May 9th, 2011 | 8:14 pm | #42
Hi Nikolai,
Hmmm, Plato’s ‘God’ was the sum total of the pantheon of Greek gods as the total. This is hardly the ‘Jehovah Elohim’ of Jewish scripture.
May 9th, 2011 | 9:21 pm | #43
Hi Nikolai,
Plato, as a humanist, secular philosopher, could understand and contemplate the nature of ‘piety’, being created in the image of God, but could not ‘ground’ his concept of ‘piety’ or ‘morals’ in an ultimate standard. His ‘search’ was left vacuous, and thus unable to recognize the logical fallacy in the Euthyphro dilemma.
May 10th, 2011 | 3:31 am | #44
Steve Drake,
“Is there anything in his writings that indicate he worshipped the ‘Jehovah Elohim’ of Judaism? Followed the ‘Torah’? Gave credence to the ‘Neviim’. What is it about his writings that would indicate he was ‘not’ a secularist?”
While it is true that Plato did not worship the Hebrew Jehovah, he did in fact believe in some sort of abstract divine guidance. In both the ‘Republic’ and the ‘Timaeus’, he alludes to some form of divinity or ‘gods’ (or at least the necessity of their existence).
I would argue that Plato, although not a believer of the God of Abraham, did believe in some form of divinity.
“Hmmm, Plato’s ‘God’ was the sum total of the pantheon of Greek gods as the total. This is hardly the ‘Jehovah Elohim’ of Jewish scripture.”
Maybe I missed the meeting, but as I recall, Theist does not mean one must worship Jehovah. The Greeks and Romans were polytheists, but theists nonetheless. Additionally, I don’t think anyone here is arguing that Plato was a Hebrew. In fact Nikolai even said, “While that isn’t tantamount to affirming any Abrahamic god, he is still a theist.. YES, we know he didn’t worship God, but I think there is more evidence that can be found that he is a theist of some kind rather than a secularist.
May 10th, 2011 | 3:55 am | #45
Steve,
Like a lot of Plato’s dialogues, there is no answer at the end. Only towards dialogues like Phaedo does Plato come outright and state his opinion. The point of Euthyphro was not to state Plato’s belief in the gods (or the god), but rather to criticize Euthyphro’s conception of piety. In fact, the Euthyphro dialogue was not about the existence of any sort of god, but rather of the conception of piety.
Plato was definitely not a “secular humanist” philosopher. Not just in that such a term is an anachronism, but rather that his view of the forms is counter to secular humanism. Humanism would deny such transcendent models like the forms. Plato’s doctrine of recollection is also definitely not a secular humanist idea.
May 10th, 2011 | 8:46 am | #46
Hi Nikolai and Livingston,
Thanks guys. I guess what I mean by ‘secularist’, or ‘secular humanist’ is not the right term and if you want to say that he was a ‘theist’ of some kind because he believed in the ‘forms’ and sought after a universal to tie things together, or believed in the ‘gods’, then you’re right, the words ‘secular’ and ‘humanist’ should be avoided.
What I should have said in my post #37 above was that as a ‘polytheist’, he couldn’t ‘ground’ his concept of ‘piety’ properly because he didn’t ground it in an absolute, unchanging, Sovereign God (capital ‘G”, singular not plural). He was just as responsible as you or I for a ‘knowledge’ of this absolute, unchanging, Sovereign God (Rom. 1:19-20), and we might even say that he wrote and sought more than others, or truly wrestled in his thinking about these matters, but in the end, based on his writings, ‘for even though he knew God, did not honor Him as God, or give thanks, becoming futile in his thinking and darkened in his foolish heart’ (Rom. 1: 21).
I appreciate your correction.
Links
Blogs
Find Us
Contact