≡ Menu

Part 9 Problems with life coming from non-life?

Is Darwinian Evolution a Fact?

Macroevolution has two pillars that both have to be in place in order for it to be true.  If either one is wrong the theory fails.  One pillar is life has to somehow come from non-life and secondly, the fossil record has to be loaded with transitional fossils.  Let’s look at the first problem with macroevolution.

If Darwinian Evolution is a fact then why is there no evidence for life coming from non-life?

According to Darwinian Evolution there was a time when there was no life and suddenly without any help life came into existence.  How is this possible?  How does living stuff come from dead stuff?  The answer…no one knows!  NO ONE!  Over 45 years of intensive research has virtually failed to show any tangible results.

Many scientists theorize there had to be an early primordial soup that allowed for life to begin.  In 1953 Miller-Urey experimental evidence for primordial soup was cited when they demonstrated elementary amino acids (which are building blocks for protein) could be formed in a lab with an atmosphere resembling primordial earth.  However, the atmosphere in the Miller-Urey experiments proved to be incorrect.  The true early atmosphere destroyed life instead of allowing it to develop.  Similar experiments have not been successful and/or utilized so much operator interference that their validity is questioned.  Astrophysicist Sir Fred Hoyle has said:  “If there were some deep principle that drove organic systems toward living systems, the operation of the principle should easily be demonstrable in a test tube in half a morning….No such demonstration has ever been given. Nothing happens…except the eventual production of a tarry sludge[1].”   Atheist Richard Dawkins states: “The probability of life having arisen by chance is as vanishingly small as the likelihood of a Jumbo Jet having being constructed by a hurricane sweeping through a scrap yard[2].”

In fact the situation is so bleak that in 1999 at the San Diego Origin of Life conference, the group from NASA attracted the most attention.  Why you ask?  They proposed life was started here by aliens who migrated to earth from another planet.  The reason for looking to outer space was because there are no other good explanations for life coming from non-life.  Francis Crick, one of the scientists who discovered DNA, is currently leading the way in searching for life in outer space, once wrote, “The origin of life appears to be almost a miracle, so many are the conditions which would have had to be satisfied to get it going.”[3] Instead actually saying how life began was a true miracle, one from God, he now looks to outer space; giving credit to little green men in space suits.

The problem with looking for life on other planets is answering the question, how did life come from non-life on that planet?  The problem is simply transferred millions of miles away.  Currently we have zero evidence for life on another planet.

So what is the evidence for life coming from dead stuff?  It doesn’t exist!  The efforts to jam chemicals together in a lab by scientists has only resulted in scant amounts of amino acids and are nowhere close to creating life from non-life.  And to think, these failed experiments are done in a lab by intelligent designers.  The overwhelming evidence for life from non-life points to an uncreated intelligent designer.

Go to part 10 here

[1] Sir Fred Hoyle and Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1981), 24.

[2] Kenan Malik reviews The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml ?xml=/arts/2006/10/08/bodaw01.xml

[3] “In the Beginning,” Scientific American, Feb. 1991, 125.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 7 Is Darwinian Evolution a fact?

Is Darwinian Evolution a Fact?

As a public school teacher I asked one of the science teachers at my school if he wanted to discuss the issue of evolution versus creation.  He accepted the invitation and we began meeting 2-3 days a week in his room during lunch.  John was athletic, intelligent, and articulate.  He believed God was a myth and was a strong advocate for evolution.

We met for over a year, discussing God, the Bible, science, society, family, and other issues of importance.  After 5 months of discussion John looked me square in the eyes and said something like this, “After reading your materials and the discussions we’ve had I am more convinced than ever that Christianity is false.”  He didn’t seem to want to give any ground when confronted by my evidence.  He strongly believed Darwinian Evolution was more than a theory.

Now officially evolution is a theory.  However, if you don’t believe it is a fact, many scientists deem something is wrong with you. In fact Richard Dawkins, an Oxford zoologist, said this, “It is absolutely safe to say that, if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, the person is ignorant, stupid or insane or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that.[1]

The October 9th 2006 issue of Time Magazine the front page article was entitled, “How We Became Human:  Chimps and humans share almost 99% of their DNA.  New discoveries reveal how we can be so alike—and yet so different.”  In the main article there is a picture of an evolutionary tree; the trunk of the tree, Charles Darwin said, represents the theory that all life has a common ancestor and the branches represent the different directions life has evolved; as far as the evolution of humans, the lower branch showing Orangutans, then Gorillas, onto a pigmy chimp branch, over to chimpanzees, and finally a separate branch for modern humans.

The article states, “Along the way they [Paleontologists] learned, among other things, that Charles Darwin the individual responsible for the theory of evolution, even with next to no data, was close to being right in his intuition that apes and humans are descended from a single common ancestor[2].

Are monkeys our next of kin?  Are our relatives locked up in the Escondido Wild Animal Park?  Is Darwinian Evolution a theory or a fact?  How do we defend what we say with our non-Christian friends?  What does the Bible say about this issue?

My desire is to equip and encourage you concerning this important cultural issue.  I believe we have the goods; the evidence is on our side and we just need to learn to present the truth in a loving and winsome fashion.  Since much of society has discounted the Bible we have to be able to discuss this issue in the public square without it.  However I will show how accurate the Bible is concerning how life began.

Either God is creator of all life or all life is the result of mindless random processes of mutations and natural selection that never had us in mind.  We are either products of chance with no ultimate purpose or created by God for a purpose.  Is Darwinian Evolution fact?  What does the evidence tell us?

Go to part 8

[1] Koukl, Greg, “Why I am not an Evolutionist” Lecture notes p.7, Stand to Reason, 1999

[2] Limonick, Michael; Dorfman, Andrea, “What Makes Us Different,” Time Magazine p. 46, 10/09/06

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 5 Age of the earth/universe – young earth & old earth

Next I would like to move to an inside the church discussion.

II. How Old is the Universe

For scientists this is not a controversial issue.  Today’s best estimate is the universe is 14.6 billion years old and the earth is 4.5 billion years old.  Physicists and astronomers are the ones that have arrived at those ages.

However, there is great disagreement inside the Christian Church as to how old the universe is.  There are followers of Christ that believe the universe is 6,000 years old all the way to others believing the universe is 14.6 billion years old.  So how do you reconcile these huge differences?

The first step is to acknowledge in Christianity there are open handed and close fisted issues.  Close fisted issues are those whereby to deny them is to deny Christianity.  They are also called essential doctrines or core doctrines.  An example would be the Trinity; if you deny the Trinity then you deny the God of the Bible.  You can call yourself anything you want but you cannot call yourself a Christian.  Another close fisted or core doctrine is the resurrection.  You must believe Jesus rose bodily from the dead or you are not a Christian.

An open handed doctrine is one that there can be disagreement or should we say differences in interpretation.  A few open handed examples are: theories of salvation such as Calvinism versus Arminianism or end time beliefs or whether supernatural sign gifts are for today.  Christians can disagree on all of these and still be brothers in the Lord.

The age of the universe/earth is an open handed belief.  Being an open handed belief doesn’t mean it’s not important; it just means we can agree to disagree on certain issues.  Saint Augustine once penned, “In essentials unity, in non-essentials liberty, and in all things charity.”

This can be an emotional issue.  I have found some people hold strongly to their view and get angry if you disagree.  For some young earth believers they think holding a view of billions of years is an attack on the Bible and giving in to Darwinian Evolution.  I can assure you six of the seven views take the Bible seriously and believe they are interpreting Genesis 1 the way the author intended.  Only one view supports Darwinian Evolution, theistic evolution.  I believe that particular view has major problems.  I strongly believe the Bible to be God’s Word and think the best interpretation of Genesis 1 and the rest of the Bible is the old earth view.

I will give you 7 different ways of interpreting Genesis 1.  All of them have strengths and all have weaknesses.  This is why there is so much disagreement among Christians on this issue.  I will highlight of few of them.

  1. The Young Earth Interpretation – Often called the twenty-four-hour view, the Calendar-Day view, the young earth perspective may be described very simply. It accepts the first chapter of Genesis as historical and chronological in character and takes the creation week as consisting of six twenty-four-hour days, followed by a twenty-four-hour Sabbath. Since Adam and Eve were created as mature adults, so the rest of creation came forth from its Maker. The Garden included full-grown trees and animals, which Adam named. Those holding this view believe this is the normal understanding of the creation account and that this has been the most commonly held understanding of this account both in Jewish and Christian history.
  2. The Old Earth Interpretation – Also called the day-Age view, the old earth view says the six days of the are understood in the same sense as “in that day” of Isaiah 11:10-11—in other words, as periods of indefinite length and not of 24 hours duration. The six days are taken as sequential but as overlapping and perhaps merging into one another. According to this view, the Genesis 1 creation week describes events from the point of view of the earth, which is being prepared as the habitation for man. In this context, the explanation of day four is that the sun only became visible on that day, as atmospheric conditions allowed the previous alternation of light and darkness to be perceived as coming from the previously created sun and other heavenly bodies. The Day-Age construct preserves the general sequence of events as portrayed in the text and is not merely a response to Charles Darwin and evolutionary science. From ancient times there was recognition among Bible scholars that the word “day” literally could mean an extended period of time.

Go to part 6 here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 4 What creation teaches us about God

II. What do we learn about God from His Creation?

When we hear a song we can learn something about the composer or when we see a painting we can learn about the artist.  When God creates the universe we can learn something about Him.  Here are just some the things we learn about our God from creation.

  • God is the Only God: Genesis 1:1 does not say, “In the beginning gods created the heavens and the earth.”  The opening line says God created.  Isaiah 45:18 (NASB) “For thus says the Lord, who created the heavens (He is the God who formed the earth and made it, He established it and did not create it a waste place, But formed it to be inhabited), ‘I am the Lord, and there is none else.’”
  • God is Trinitarian: Genesis 1:26 (NASB) “Then God said, ‘Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness…’” An example of one God using the words “us” and “our” in reference to Himself.  We believe in one God subsisting in 3 persons, Father, Son and Holy Spirit; each is co-eternal and co-equal.  Each of the persons of the Trinity was involved in creation.  The Father created (Ps. 19:1, Acts 17:28; 1 Cor. 8:6), the Son created (John 1:1-3; Col. 1:16, 17), and the Spirit created (Gen. 1:2).
  • God is the Uncreated Creator: God is eternal and the universe is not.  Universe was created and God was not.
  • God is Transcendent: God is separate from His creation.  Some religions, like Pantheism, believe God is all and all is God.  They believe God is the chair, earth, house, etc.; everything is God.  The God of the Bible is not His creation; He is separate or transcendent from His creation.
  • God is Imminent: God is separate but active in his creation.  He is sustaining and ruling over everything.
  • God is Personal: God is not an “it,” the impersonal god of some religions (New age).  God is a personal living being and He creates personal living beings.
  • God is Holy: God is without sin and so was creation until man rebelled.  In the end God will restore what was lost at the fall.
  • God is Powerful: God’s power is demonstrated by making everything from nothing.  His power rules over creation and can be demonstrated by His miracles.
  • God is the Ruler Over Creation: God is king over everything He has made, including Satan, demons, humans, planets, stars, animals, etc[1].

Go to part 5 here

[1] Mark Driscoll & Gerry Breshears, Doctrine, Crossway Publ. Wheaton, Ill. 2010 pgs. 86-89

Enhanced by Zemanta

Let me begin our discussion where God begins:

I. In the Beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1)

The Bible teaches the entire universe came into existence out of nothing.  The phrase ex nihilo is used because is means, “out of nothing.”  What this means is before the creation of the universe, nothing else existed except the Triune God.  God existed from all eternity as a Trinity; Father, Son, and Holy Spirit and all 3 persons of the Trinity participated in creation ex nihilo (out of nothing).   Hebrews 11:3 (NASB) By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things which are visible.” God created everything material and immaterial out of nothing.

What does science say?  The vast majority of scientists believe the universe came into existence via the big bang.  Physicist Steven Weinberg in his book The First Three Minutes says, “In the beginning there was an explosion.”  The big bang theory teaches the universe began to exist with a great explosion from a state of infinite density about 14.6 billion years ago.  Four of the world’s most famous astronomers describe that event in these words: “The universe began from a state of infinite density…Space and time were created in that event and so was all the matter in the universe[1].”  Since the beginning event space and matter have been moving outward; the universe is constantly expanding.  And where did the matter come from?  Science has no idea.

Another interesting question is what was the cause of the big bang?  Author Bill Bryson writes in his book A Short History of Nearly Everything, “It seems impossible that you could get something from nothing,” he said, “but the fact that once there was nothing and now there is a universe is evident proof that you can.”  Are you kidding me?  A brilliant man saying the universe came into existence from nothing and was caused by nothing; as if nothing had the power to create the entire universe.  Aristotle defined nothing as what rocks dream about.  Nothing is no-thing and cannot create anything.  This just shows how far science has to go to avoid giving God the credit.  Over the years there have been alternate theories proposed (i.e. steady state, oscillating universe) but all of them have been soundly refuted.  Currently, scientists have no idea how the universe came into existence.

Whether or not you believe in the big bang theory, it is important to understand, the vast majority of scientists believe the universe came into existence at some point in time in the past.  The idea of an eternal universe is rejected almost universally by scientists.  Steven Hawking writes, “Almost everyone now believes that the universe, and time itself, had a beginning at the Big Bang[2].”  Bottom line the big bang needs a big banger.  Moses was correct thousands of years ago when he penned his words in Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”

I was on a hike with my college age nephew Max from New Zealand.  He is normally very quiet except when he is with me; he loves to talk to me about spiritual issues.  On a hike in the Mammoth Lakes area, I asked him where he thought truth came from.  He said truth comes from science.  I said I believe we can learn a lot from science but ultimately all truth comes from God.  He couldn’t accept my answer because he didn’t believe God existed.  I then asked him how the universe came into existence and he told me he believes the universe never had a beginning; that it is eternal.  I said that goes against science; that science has rejected the idea of an eternal universe and almost all scientists believes in the big bang.  I then said, how can you say science has the truth but when science contradicts your beliefs you reject science?  He got very quiet.  I then said, Max science isn’t the center of truth, you are.

Max wanted to avoid the big bang; why? A big bang needs a big banger.  You have to understand scientists worldwide don’t want the big bang to be true.  It leads to the possibly God exists and they don’t want any supernatural answers to scientific questions.  They will do anything to avoid giving God the credit for the universe.  Paul writes in Romans 1:21For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened.” Ignorance is the result of a choice. People who do not “know” God are those who have made that choice. Understanding God requires a moral decision, not additional information. My nephew Max doesn’t need more evidence, he just needs to believe; God says he is without excuse.

Go to part 4 here

[1] J. Richard Gott, et al., “Will the Universe Expand Forever?” Scientific American (March 1976): 65.

[2] Stephen W. Hawking and Roger Penrose, The Nature of Space and Time (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1996), 20.

Enhanced by Zemanta
{ 1 comment }

2. Understanding science will strengthen our faith

Whenever I have doubts about my faith, the first thing I do is recall all the scientific evidence I’ve learned over the years.  This quickly dispels that little voice that speaks in the back of my head that says, “This Christianity stuff is all made up.”  Do you ever have those doubts or am I just weird?  One apologetic speaker called it wonder.  Wonder is asking questions about God in order to get to know Him better.  We need to have more wonder.  We need to seek answers to our wondering.  The more we seek and find answers, the more we grow closer to the creator of the universe.  Remember God thought this was so important He began His special revelation to us by giving us the creation account.  God knows the more we understand science and how it supports his existence and His power, the more we will strengthen our faith.  As our faith grows stronger our love for God grows deeper.  Faith is not wishful thinking; faith is based on knowledge.  A growth in knowledge is a growth in faith.

3. Our friends and relatives need to hear the truth about science and faith

This is listed third for a good reason; simply because not everyone reading this will talk with individuals who love to discuss science.  However, we need to understand one of the major stumbling blocks for some individuals becoming followers of Christ is science.  Our culture thinks science is based on truth and religion is based on blind faith.  We have friends and relatives who think we live in a fantasy world if we think science and Christianity are compatible.  Some of these individuals will not listen to our message about Jesus Christ unless we clear away the false ideas of issues such as Darwinian Evolution.  People have to believe in the existence of God before they could ever accept Jesus Christ.  God loves to use good arguments to help friends and relatives to come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ.

One perfect example of needing to hear the truth about science and faith was Anthony Flew, who was a lecturer, a debater, and for over 30 years a professor of philosophy at two universities.  He wrote books in support of atheism and on a regular basis debated against Christians and theists on a number of topics.  He at one time was considered one of the world’s leading scholars and advocates of atheism.

However, something happened in the 2004.  Upon years of studying the evidence for Darwinian evolution and intelligent design he reached the conclusion that intelligent design had the better arguments.  He then became a deist.  A deist believes that God got things started and then backed off.  From a hard core debating atheist to a believer in God is a monstrous change!  In an interview, with Christian scholar Gary Habermas, Flew said this concerning his change from atheism, “I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.  It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design[1].”

Anthony Flew, upon a close examination of Darwinian evolution and intelligent design, made a radical decision to change his belief system.  As an intellectual scholar he felt he had no other reasonable choice.  Anthony Flew had the courage and honesty to leave his atheism and go with the evidence.

As I said before, the most important reason for studying this material is God began his scriptures with, “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.”  He thinks science is important and so should we. Secondly, this information will strengthen your faith and third I would like to equip those who get into science discussions.

Go to part 3 here

[1] Habermas & Flew, Interview 2004 Evangelical Philosophical Society, pgs 2,3

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 7: Exposing the Watchtower misquotes of Justin Martyr

The Watchtower Organization in their booklet “Should You Believe in the Trinity” attempted to make the case the anti-Nicene Fathers (early church fathers) were anti-Trinitarian. Before answering them I need to give a brief definition of the Trinity.  One God subsists in three persons, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; co-equal and co-eternal.  I will now examine some quotes from the Watchtower booklet.

Justin Martyr

Justin Martyr (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

THE ante-Nicene Fathers were acknowledged to have been leading religious teachers in the early centuries after Christ’s birth. What they taught is of interest.

Justin Martyr, who died about 165 C.E., called the prehuman Jesus a created angel who is “other than the God who made all things.” He said that Jesus was inferior to God and “never did anything except what the Creator . . . willed him to do and say.”  [Exert from “Should You Believe in the Trinity?”]

They begin their case by quoting Justin Martyr.  I will provide some background information conspicuously missing from the booklet.  Robert Bowman writes in his book Why You Should Believe in the Trinity[1]:

The JW booklet cites selectively, and without documenting its quotations, from several Ante-Nicene Fathers (Christians living before the Council of Nicea) to show that none of them believed in the Trinity.  These early Christian writers are quoted as if each, by being considered one of the “Fathers,” is regarded as having been completely orthodox in his theology.  Such is not the case.  Justin Martyr is regarded as an “apologist” in that he gave effective answers against some of the popular misconceptions of Christianity in the second century, but he is not regarded as a theologian, and he is generally criticized by Christian theologians for mixing Christian beliefs with pagan philosophy.”

Justin Martyr taught that the prehuman Jesus was God, not an angel.  Justin did say the Christ was called an angel, but explained that this was because Christ, who was actually God, took on the appearance of an angel.  Thus Justin writes that “the Father of the universe has a Son; who also, being the first-begotten Word of God, is even God.  And of old he appeared in the shape of fire and in the likeness of an angel to Moses and to the other prophets…”

In short, although Justin Martyr did not use such terms as “Trinity,” and his philosophical explanations of the relation of Christ to God were somewhat confused, he worshiped Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, and he regarded Christ as Jehovah God.

The booklet seems to imply Justin Martyr said Jesus was inferior to God.  This is false. You notice these words are without quotation marks.  They are the conclusion reached by the Watchtower writer.  They justify this because Justin wrote the human Jesus followed the will of the Father.  For them this meant Jesus was inferior to the Father therefore he could not be God.  It is true the Bible and Justin Martyr both state Jesus only did what the Father wills.  This doesn’t make Him inferior but obedient.  Since Justin believed Jesus to be fully God he would never had called him inferior in an ontological (nature of being) sense.

Justin also identified Jesus as YHWH (Jehovah) of the Old Testament.  He writes, “Although the Jews were always of the opinion that it was the Father of all who had spoken to Moses, it was in fact the Son of God…who spoke to him…They who assert that the Son is the Father are proved to know neither the Father, nor that the Father of all has a Son, who is both the first-born Word of God and is God.”[2]  He goes on to say, “What was said out of the bush to Moses, ‘I am He who is, the God of Abraham and the God of Isaac and the God of Jacob and the God of your fathers,’ was an indication that they though dead still existed and were Christ’s own men.”[3]  Here we see not only is Jesus YHWH of the Old Testament but that Justin taught Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were still alive in the afterlife even though physically dead.  This contradicts the teachings of the Watchtower, who believe once you die you go out of existence until the end times.  Interesting they would quote someone who refutes their beliefs. Elsewhere Justin writes, “For Christ is King, and Priest, and God, and Lord…”[4]

Even though Justin Martyr does not use the word Trinity, he still believed in a Triune God.  Justin clearly taught Jesus was fully God and fully man, refuting the Watchtower beliefs he was a created being.  This deceptive organization again misrepresents the true views of the author.

Go to part 8 here

[1] Bowman, Robert; Why You Should Believe in the Trinity, p. 28-29.

[2] W.A. Jurgens, The Faith of the Early Fathers, vol. 1 (Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 1979) p. 63

[3] Ibid.

[4] Martyr, Justin, Dialogue with Trypho Chapter 19 p. 211
Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 1 Reason one: why studying science & faith is important

I am beginning a new series discussing issues of science and faith.    I would like to demonstrate how science and Christianity are compatible.  As I begin I would like to establish some ground rules.

  1. The Bible is not a scientific textbook. It will not use precise scientific language and will describe events from the perspective of the observer.  For example the Bible will say the sun sets, whereas we know the rotation of the earth causes the change between daylight and darkness.  However, there are no contradictions between science and what the Bible teaches.
  2. I am going to argue against issues such as Darwinian evolution from a scientific perspective and not a religious one.  This is important because in the public square, the Bible has been discredited in many people’s minds.  However, since I am writing to primarily Christians, I will show when and where the Bible does support my points.
  3. I am a generalist and not a scientist.  That doesn’t disqualify me from this discussion.  In fact I find many scientists I talk to don’t know as much as I do on this topic.  They have a narrow understanding of their particular discipline but issues of creation versus evolution I find they are not prepared to discuss.  I enjoy reading books on evolution and intelligent design.

Let me share 3 reasons why understanding issues of creation are important.

  1. God says it is

Genesis 1:1 “In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.” Heavens and earth simply means God created the universe and everything in it.  Let me ask you, what other religious book begins by announcing God is the creator of the universe?  There are none that I am aware of; not the Quran, the Hindu scriptures, the Book of Mormon, not a single one.  Do you think if God begins His Word with two chapters on creation that He thinks it’s important?  Absolutely!  You see science properly interpreted and the Bible properly interpreted are not in conflict; both are God’s unique revelations.  In creation God clearly reveals Himself.

In theology we have general revelation and special revelation.  Special revelation is God revealing Himself through His written word.  General revelation is God revealing himself through his creation.  King David attests to general revelation when he writes in, Psalms 19:1-2 (NIV) The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. 2 Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.” As David writes creation pours out knowledge about Him!  It tells us God exists and some about who He is.

In fact creation is so important we are held accountable for acknowledging God’s existence.  Romans 1:18-20 (NASB) For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.” People who don’t believe in God cannot say God didn’t provide me with enough evidence; God says sorry you should have believed in me based on the powerful evidence in the world around you; therefore, you are without excuse.  When non-Christians die, God will pour out his wrath on those who reject Him and His Son Jesus Christ and His judgment will be just because they rejected clear evidence.


In my final installment on objective morality, let me conclude with a very practical summary.

If you want to converse with a moral relativist you need to understand…

What is moral relativism?

Remember moral relativism teaches that right and wrong is determined by the beliefs of an individual or society.  The majority of relativists believe society determines morality.

How to use the arguments against their viewpoint

Once you establish a person is a moral relativist begin with the first question:

  • If you believe all morals are relative, then do you believe what Hitler did by exterminating 6 million Jews was wrong?  Watch them squirm.  This is always my first question to a relativist.  I did this to my relativist older sister and her husband.  They both said they didn’t like the fact Hitler murdered over 6 million Jews.  I then said was is it wrong for everyone, everywhere and at all times, to murder millions of innocent people?  They again told me they didn’t like what Hitler did.  I again said to them, I am not interested in what you like or don’t like, I just want to know if it was wrong for Hitler to do that.  Finally, my sister’s husband Rich said, Steve you are manipulating us.  I asked how and he said he didn’t know.  Bottom line this is a killer question to ask.
  • Follow that question with this one:  If killing Jews is the moral view of that society, then saving Jews is immoral.  Is that your view?
  • Next question: If moral relativism is true, who is your moral hero?  Let them know it is a sociopath and most sociopaths are in prison.  Do you want to follow a moral system that promotes a sociopath as their moral hero?
  • Finally, show them no one can live consistently as a moral relativist.  Use an illustration, such as stealing something from them, to demonstrate this truth.

How to answer objections to objective morality

  • Remember just because societies seem to have different moralities it doesn’t mean objective moral truth doesn’t exist.Usually, it isn’t a problem of different moral truths; it’s a problem of facts.  Give them the cow example.
  • Explain how when 2 moral absolutes conflict with each other you make a decision and choose the higher moral value.  Just because they come into conflict doesn’t argue against the existence of objective morality.
  • Show them why morality couldn’t have evolved.  Explain how morality couldn’t be hardwired and that evolutionists are relativists.

This idea of making up your own morality is very appealing to people.  Many people are attracted to relativism because it allows them to live any way they want to.  They only want to follow their own rules.  This is especially true in the area of sex.  Relativists sense God is a cosmic killjoy and wants to keep them from having all the sexual fun they can have.  Having multiple sexual partners are much more fun than having sex only inside the confines of marriage.

Once you understand this, you’ll understand why they tenaciously cling to their viewpoint and refuse to give it up even they are shown to be wrong.  They want moral relativism to be true so they can live according to their desires.  However, some like Mahito will be honest enough to admit they are wrong.  We can then share arguments why true morality comes from God and is revealed in the Bible.

If you want more information I have some resources listed below.  My encouragement to you is to learn this material.  If you only remember the Hitler example, you still have a powerful argument against moral relativism.  I have used these materials with lots of people; this is not difficult to do.  Everyone reading this blog can do this.


  1. Relativism feet firmly planted in mid-air by Greg Koukl & Frank Beckwith
  2. Mere Christianity by CS Lewis
  3. Total Truth by Nancy Pearcy
  4. Stand to Reason web site:  www.str.org
Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 13 Did morality evolve?

The last objection to objective morality is…

3.     Morality evolved

People who believe in the theory of evolution make a case that morality is simply a matter of genetics.  There are major problems with this viewpoint.  According to this view, natural selection works in the genes.  Morality can be explained mechanistically through chance genetic mutations and natural selection.  Love and hate, feelings of guilt and remorse, gratitude, and envy are all genetically determined.  Even the virtues of kindness, faithfulness, or self-control are in the genes.

First problem:  Can Morality Be Hard-Wired?

Evolution reduces morality to physical properties, genetic traits.  Physical characteristics and behaviors are determined by genes.  Therefore, conduct that is called “moral” is determined by genetic structure.  This raises two problems….First, moral statements must be able to be reduced to genetic statements, the random combination of molecules.

–  The difference between kindness and cruelty is the same kind of difference as between blue eyes and brown eyes.

–  The difference between Hitler and Mother Teresa is the same kind of difference between being short or tall.

–   Your own mother’s kindness to you is the same kind of quality as her brown eyes: a physical, genetic trait.

–   The fundamental distinction between a Martin Luther King and white supremacists is their chromosomal makeup.

–   If morality is hard-wired, then Jeffrey Dahmer merely had an eating disorder[1].

But on reflection, kindness and cruelty seem to be different kinds of things than brown eyes or being tall.  Second, evolutionary morality is deterministic.  Humans do whatever evolution–specifically, natural selection–has preprogrammed their genes to cause them to do.  But the morality we understand involves free choice. Behaviors that are pre-wired for the purpose of survival are called instincts, not morals.  So the idea that morals evolved fails the first test.  If our preprogrammed genes are determined; then we can only do what we were born with.  However, the morality we are looking for is a free choice[2].

Second problem:  All morals that evolve are relative

If all morals evolved through the centuries, then there cannot be an absolute standard.  If that is true, then the evolutionist has to be a moral relativist.  Therefore, all the issues and problems that come with relativism also argue against morality evolving.  An evolutionist can never say any behavior is right or wrong universally, it is just a matter of genetics which plays out in the way we are hard wired.  If morals evolved then Hitler wasn’t wrong for murdering 6 millions Jews.

Remember the moral relativist is either ethics as pleasure or ethics of power.  Might makes right is the rally cry for the evolutionist.  We are all animals and just like any animal there are only instincts and behaviors, no right or wrong.  If you say over the millions of years a moral standard evolved, I am going to ask, what standard and who made it the standard?  What society or group was powerful enough to force their standard?  Again all you have is moral relativism because an objective moral standard must stand above mankind, it cannot evolve.  It is the type of standard where you need an infinite standard maker; that maker would be God, which the evolutionist denies.  So the evolutionist has to be a moral relativist.

Over the past few weeks I have established moral relativism to be false.  If moral relativism is false then morality must be objective; there is no alternative.  Where do we get objective morals?  Man cannot be the source of morality or else you have relativism.  The source must stand above man or shall we say, be transcendent from humanity.  The only answer is morality comes from an objective moral lawgiver.  This is the only logical conclusion.

Therefore, morality is a great way to make a case for the existence of God.  If objective morals exist, therefore, God exists.  This was the argument CS Lewis made in the first 5 chapters of his classic book Mere Christianity.  Christian apologist and debater William Lane Craig loves to use the existence of morality to argue for the existence of God.  I have yet to hear an atheist successfully counter his line of reasoning.

Go to part 14 here

[1]Koukl, Greg, “Monkey Morality; Is Evolution the Best Explanation for Ethics?” ©1998 Stand to Reason

[2] Ibed.

Enhanced by Zemanta


What happens when two objective morals come into conflict?  When this occurs it is called a…


2.     Moral dilemma

Some people argue against objective morals by presenting a moral dilemma, one that seems to indicate that in the end all morals are relative.  The Bible actually helps us with an example.

In the Old Testament book of Joshua chapter 2 we read about spies Joshua sent to check out the city of Jericho.  The King learned about the spies and sent men to kill them.  When they arrived at Jericho they went to Rahab’s house because they heard she was hiding them.  What was Rahab going to do?  Rahab did what she thought was right, she lied to protect the spies Joshua had sent.  Her lie was successful as the King’s men took off in the direction she said they went.  After the King’s men left, the men she hid in her house honored her by sparing her life when Joshua’s men came and destroyed Jericho.  According to the Bible lying is an objective wrong.  Yet, in James 2:25 (NIV) we read “In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?”  Rahab, who lied to protect life, is honored by James.   

What we have here are two morals in conflict.  First, the Bible speaks out against lying, Leviticus 19:11 (NIV)“Do not steal. Do not lie. Do not deceive one another.”  Second, the Bible speaks out against not protecting the innocent, Psalm 82:3-4 (NIV) Defend the cause of the weak and fatherless; maintain the rights of the poor and oppressed. 4 Rescue the weak and needy; deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”  Rahab was forced to make a decision.  A moral dilemma occurs when a decision has to be made and one objective moral has to be violated.  So what do you do in this situation?  We do what Rahab did; she chose the higher objective moral value, protecting life over telling a lie.

 During a presentation I had a Christian disagree with me on this issue.  He said it was wrong to lie in all circumstances; Rahab should have told the truth.  I asked him if a killer came to his door with a gun and asked if his young kids were home so he could shoot them, what would he say?  He said he would tell the truth and let God protect his kids.  I said, are you kidding me?  I know what you’d do…you’d lie just like every parent in the world.  You would be protecting the life of your kids, a higher objective moral.  He refused to agree with me.  Truthfully, I think he could argue his point all day long but in a real situation he’d lie to protect his kids.

Remember, just pointing to moral dilemmas doesn’t mean objective morals don’t exist.  It just means in those circumstances you choose the objective moral with highest value.  Don’t let someone fool you by pointing to moral dilemmas; this is not an argument against the existence of objective morals.

Go to part 13 here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Now if moral relativism isn’t true then the only option is objective morality is true.  However, relativists have some…

IV. Three Arguments against Objective Morality

1.     Cultures practice different morals

A key reason for being a moral relativist is the fact we observe what seems like different morals for different cultures.  One culture believes a man should only have one wife and another believes a husband should have multiple wives. One culture eats cows and another doesn’t because they are sacred.  And the relativist says; how can there be absolutes with all these differences?  Who are you to say who is right?

The misconception centers on the observation that different societies or cultures practice what appears to be a different set of morals.  People all the time use this as an argument against moral absolutes.  Let me first say this; even if this premise is true, so what?  This observation proves absolutely nothing.

  • Cultural differences are not an argument against absolutes.

How does it follow that because each group thinks its right, therefore no group is correct? Just because views differ on the shape of the earth doesn’t mean the earth has no shape.  If many people believe that 2 + 2 = 5 would that mean we cannot have a right answer?

Cultural differences on moral viewpoints don’t mean that objective moral truths are nonexistent.  Does the fact of disagreement concerning racism make racism morally neutral?  Cultural relativism turns out to be a mere observation about cultures, not about morality. It tells us about anthropology, not ethics.  Don’t let someone get away with this.  The observation doesn’t lead to the conclusion there are no objective morals.

  • Differences are usually a problem of facts

Remember even if we see differences its no big deal.  However, most differences are simply a misunderstanding or lack of investigation into the facts.  Once we look at the relevant details the differences fall away. In India, cows are protected because Hindus consider them sacred.  In America we eat cows or should I say beef.  At first glance it may appear we have conflicting values.  In America when Grandma dies, we don’t eat her; we have a funeral and bury her.  In India, Hindus don’t eat cows because they believe the cow may be grandma.  You see they believe in reincarnation; that after death a person takes on another form and grandma may have been reincarnated as a cow.  When it is all said and done we share the same moral truth:  It is wrong to eat grandma or for that matter, it is wrong to kill an innocent human being[1].  Thank goodness for that!  This sort of fact-finding investigation can clear up many so-called conflicts.

Much of the abortion dispute turns out to be a dispute of facts, not values. Both pro-abortionists and pro-lifers believe that taking the life of an innocent human person is wrong (value).  But they disagree whether the unborn child is an innocent human person or not (fact).  Apparent moral differences often represent only a difference in perception of the facts of a circumstance, not a conflict in the values themselves.

I could go on pointing out differences but we must ask ourselves this question; does the fact that we observe differences necessarily make the argument that objective morals don’t exist?  The obvious answer is no.  It is certainly possible for a society’s moral rules to be evil; like Pol Pot commanding the killing of 2 million Cambodians around the time of the Vietnam War.  That injustice was an absolute evil.  If you don’t agree with me, I believe it is time to examine your moral belief system.

The observation cultures practice different morals is simply false.  Parts 12 & 13 I will post the next two arguments.

Go to part 12 here

[1]Koukl, G. & Beckwith, F. “Relativism Feet Firmly Planted in Mid-air.”  Baker Books, 1998

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 10 Who is the positive moral hero of relativism?

I am continuing the conversation I had with Hito (part 9) while hiking in Yosemite.  I then asked him…

  • Who is the positive moral hero of moral relativism?

He looked at me and said I’ve never been asked that question.  I pointed out the moral hero of helping the poor is Mother Teresa.  The moral hero of nonviolent passive resistance is Ghandi.  The moral hero of living a sinless life is Jesus Christ.  So I asked him, who is the moral hero of relativism? When he said I don’t know I then told him the moral hero is a sociopath.  You see a sociopath is a person that does what he or she wants to do; a moral relativist does what he or she wants to do; there is no difference between a sociopath and a moral relativist.  Many sociopaths are currently serving time in prison.  I asked him, do you want to follow a moral viewpoint that makes a sociopath the moral champion?  That question puzzled him.  He told me he had never thought of it like that and would have to give it more thought.  I had unsettled him and really had him thinking.  Lastly, I said…

  • Moral relativism cannot be lived

Dr. JP Moreland, a professor of philosophy at Talbot Seminary, was talking with a student who told Dr. Moreland that all morals are relative and that it wasn’t right for others to force their morality.  As Dr. Moreland was leaving he picked up the students stereo and began to walk out.  When the student protested Dr. Moreland said, “Stealing a stereo may go against your morality but don’t you dare push your morality on me.  My morality allows me to steal.”  After a few more steps out the door he turned around and put the stereo back.  He had made his point and showed the inconsistency of trying to live as a moral relativist.

On another occasion Dr. Moreland was talking with a colleague who was a moral relativist and an environmentalist.  Dr. Moreland told the environmentalist about his college days when he and his buddies would go into the back country with barrels of acid and pour the acid into a lake and bet on how many fish would die and rise to the surface.  The environmentalist went ballistic and began to tell him how wrong it was to destroy a lake environment.  Dr. Moreland said, “John why are you having a problem with this.  I have my morals and you have yours.  You don’t have the right to judge my morals and tell me I can’t kill fish if my morality says I can.”  The story was fictitious but again he made the point that people can’t live as moral relativists.

I have found the bottom line is this: When moral decisions benefit the person and it’s what they want to do, they are relativists; when it causes them harm they are absolutists.  This is why nobody can live consistently as a moral relativist.

All four arguments I presented to Hito were powerful and can be used by anyone who wants to dismantle relativism.  I usually use them in the same order as my conversation: As a moral relativist 1) You cannot say Hitler was wrong for murdering 6 million Jews, 2) If you lived in Germany and opposed Hitler you were immoral, 3) You have to answer, “Who is the positive moral hero of moral relativism?”, 4) You cannot live as a Moral relativist.  Memorize these arguments and you have a powerful tool for helping moral relativists abandon their viewpoint.

Go to part 11 here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 9 A relativist cannot say what Hitler did was wrong

Additional problems with relativism to share in a conversation

I will continue the story of my walk with Hito that I introduced in part 2.  You will get to peak in on the actual conversation and by doing so I hope you continue to learn how to expose major weaknesses of moral relativism.

Before we went on the 15 mile hike, over the years I had built a good relationship with Hito.  He told me he enjoys talking with me because I listen and don’t try to jam my viewpoint down his throat.  He had met Christians who do and he regularly hides from them.  He knew I was interested in what he said and believed.

Hito told me he was a moral relativist and believed that all morality is determined by society or the culture.  Since this was a mock trial and he was on the defense, I felt I needed to get Hito’s attention, so I started with a strong argument.  I said that if he is a moral relativist then he…

  • Cannot say Hitler was wrong for murdering 6 million Jews

I told him he may not like what Hitler did but the fact remained he couldn’t say it was wrong.  You see the German leaders defined Jews as non-persons; if they weren’t a person then it was permissible to kill them.

If society sets the moral standard then a moral relativist cannot say this practice is universally wrong.  If they say it is wrong they are appealing to a universal standard, “killing innocent people is wrong.”  However, they don’t believe universal standards exist.  Therefore, by appealing to an objective standard they are no longer a relativist.

Most honest moral relativists will cringe at having to accept this first point.  Hito certainly did and tried to get around it by saying he didn’t like it.  But I said, “Hito was in wrong for all people at all times in all locations to kill the Jews?”  He said he couldn’t say that.  Saying it was wrong would be appealing to an objective standard and wasn’t willing to give up his relativism.

Once a relativist friend of mine said it was possible the Germans had good reasons for killing the Jews; that their murders were a good thing.  Do you see what a person has to do to cling to his or her philosophy, even if it means taking the side of Hitler?

Remember Hitler defined the Jews as non-persons and any society today can do this to any group of people.  This is why “society says” relativism can now be called “power ethics,” because the group in power gets to define what is right.  A hundred years ago the south defined black people as non-persons and made them slaves.  Today we classify the unborn as a non-person and they can be killed at any time during a woman’s pregnancy.  Maybe tomorrow the new group in power in the US will define white people as non-persons.  If there is no standard of morality, what’s to stop them?

A moral relativist cannot condemn what Hitler did or any act of genocide.  They can only say they don’t like it.  Hito said he didn’t like what Hitler did but agreed he couldn’t call say Hitler was wrong for murdering the Jews.  He begrudgingly stuck to his relativism.  I then told him…

  • If you lived in Germany and opposed Hitler you were immoral

I said Hito to be moral in Hitler’s society, you had to kill Jews or approve of the practice.  Think about it!  If you lived in German society, during the time of Hitler, and you didn’t kill Jews or support the killing, then you were outside the moral standard, which would make you immoral.  Cori Ten Boom who saved many Jews from certain death would be considered immoral for her actions, according to a moral relativist.

Any society that practices genocide, it is immoral to oppose them if you are a relativist.  Moral relativism actually breaks down to MIGHT MAKES RIGHT.  Right and wrong is determined by who is in power and if you go against the moral code of that society you are immoral.

I could tell Hito was not comfortable with that position but he couldn’t come up with a good response.  This position of “might makes right” is truly what moral relativism supports.  Whoever is in power makes the rules!  You are immoral if you don’t follow the rules, no matter what they are.  He didn’t like it but he continued to hold his position. In part 10 I will give two additional arguments I used in my walk with Hito.

Go to part 10 here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 8 Moral relativism is not an ethical system

Arguments against Moral Relativism 

1.    Not an ethical system

Herein lies the first problem; moral relativism is not an ethical system.  Why?  The reason is best summed up with these questions; what is the difference between a moral relativist and a person without morals?  How does a relativist make moral decisions?  He decides whatever he thinks is best.  How does someone who doesn’t have any morals decide how to act?  He decides whatever he thinks is best.  Bottom line the moral relativist and the person without morals make moral decisions the exact same way.  If a thing is no different from its opposite, then the distinction between the two is meaningless.  Thus the first reason moral relativism does not qualify as an ethical system is because moral relativism is equal to having no morals at all.

2.     Moral words have no meaning

To the moral relativist words such as rape, murder, courage, honesty, incest, torture, stealing, or love, have no meaning until the relativist gives it meaning.  Let me show you what I mean.

Take the word racism.  Is racism wrong?  Each of you would agree racism is morally reprehensible.  However, to the moral relativist it is a meaningless word until either the individual or society says it is right or wrong.  If society says racism is right, then it is morally correct to be a racist.  Relativists believe all morality is determined by the subject, whether it is the individual or society.  The word honesty is neutral until someone says it is good or bad; the same goes for the word courage.  Courage is not morally right in and of its self; it must be approved by the individual or society.

Here is how this view can be played out.  Your brother is at work and he figures out a way on his computer to move money from his work’s treasury to his own account.  If you had asked him, do you think stealing is right or wrong the day before, he would have said it is wrong.  However, today he decides stealing is acceptable because the company has so much money and he is underpaid anyway.  A moral relativist can justify any action he or she chooses.

After stealing the money and getting away with it, he decides he shouldn’t steal anymore, because it is wrong.  Let me ask you, since he feels honesty is now more important, has he morally improved?  The answer is no!  To improve you need a standard to measure performance.  In bowling, improvement means I move closer to the perfect game of 300.  If my average bowling scores go up I have improved.  However, a moral relativist cannot improve morally; he can only change his mind because no standard exists to measure improvement.  If there is no standard, then there is no possibility for improvement.

Remember for the moral relativist, moral words are without meaning until someone gives them meaning.  And the relativist cannot improve his or her morality; only change is possible.  If torturing babies for fun is good today, a person may change his mind to bad tomorrow; and then back to good the next day.  This is why relativists like to live next to those who believe in objective morality.

Go to part 9 here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Moral Relativism Can Lead to Tragedy

Chuck Colson posted an article looking at the tragic suicide of Pheobe Prince.   My contention is when morality is reduced to “I say” morality or moral relativism, there are no constraints for students to follow; they just make up right and wrong as they choose.  Schools become powerless to “force their morality” on the students.  Without objective morality there are no rules; there are no set moral standards.  What Colson outlines below can be the result and will continue to prevail as long as morals are simply relative.  

     On Tuesday, three South Hadley, Massachusetts, teenagers were arraigned on criminal charges   relating to the death of a high school classmate, Phoebe Prince. The charges included criminal harassment and statutory rape.

     The story of Phoebe Prince’s death has gripped the national media over the past few months. Prince, a 15-year-old freshman at South Hadley High School, and a recent immigrant from Ireland, killed herself back in January after being “mercilessly tormented by a [group] of classmates.” The torment consisted of “relentless activity…designed to humiliate her and to make it impossible for her to remain at school.”

      Her tormentors were a group of girls whom the Massachusetts press dubbed the “Mean Girls.” The harassment started within weeks of Prince’s arrival at the school. Using the tools of the information age, her tormenters sent threatening text messages, and then, on Facebook and Twitter, called her names I couldn’t repeat on radio.  Eventually, Prince hanged herself. Her tormentors couldn’t leave her alone even in death. They “posted vicious comments” on her Facebook memorial page.

     From network to cable news to the headlines of the nation’s major newspapers, you can sense the shock and bewilderment. How could teenagers engage in such brutality?  But folks, the only shocking thing is that people are bewildered. The cause of this, ladies and gentlemen, is very simple: human sin. It is the nature of people unrestrained by conscience.

     When schools fail to teach that there is such a thing as right and wrong, when children are no longer trained by loving families in the morally formative years to choose good over evil, then we have the classic “Lord of the Flies” scenario.

     I’m talking about William Golding’s brilliant 1954 novel, Lord of the Flies. The story begins when a planeload of British boys are marooned on a desert island. At first, they institute a British-style government based on civility and order. But order eventually erodes into savagery, and life on the desert island, which began as a mirror of orderly British society, dissolves into murder and mayhem.

      Golding said the theme of his novel is that the “defects of society” can be traced “to the defects of human nature.”  At one time, Golding held the typical utopian belief that “man was perfectible”—that “all you had to do was to remove certain inequities and provide practical sociological solutions, and man would have a perfect paradise on earth.”

      But in the wake of World War II, Golding adapted a more realistic view of human nature. What Lord of the Flies gives us is a powerful parable of the Christian doctrine of original sin—and what can happen when to youngsters when adults fail to provide moral direction and guidance.

     The tragedy in South Hadley provides Christians an opportunity to explain why the biblical worldview is the only one that can explain reality, and that can explain the world the way it is.  Only when you take sin seriously can you cope with evil in society. Anything else is simply whistling past our children’s graveyards.

What can schools do?  One thing is they can let students know there is a right and wrong and you cannot make up morality as you go.  Bullying and harassment will not be tolerated and penalties should be expulsion from the district.  On the positive side, schools can do a better job to teaching students how to interact with each other in a positive manner.  The teaching of socials skills is one way to do just that.  I have been doing this for years and have had great success.  Middle school students can learn why putdowns do harm and how to build other students up through social skills like encouragement.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 7 Pleasure and power as ethics

The moral relativist says all morality originates with people; either the individual decides or society creates the moral rules.  Let’s look at each one:

  1. Pleasure as ethics – Other names this can go by is “I say relativism” or “individual ethical relativism” or “ethical subjectivism.”  The basic belief is that individual preferences offer the only guideline to behavior.  What is right for one person isn’t necessarily right for another person, regardless of culture.  All moral evaluations are personal, a mere opinion only.  These individuals are quick to say to critics, “Who are you to judge,” and “Don’t force your morals on me.”  I find many who live by this ethical system don’t normally defend this point of view; they usually say it is society that sets the rules; even though in their everyday life they do what feels good to them or what gives them the most pleasure. Yet, they won’t try to defend this viewpoint, for the simple reason they know if everyone did what they wanted, it would lead to anarchy.  So instead most appeal the second ethical system…
  2. Power as ethics – Other names for this is “Society says relativism” or “conventionalism” or “normative ethical relativism.”  This ethical system teaches people should act according to their own society’s code.  What is right for one society isn’t necessarily right for another.  People should only do what their society tells them to do.  If the leaders of society set the moral rules then we truly have “might makes right” or what I call Power as ethics.  Whoever is in power sets the moral code for their society.  When talking with relativists, this is the most popular viewpoint.

Part 8 I will begin to show why these viewpoints are morally bankrupt.

Go to part 8 here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Christians Love the World

The more I thought about Chris Tse and his YouTube video [see my post: I am Sorry He Calls Himself a Christian] the angrier I got.  However, I calmed down and then fashioned a response to his poem.  I looked more to the positive aspects of Christianity.

What belief system in the world can match Christianity for showing love? Who shows up to Haiti, Chile, New Orleans, and is there is comfort millions? Of course, the answer is thousands of Christians.  Where are the herds of atheists, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, and new age followers?  Practically speaking, nowhere to be seen.  Individuals of these belief systems probably participated but large organized groups are usually missing in action. 

However, Christians from all over the world pour into disaster areas and meet the needs of the people by feeding, comforting, and doing whatever it takes to show love to the hurting.  Plus Christians worldwide raise billions of dollars to help the hurting.  Chris, why didn’t you talk about true Christianity?  Who were you referring to in your poetry?    

I believe the hurts and judgments Chris Tse talked about in his poetry come from legalists and religionists who are imposters but not true Christians. True followers show the love of Christ.  True believers walk by the spirit.  The Apostle Paul writes this in Galatians 5:16 (NASB) But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not carry out the desire of the flesh.”  The flesh represents all the sinful desires and actions people do.  Then he says, “But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law. 24 Now those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires.” Galatians 5:22-24 (NASB).  A true follower of Christ will not be perfect but is no longer controlled by sinful desires but is controlled by the spirit of Christ and demonstrates love.  Legalists and religionists, that Chris Tse refers to, are controlled by the flesh and don’t represent Christianity.   

What belief system in the world can match Christianity for showing love? The answer is a resounding NONE! However, had Chris Tse done an accurate rendering of Christian love shown throughout the centuries and throughout the world (with a few exceptions) people would have yawned! Love doesn’t make the press…only hate.

Enhanced by Zemanta

When Does Life Begin?

My friend Tom responded to my post “Should Abortion be Legal?” with this question, “Where is the law that says that fetuses are humans?”  He was referring to the Roe V. Wade decision and Supreme Court justice Harry Blackman’s ruling.  Blackman said we don’t know when life begins and so therefore, we cannot outlaw abortion.  Here is a well written response by Michael Spencer of Life Training Institute called “Dazed and Confused[1].”

Many abortion-choice advocates would like us to believe that “no one knows when human life begins” and that there’s no consensus on the matter. The inference is obvious enough: if people cannot agree on when human life (or personhood) begins, abortion must be morally permissible. Put another way, if something seems confusing, one is apparently free to do as he pleases. This is a philosophically anemic conclusion, yet it’s offered by many abortion advocates as the “silver bullet” argument to end all arguments.

Even our Supreme Court attempted to hide behind this argument when writing Roe V. Wade. Supreme Court Justice, Harry Blackmun, assured, “We need not resolve the difficult question of when life begins. When those trained in the respective disciplines of medicine, philosophy, and theology are unable to arrive at any consensus, the judiciary, at this point in the development of man’s knowledge, is not in a position to speculate as to the answer.”1 But any thinking person knows that by permitting abortion for virtually any reason through all nine months of pregnancy, the Supreme Court did indeed take a position on when life begins; they decided this “magical” moment occurs at birth.

It seems a dab of confusion and a pinch of uncertainty make for a useful psychological elixir, curing the intellectually lazy (or intellectually dishonest) of the malady of thinking deeply or acting wisely with regard to the unborn. But ironically, it is this alleged confusion over when human life or personhood begins that provides a crystal clear reason to oppose abortion.

This little proclamation, no one knows when life begins, is a mouthful, really, and the abortion advocate who asserts this unknowingly divulges much more than he realizes.

First, the declaration contains an implicit admission: “I don’t know when life begins.” To claim that no one knows when life begins is to number oneself among those who supposedly do not know. That being the case, this statement reveals the fact that the one uttering it doesn’t know when life begins. His statement, therefore, is valuable only to the extent that it serves as a personal confession. Its value beyond that is not established.

Second, the declaration contains an unfounded accusation: “No one knows when life begins.” But just because one individual doesn’t know doesn’t mean no one knows. Maybe somebody does know. I may not know how many bases Jackie Robinson stole during his major league career, but that doesn’t mean no one knows. Or suppose someone asserts, “No one really knows if Mars is the fourth planet from the sun.”

The person stating this reveals only one thing; he doesn’t know if Mars is the fourth planet from the sun. His assumption that no one else knows is at best ignorant and at worst arrogant. Astronomers (those most qualified to speak to the question of Mars’ location in the solar system) and astronomy textbooks declare that Mars is indeed the fourth planet from the sun. Consequently, rational thinking would require good reasons for rejecting the experts’ findings.

So too, the science of embryology declares that human life begins at conception. Embryologists (those best qualified to speak to this matter) claim that human life begins at conception.2 “A zygote is the beginning of a new human being,” write Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud.3 Now it is entirely possible that they could be wrong, but again, any responsible person would require solid reasons for rejecting their testimony and evidence, especially when so much is at stake. Interestingly, even some of the most prominent abortion-choice advocates such as Peter Singer4 and David Boonin5 accept the testimony of embryologists and acknowledge the humanity of the unborn. “A human fetus, after all, is simply a human being at a very early stage in his or her development,” writes Boonin.

Third, this declaration grants an embarrassing concession; it is entirely possible that human life does begin at conception. The one claiming, “No one knows when human life begins”, has unwittingly left a door open for the possibility that life does indeed begin after fertilization. If this weren’t so, he’d state otherwise. Moreover, lurking beneath the surface of this paper-thin abortion defense is a disturbing revelation: I’m willing to see innocent human beings die. Again, to say no one knows when life begins is to concede the possibility that the entity developing in utero is actually a distinct, living, and whole human being. Defending abortion when there’s even a remote possibility human life begins at conception is like a hunter shooting into rustling bushes without first identifying his target. Francis Beckwith illustrates this willful and reckless disregard for others by imagining a demolition team who’d be willing to detonate a building without first verifying that no one was inside. Beckwith says it well, “If you’re willing to engage in an act where you know there’s at least a 50/50 chance of killing a human person that means you’re willing to kill a human person.”6

Should we grant, for the sake of discussion, that abortion advocates are correct in saying that no one knows when life begins or that there’s no consensus, where would that leave us? Does it help their cause? To the contrary, such statements, if true, would serve to argue against legalized abortion. If there is even a remote possibility the embryo could be a distinct, living and whole member of the human family this should restrain us from aborting until the question can be further investigated and answered with certainty. Ignorance is not bliss when human lives may be at stake.

Finally, this tactic of claiming a lack of consensus was precariously missing from the debate in 1973 when Roe V. Wade became the law of the land. Clearly, the vast majority of Americans opposed legalized abortion because they instinctively believed then what the scientists tell us today: life begins at conception.

1. Roe V. Wade, [410 U.S. 113, 160]
2. The science of embryology is summarized at: http://www.abort73.com/abortion/medical_testimony/
3. Keith L. Moore and T.V.N. Persaud, The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 7th ed., Philadelphia: Saunders, 2003, pp. 2,16.
4. Peter Singer, Practical Ethics, New York: Cambridge University Press, 1993, pp. 85-86.
5. David Boonin, A Defense of Abortion, New York: Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002, p. 20.
6. Francis J. Beckwith, “Understanding The Abortion Debate,” The Summit Lecture Series, www.summit.org.

Enhanced by Zemanta

I am Sorry He Calls Himself a Christian

I watched this Youtube video of a professing Christian “slam” his so called beliefs.  On Facebook I made a response and decided to post it here. 

PoetrySlamVancouver — February 08, 2010 — Chris Tse was the 1st place winner on the 21st of December with a score of 57.3 with his poem I’m Sorry I’m a Christian. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EieFdXy_HwM

I am sorry he calls himself a Christian…I am sorry he is a legalist or religious, believing Christianity to be a set of rules rather than walking by the Spirit…I am sorry he chose to attack other religionists and legalists and called them Christian. They are far from who the real Jesus is and far from the true followers of Christianity…I am sorry he thinks he knows Jesus…and if he does, I am sorry he is so judgmental of Christianity…and finally, as I said before, I am sorry he calls himself a Christian. His views of Christianity do not represent our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, of whom we celebrate His death and resurrection this weekend. Romans 5:8 (NASB) “But God demonstrates His own love toward us, in that while we were yet sinners, Christ died for us.”

Enhanced by Zemanta

God Loves The Humble

The canonical Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke &...
Image via Wikipedia

Humble yourselves therefore under the mighty hand of God that he may exalt you in due time (1 Peter 5 v 6).

God promotes and exalts the humble, but resists the proud. When you read about the Lord Jesus, the Bible says he “made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men.”

David was also an example of a humble person. Even though he had been anointed to be king over Israel, he never spoke evil of King Saul, though the latter was after his life. Even when he had the opportunity to kill Saul, he still referred to Saul as “my master” (1 Samuel 24 v 6).

David went on to become Israel’s greatest King, because of his humble spirit. God himself described David as “a man after my own heart” (Acts 13 v 22). What an honour to be described this way by God Almighty.

Therefore, if you remain humble, God will definitely and surely promote and exalt you at his appointed time. Get rid of arrogance, rudeness, selfishness, jealousy, malice, hate, anger, strife, and pride. People in the world today are hurting, because there is no LOVE. The Bible instructs us to love each other. Learn to love and be humble, for that is the path to greatness.

Enhanced by Zemanta

People Don’t Die for a Lie

On the Stand to Reason blog page, Melinda Penner posted a fine response to those individuals who believe the early apostles were liars when they recorded their accounts of the resurrection.  With Good Friday and Resurrection Sunday fast approaching, I thought this would an enlightening posting. 

What Martyrdom Proves by Melinda Penner

The argument is advanced that Jesus’ Apostles were telling the truth of what they had witnessed because they died martyrs’ deaths and would not have done so for a lie.

This is a valid point, but I think what it is meant to prove is sometimes misunderstood so I just want to clarify the purpose of the argument.  It’s been pointed out many times that people of other religions die for their faith so the disciples’ deaths don’t prove anything.  Other religions have martyrs, too, but that doesn’t mean those religions are true.  And many Christians aren’t willing to die for their faith.  So this argument doesn’t prove anything.  But this response misunderstands the point of the argument.

This is not a proof for the truth of Christianity.  It’s an evidence for the Apostles’ sincerity in what they were testifying about Jesus.  It is a rebuttal to the charge that the Apostles lied and made up what they’d seen.  People don’t die for a lie, but they might be willing to die for what they believe firmly to be true.

This rebuttal doesn’t even prove that the Apostles’ testimony was true – only that they believed it was true and didn’t lie.  So the fact that people of other religions also die for their faith doesn’t undermine the significance of the Apostles’ martyrdom for their testimony – these people, too, must have strong convictions.  The fact that many Christians might not be willing to die for our faith doesn’t undermine this argument because it is only relevant for those eye witnesses who passed on what they saw and heard at the cost of their lives.  The Apostles believed what they told us and did not lie.

It’s not a proof for the truthfulness of Christianity, but a rebuttal to the charge they lied.  And so it is one of the elements in evaluating the historical evidence for Jesus’ death and resurrection. http://www.str.org/site/PageServer?pagename=blog_iframe 

I hope you not only enjoyed this posting but were challenged in your thinking as we look to celebrating the risen Christ.  Have a great Easter! Steve Bruecker

Enhanced by Zemanta

Does Might Make Right?

On a long bike ride with my atheist friend, we got talking about morality and evolution. I said if evolution is true and all of us are simply material beings, products of evolution, then objective morality doesn’t exist; there are no transcendent standards for behavior that are binding upon everyone and for all time. Therefore, if North Korea thinks we are a threat and if survival of the fittest is the driving force, then if they wipe us out with a nuclear bomb that act wouldn’t be wrong universally. You and I may not like it but it would not be a universal wrong because according to your view, all morality is simply a social convention. North Korea would be doing what they believe is right and eliminating a threat like the US, in their minds, would benefit their survival. Without a standard of morality; without objective morality, right and wrong simply becomes “might makes right.” My friend had trouble accepting my conclusion but also struggled with how to answer my argument. We will pick up where we left off on our next ride.

Enhanced by Zemanta

Moral relativism: All morality is decided by people.  It teaches right and wrong is determined by the beliefs of an individual or society.  Basically when it comes to right and wrong, you do your own thing.

  • Moral truths are mere preferences, much like our taste in ice cream.
  • There are no universally valid moral principles.  Rather, all moral principles are valid relative to culture or individual choice.
  • Everyone’s morality is equal. No individual morality should be imposed on others.  No one’s morality can be labeled as wrong.

Basically, people decide what is right and wrong according to their culture or individual tastes.  A moral relativist would say moral rules change according to differences in the culture or situation.

Objective morality: A standard that has authority above the human race and is the rule for everyone, everywhere, and for all time; it never changes.

  • A moral rule is true regardless of whether or not anyone believes it. It doesn’t change with individuals or culture.
  • We don’t invent morality; we discover it much like we might discover math principles.

Morality isn’t created by personal conviction, and it doesn’t disappear when an individual or a culture rejects it.  On this view, moral rules are frequently self-evident in the same way that mathematical truth is self-evident.  A moral rule is universally binding even though people choose to ignore it.

The preferences and human desires have no effect on objective morality.  It sits above mankind and is not subject to it.   In fact objective morality sits in judgment of man’s desires and preferences.  If objective morality exists it is an excellent argument for the existence of God.  The basic argument goes something like this: If objective morality is transcendent then it needs a transcendent law maker; that law maker is God.  This is a major reason many people refuse to accept objective morality.

A research survey among adults showed 64% believe morals are relative and only 22% of adults believe they are absolute or objective.  Among teenagers it gets worse; 83% believe morals are relative and only 6% say morality is absolute.  In other words, 83% of teens say we or society determines right or wrong and only 6% believe morality is unchanging and for everyone, everywhere. [1]  50 years ago these statistics would have been drastically different; with far more believing in objective morality.  Yet, things have dramatically changed, especially since the late 60’s.

I believe these statistics explain why a society based on moral relativism is so dangerous.  A moral relativist can say to himself, “I can cheat my business and if I get away with it, then its okay.”  Stealing becomes acceptable as long as you don’t get caught.  They may say who are you to say I am wrong?  Others may say if I want to view child pornography it is totally up to me.  If I want to have sex outside of marriage, who are you to judge?  My sense is much of our economic problems can be tied to greed, which seems to be a result of honesty becoming a relative moral, and not an objective truth.

We then look at the rising birth rates and abortions among the unwed, why do we wonder what went wrong?  CS Lewis spoke about the problems that occur when we get rid of objective morality and then wonder what happened to society.  He writes about this in his classic, The Abolition of Man,

“In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function.  We make men   without chests and expect of them virtue and enterprise.  We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our midst.  We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.”[2]

Go to part 7 here

[1]Barna Research, “Americans Are Most Likely to Base Truth on Feelings,” Feb. 12, 2002

[2] Lewis, CS, “The Abolition of Man,” Touchstone Books, 1996 p. 37

Enhanced by Zemanta

New sermon: Sharing with a “Good” Person

I preached this last weekend at Pauma Valley Community Church in California.  This teaching clearly shows why good works can never merit heaven.  In this sermon I equip followers of Jesus Christ to be able to share with people who are trusting in good works to get them to heaven.  I tell a true story of a taxi ride I had with a Muslim driver and how I shared 5 illustrations of why good works are not good enough for heaven.  I highly recommend listening to this sermon.

It can be found at: http://biblicalworldviewacademy.org/sermons/

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 5 Answers to objective truth test


Here are the answers to the quiz on Part 4.

(1) That man’s shirt is red (or whatever color). – objective
(2) Red is the best color. – subjective
(3) 2 plus 2 equals 4. – objective
(4) Tropical island vacations are the best vacations. – subjective
(5) Steve can bench press 500 pounds. – objective & false
(6) God exists. – objective
(7) Jesus is the only way to God. – objective
(8) Sex before marriage is immoral. – objective
(9) It is wrong for women to have elective abortions. –objective

(10) God loves you – objective

I will now give a little more explanation covering the last few items.

God exists – God exists is an objective statement; it is something we discover about the world, the focus is on the object and not our preference.  This statement can either be true or false.  If it is true, then it will still be true even if no one believes it.

Jesus is the only way to God (or heaven) – This is an objective truth claim.  It is objective because the claim is either true or false.  However, a relativist will want to change the statement.  They would say this is not a matter of right or wrong, it is a matter of personal preference.  For them religious choices are like choosing ice cream, you like vanilla, I like chocolate.  You like Christianity someone else likes Hinduism, who are you to say your religion is superior to someone else’s?  They might change the statement to, “Jesus is your way to God or Jesus is my way to God.”  However, it is written as an objective truth claim (it is either true or false) and is not subjective.

Sex before marriage is immoral –This is an objective moral claim, which is either true or false for all people throughout all time; no matter what cultures say.  A moral relativist would have to say this is wrongly stated.  They want you to say it is immoral for me; it is like ice cream; a personal preference only.  However, as it is written it is an objective statement.

It is wrong for women to have elective abortions – Again the same moral rule applies here as to the statement before.  This statement is either true or false.  An objectivist or absolutist would say this is an objective moral truth whereas a moral relativist would say this again is personal preference and right or wrong is determined by the person.  “It may be wrong for you.”  Again the person is making the statement about the preferences of the person rather than the act itself.  However, as it is written it is an objective truth claim.

God loves you.  This statement is either true of false; either God loves you or He doesn’t love you.

Did some of these answers surprise you?  The reason for making such a big deal is because subjective truth is the foundation of moral relativism.  We have to understand the distinctions before we can understand the argument I will be presenting.  Some people believe we are free to choose our personal morals or society dictates the rules of morality.  These are the beliefs of a moral relativist.  As I stated before, I am going to show moral relativism is clearly false and the only other option is objective morality.  I am also going to argue that objective morality is true for all time and obligatory in all cultures; it never changes and we discover it like we did mathematics.

Go to part 6 here

Enhanced by Zemanta


In order to evaluate whether you understand the distinction between objective and subjective truth, I would like to give you a short quiz.  You need to identify whether the following claims are objective (insulin) or subjective (ice cream).    


1.       That man’s shirt is red (or whatever color).

2.       Red is the best color.

3.       2 plus 2 equals 4.

4.       Tropical island vacations are the best vacations.

5.       I can bench press 500 pounds. 

6.       God exists. 

7.       Jesus is the only way to God

8.       Sex before marriage is immoral.

9.       It is wrong for women to have elective abortions.

10.   God loves you.

Jot down your answers and then I will provide the answers on my next blog and the rationale behind certain key ones. I have used this type of quiz during presentations and it has never failed to provide an interesting discussion.  I took the idea of the quiz from Brett Kunkle who works for Stand to Reason.  Their web site is located at www.str.org.

Go to part 5 here

Enhanced by Zemanta

Part 1 Avoid Overstating Your Case

My definition of overstating your case is those times when you are in a conversation and in presenting your argument or assertion you make a strong statement you cannot adequately support.  At times we are either trying to give the impression we have more evidence than we have or dismissing the possibility the other person might be right.  Many times the material is presented with an arrogant and smug attitude.  An example would be to state “Everyone knows the Bible is loaded with contradictions.”  The use of “everyone” is a classic overstatement because there are many Biblical scholars who have solid evidence to the contrary.  Or every scientist in the world believes Darwinian evolution is true.  There are many scientists worldwide who think it has fatal flaws that seem to be hard to imagine ever being overturned.

Here are some of the reasons I find people overstate their case.

  1. They received the information from a source they agreed with and never investigated whether it would stand up to counter arguments.  This person presents his case and is immediately shot down with evidence or a solid philosophical refutation.
  2. The person presents a series of opinions and feels this was enough to destroy the other person’s position.  What this person doesn’t realize is opinions are not arguments.  When this person is challenged he struggles to give an adequate answer.
  3. They are in the discussion to destroy the other person’s beliefs.  They arrogantly come on strong trying to prove how much they know and to make you give up.

In this mini-series I will try to help you understand how to avoid overstating your case.  I will give some classic examples of overstating your case.   Finally, I will show how we can challenge belief systems appropriately.

One of the ways I avoid overstating my case is I use “if – then” statements in my conversations. I have been challenged by atheists on the issue of the birth of Jesus.  They’ll say something like this, “Are you telling me you believe in a virgin birth?”  They think I must be whacked because I believe Jesus was born of a virgin.  My answer goes something like this; “If I believe in God as the creator of the universe and all creatures big and small, then believing God can miraculously produce a child via a virgin birth is a piece of cake.  A virgin birth is easy when compared to creating something as complex as humans who can think, act, communicate and reproduce after their own kind.  If God is the creator of all of mankind, then what’s your problem with a virgin birth?”

When I use “if – then” statements it takes the edge off my argument.  I am not trying to force something down the person’s throat.  I also acknowledge that if God doesn’t exist then virgin births are impossible.  In this way I am not overstating my case.

Go to part 2 here


Is it okay to Work on Saturday?

I am continuing to post challenges from some atheists in San Diego.  They say Exodus 35:2 commands us to put others to death for working on the Sabbath.  Their claim is Christians are inconsistent in applying what the Bible clearly teaches.

Do Christians ignore verses we don’t like?  If we ignore them then the charge of inconsistency stands.  Again as in previous posts I have shown these atheists are famous for posting single verses and ignoring the context.  They also show a lack of understanding of the history of the nation of Israel, their relationship with God, and the Mosaic Covenant.

As far as context, it doesn’t take much effort to read verses 1 & 2 to see who this was written for.  Exodus 35:1-2 Then Moses assembled all the congregation of the sons of Israel, and said to them, “These are the things that the LORD has commanded you to do: 2 “For six days work may be done, but on the seventh day you shall have a holy day, a sabbath of complete rest to the LORD; whoever does any work on it shall be put to death.”  Who was the audience?  Verse 1 says the sons of Israel.  Gentiles living during this time never had to follow religious commands intended for the nation of Israel only.  Those Israelites who violated this commandment, under the theocracy of God, were to be put to death.

We also need to understand the Mosaic Covenant.  The Mosaic code represented the legal statutes of the Jews under the theocracy of God (He served as their king).  No one living today is under the theocracy of God or bound by this covenant.  However, the Mosaic Covenant may still reflect moral norms (no stealing, murder, etc.) that have application for those outside the nation of Israel.  Citing an obligation in the Mosaic Law (even in the Ten Commandments) is not in itself enough to show we are obligated to it. We are not under the jurisdiction of those laws.

However, we can glean wisdom from them when there are similar situations we face in our own lives.  Mosaic Law helps us understand the character of God.  We are also obliged by any transcendent or universal moral obligations reflected in the Law given to the Jews—not because it’s in the Law, but because it’s transcendent and therefore included in the Law.  On my count, that would include nine of the Ten Commandments, the Sabbath being excepted.  We are no longer under obligation to keep the Sabbath.  This Old Testament law was not reaffirmed in the New Testament.  The transcendent character of nine of the Ten Commandments, except the fourth (Sabbath), are affirmed in the New Testament.

Are Christians inconsistent for not killing others for working on the Sabbath?  Reading this verse in context and understanding the limitations of the Mosaic Covenant help us to understand this law no longer applies.  We are not under a theocracy.  We are not inconsistent.


Part 2 How to challenge a moral relativist

To help you understand the context of the issue of objective morality versus relative morality I will tell a true story.  I will use this story throughout the series to help you understand how to talk with a relativist.

Our family was in Yosemite, CA and my middle son, who was a student at Cal State Monterey Bay, had brought along a few of his college buddies.  They loved camping and had come to rock climb some of the safer spots in the Yosemite Valley.  We spent the week climbing, hiking, biking, and floating down the river as I got to know his friends.  They were a fun group of guys.

Late in the week we went on a 15-mile hike and I got a chance to spend time with his roommate Hito.  Hito’s parents were from Japan and he grew up near Santa Cruz.  He was a very likeable individual who looked like a middle linebacker for the San Diego Chargers.  During our time together I asked questions to get to know Hito.  As we hiked along somehow we got on the subject of morality and he told me that he believed all morals were relative; that absolute morality did not exist and individuals make up their our own set of values.  As we continued along I asked him if he would care to defend those views in a mock courtroom.  I would be the prosecuting attorney and he would be the defendant and then later we would switch roles.  He agreed and thought this would be fun.  So over the next few miles we began the trial and over the span of a few hours I challenged his viewpoint.  In the process I was able to totally dismantle his moral relativistic viewpoint.

The truth is you don’t have to be a scholar to expose the fallacies of moral relativism, it actually self destructs.  All you need to learn is the tools and arguments I used to expose this moral system.  The same arguments I shared with Hito, concerning the moral bankruptcy of the moral relativist viewpoint, I will teach you throughout the series.

My objectives for this series are 1) to demonstrate that moral relativism is not a moral system; 2) to show this philosophy cannot be lived consistently, and finally, 3) give you the tools to dismantle this viewpoint in a conversation.  If the person you are talking to is interested in living by a consistent moral viewpoint, they will have to abandon their relativistic system.  Do most people abandon their viewpoint after being shown how inconsistent it is?  In my experience the answer is no; they have certain lifestyle issues that get in the way of living a morally consistent life.  They run back to relativism because it allows them the freedom to live anyway they like, even if they cannot defend it.

Go to part 3 here


Enhanced by Zemanta
About Us | Statement of Faith | Contact Us | Privacy Policy | Terms of Use | Site Map
Never Miss an UPDATE Simply Enter Your Best Email