Gregory Koukl's Blog, page 127

The Self-Evident Nature of Objective Moral Truths

I occasionally encounter someone who rejects the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths. For many people, all moral truth is merely perspectival; a matter of flexible, cultural convention.
Yet there appear to be a number of moral absolutes that transcend
culture and history. These objective truths beckon us to seek
justification when we attempt to circumvent their prescriptions. “Did
you steal the hammer from that man?” “Yes, dad, but he was going to hit
me with it!” We intuitively know that it’s never acceptable to steal
“for the fun of it." This action requires proper justification before
any of us would find it tolerable or morally appropriate. Still, some
folks are unconvinced that such a transcendent Law exists at all.

I’ve
talked to people who refuse to accept some of the transcendent moral
principles I’ve proposed. In one recent conversation, a female graduate
student said she could imagine a culture that might accept (as virtuous)
the moral principles I typically offer as transcendent moral taboos:

It’s never OK to steal “for the fun of it”
It’s never OK to lie “for the fun of it”
It’s never OK to kill “for the fun of it”

When
people seek to reject the transcendent nature of these claims, I take
the following approach. First, I ask them for an historical example.
While there are many cultures that have justified their actions with
rationalizations we might reject as insufficient, you’ll be hard-pressed
to find a culture that used “for the fun of it” as a justification.
Secondly, it’s sometimes important to “super-size” an issue to
illustrate the point. That’s why I occasionally ask the question, “Is it
ever OK to torture babies for fun?” If it isn’t, we’ve just identified a
transcendent moral principle we can agree on. You’d be surprised,
however, to discover how many people will still reject this “extreme”
moral truth claim. The aforementioned graduate student told me, “Well, I
would never so such a thing and I would never say it was OK, but I
don’t think there’s necessarily an objective truth about it.” Really? I
asked her, “So, are you saying there’s a scenario in which it might be
appropriate to torture a baby for fun?” She still hesitated. “So,
you’re saying that there could be a scenario in which it is morally
acceptable to torture babies merely for the fun of it? Do you see how
that sounds?”

When people still refuse to affirm something as
self-evident as, “It’s never OK to torture babies for fun,” it’s time to
offer them an additional piece of advice: “Get some help!” When your
intuitive ability to recognize self-evident truth is inoperative, it’s
time to get some counseling. Or, at least, start asking what it is that
is causing you to hesitate in the first place. As this graduate student
became more and more uncomfortable with her position, she began to
recognize the weight of the moral truth she was trying to deny. She
intuitively understood the need for proper justification because she
felt the gravity of the transcendent claim.

If there are such
transcendent truths, I think we owe it to ourselves to attribute them to
a proper and foundationally reasonable source. I’ll start that journey
later this week (I’m teaching at Hume Lake
for a few days). In the meantime, let’s help people think deeply and
clearly about the transcendent nature of moral truth claims.

[By the way, J. Warner’s book is on sale for less than $4.00 (Kindle and eBook) for a very limited time.]

Is the Existence of Evil an Argument against God's Existence? (Video)

How do you respond to an atheist who says that the existence of evil proves God doesn't exist?

If Moral Decisions Are Dependent on Circumstances, Are There No Objective Moral Truths?

When teaching the difference between objective and subjective truth
claims to groups across the country, the issue of moral truth is often
an area of confusion. Are there any objective moral absolutes? As I described yesterday,
moral actions (such as killing) are sometimes justified under certain
circumstances (i.e. when protecting the life of an innocent child). The
Bible affirms this reasoning and scripture allows for similar
justification of other moral actions as well. Rahab, for example, hid
two Israelite spies from the King of Jericho and lied about their
presence in her home (Joshua 2:1-7). The author of Hebrews later
included Rahab with other faithful people of faith (Hebrews 11:31), and
James also spoke highly of her effort to deceive the King: “In the same
way, was not Rahab the harlot also justified by works when she received
the messengers and sent them out by another way?” (James 2:25). Rahab’s
lie was justified by the same principle scripture uses to justify some
homicides. Rahab acted to save the life of two innocent humans; as a
result, her actions were warranted.

Moral decisions are often
dependent upon the circumstances in which they are made. Does this mean
there are no transcendent, objective moral truths? No. Moral
justifications are, in fact, evidence of the existence of objective
moral facts. We recognize there is something about killing or lying that
is objectively wrong, and this is why we seek to justify our actions in
the first place. If there was not an innate objective truth about the
action, there would be no reason to justify any deviation from this
reality. When we find ourselves having to justify our actions, we are
acknowledging an objective moral fact. But what are these facts? When
teaching groups on the topic, I typically write two or three moral
claims on the board:

Killing Is Never “OK”
Lying Is Never “OK”

Since
we’ve already discussed the circumstances that might justify such
actions (and provided some Biblical examples), most attendees
immediately recognize the problem with these first two claims. There are
times (albeit very few) when either of these two behaviors might be
justified. But the justifications for these actions reveal a
foundational truth better expressed in the following way:

Killing “for the Fun of It” Is Never “OK”
Lying “for the Fun of It” Is Never “OK”

When we simply insert the expression “for the fun of it” into our descriptions of these moral actions, we discover the objective moral absolutes
foundational to the claims. In other words, we’ve just discovered two
objective moral absolutes: “It’s never OK to kill or lie without proper
justification.” Our own human experience confirms these truths.
Regardless of geographic location, place in history or form of culture,
it’s never been morally acceptable to kill or lie without proper
justification. Humans have historically recognized these two objective
moral absolutes; these principles transcend culture, location and
history.

The presence of objective, transcendent moral truths
ought to cause us to think deeply about their source. All laws require
law givers. Transcendent laws require transcendent law givers. That’s
why the existence of objective moral truths is an excellent evidence for the existence of God, the transcendent Law Giver whose very nature is reflected in the moral laws we still enforce today.

Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

By the way, J. Warner’s book is on sale for less than $4.00 (Kindle and eBook) for a very limited time.

The Cyrus Cylinder

In a letter to “all the people whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken
into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon,” Jeremiah warned them they would be there
for a while as a result of their blatant disregard of the covenant they had
made with God. But, he says in a familiar passage:

“For thus says the Lord, ‘When
seventy years have been completed for Babylon, I will visit you and fulfill My
good word to you, to bring you back to this place. For I know the plans that I
have for you,’ declares the Lord, ‘plans for welfare and not for calamity to
give you a future and a hope…. I will restore your fortunes and will gather you
from all the nations and from all the places where I have driven you,’ declares
the Lord, ‘and I will bring you back to the place from where I sent you into
exile’” (Jeremiah 29:10-14).

God, through the prophet Isaiah, told how this would be
accomplished:

“It is I who says of Cyrus, ‘He is
My shepherd! And he will perform all My desire.’ And he declares of Jerusalem,
‘She will be built,’ and of the temple, ‘Your foundation will be laid’" (Isaiah
44:28).

And Daniel was ready when the prophesied time was fulfilled:

I, Daniel, observed in the books
the number of the years which was revealed as the word of the Lord to Jeremiah
the prophet for the completion of the desolations of Jerusalem, namely, seventy
years. So I gave my attention to the Lord God to seek Him by prayer and
supplications, with fasting, sackcloth and ashes…. “So now…for Your sake, O
Lord, let Your face shine on Your desolate sanctuary…. [F]or we are not
presenting our supplications before You on account of any merits of our own,
but on account of Your great compassion. O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord,
listen and take action!” (Daniel 9:1-19)

And God was true to His word:

Now in the first year of Cyrus king
of Persia—in order to fulfill the word of the Lord by the mouth of Jeremiah—the
Lord stirred up the spirit of Cyrus king of Persia, so that he sent a
proclamation throughout his kingdom, and also put it in writing, saying, “Thus
says Cyrus king of Persia, ‘The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the
kingdoms of the earth, and He has appointed me to build Him a house in
Jerusalem, which is in Judah. Whoever there is among you of all His people, may
the Lord his God be with him, and let him go up!’” (2 Chronicles 36:22-23)

Until recently, the Bible contained the only evidence for
the return of the Jews under a decree given by Cyrus. But in 1879, an
archeologist excavating a Babylonian temple discovered a clay cylinder
inscribed with Cyrus’s description of his reign wherein he lists as one of his accomplishments the return of some of the peoples conquered by the previous king to their own lands to worship
their gods.

That cylinder, which is normally on display at
the British Museum, is now touring the United States, and if you’re at all
able to go see it, you
should. You can read more on the tour’s website
about how Cyrus’s approach to ruling a pluralistic society (as represented by
the Cylinder) has played a part in history, including the influence it had on
America’s founders.

The British Museum says the Cylinder is a symbol of
religious freedom and tolerance, but it’s much more than that. It’s a reminder
of God’s love, His gracious mercy, and His unstoppable plan to redeem us
through Christ despite (and indeed, because of) the faithlessness and weakness
of humanity. It’s a symbol of His sovereignty over history and all those who
are in power for the sake of His own good purpose.

The king’s heart is like channels
of water in the hand of the Lord; He turns it wherever He wishes (Proverbs
21:1). 

This cylinder exists because the God who is real acted in
history for us—“not on account of any merits of our own, but on account of His great
compassion.”

Challenge Response: You're a Higher Source Than the Bible

Here's my response to this week's challenge:

  

Burden or Freedom

Rachael Slick, the daughter of an apologist, has written an article recounting her theological and apologetic training growing up – and her subsequent rejection of Christianity.  I don't intend to comment on the details, especially about her family and what did or didn't happen, because we only have her account from her perspective.  I do want to make one observation about what she writes about what she understood and believes now.

She never mentions the Gospel. 

I'm not saying she was not taught it, I imagine she was along with all of the other things she says she was taught.  But from her own account, the Gospel doesn't appear to have made an impression on her amidst all the other facts of Christianity she learned.  What comes across is her efforts and sincere desire to measure up and obey God, but inevitable discouragement at her failure to do so.  She writes in her conclusion about the freedom she has found in rejecting Christianity and that burden.

The burden of the law crushes, and the Gospel frees us of that burden.  We can't measure up to the law, even though obedience is important.  The Gospel gives freedom because of God's unfailing forgiveness through Jesus.  It's understandable that Rachael searched for freedom from the guilt of the law.  It's tragic that, for whatever reason, the freedom and relief of God's mercy and grace didn't make an impression on her.

It's a good reminder that as apologists, whether we're talking to skeptics or training our children, we return frequently and regularly to the core of the message – the Gospel of reconciliation with God through Jesus.  God is not angry with us anymore, but offers us free, unmerited love and forgiveness that is unfailing and abundant.  Obedience flows from gratitude, not an effort to measure up.  All the facts and details of Christianity are important.  Answering challenges from critics is important.  But they should not overwhelm and obscure the message that we're trying to convey, the Gospel.  Say it often and clearly. 

Links Mentioned on the Show

The following are links that were either mentioned on this week's show or inspired by it, as posted live on the @STRtweets Twitter feed:

What Does Faith in Christ Mean? by Greg Koukl


Greg on the Unbelievable radio show: Windows Media, iTunes

Listen to today's show or download any archived show for free. (Find links from past shows here.)

To follow the Twitter conversation during the live show (Tuesdays 4:00–7:00 p.m. PT), use the hashtag #STRtalk.

Believing the Gospels Is Different Than Trusting the Gospel

In the first chapter of Cold Case Christianity
I illustrate the difference between “belief in” and “belief that.” It’s
one thing to “believe that” your bullet proof vest can stop a ballistic
round, but I’ve known officers who trusted their vests to stop a bullet
when they were powerless to do anything in their own defense. In those
moments, they moved from “belief that” the vest could save them to
“belief in” the vest as a life saver; they transitioned from “belief” to
“trust.” We need to do something similar with the claims of
Christianity.

I remember my own journey from “belief that” to
“belief in.” It began with an intensive investigation of the gospels as I
examined them from the perspective of eyewitness accounts.
I spent several months pouring over the canonical gospels in an effort
to mine out the red letters of Jesus. Along the way I employed the tools
I learned as a detective and eventually decided the only thing
preventing me from accepting the gospels as historically reliable
eyewitness accounts was my presuppositional bias against anything supernatural. I eventually determined that the gospel writers were reliable eyewitnesses.

At
this point in my journey, I believed “that” Jesus was who He said He
was, but I was still much like Nicodemus; I had “belief that” but no
“belief in.” Nicodemus visited Jesus late at night and told Jesus,
“Rabbi, we know that
You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these signs that
You do unless God is with him” (John 3:2). Nicodemus had been
investigating Jesus and, based on what he saw and heard, he believed
“that” Jesus was a Godly teacher. Jesus told Nicodemus this was
insufficient; Nicodemus needed to be born again and “believe in” Jesus
for his salvation. He told Nicodemus, “For God so loved the world, that
He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in
Him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the
Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved
through Him. He who believes in
Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already,
because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God”
(John 3:16-18).

Every one of us, at some point in our
investigation of the claims of Christianity, has to move from “belief
that” to “belief in.” I can remember telling my wife, Susie, that I had
come to the conclusion the New Testament gospels were reliable; I believed they were telling me the truth about what Jesus said and did.
But I still didn’t understand the Gospel of Salvation. I still didn’t
know why Jesus had to go to the cross. So I asked her, “Do you
understand it?” She didn’t have a good answer for me either. As a
rebellious, self-reliant detective, I still denied my need for a Savior,
even though I accepted what the gospels told me about that Savior. In order to take a step from “belief that” to “belief in,” I needed to move from an examination of Jesus to an examination of Jim.

As
I read the gospels for a second and third time and explored all of the
New Testament scripture, I began to focus more on what it said about me than what it said about Jesus.
I didn’t like what I saw. Over and over again, I recognized the truth
about my own character, behavior and need for forgiveness; I began to
understand my need for repentance. The facts about Jesus confirmed that He was the Savior, the facts about me confirmed my need to trust in Him for forgiveness. I was now ready to move from “belief that” to “belief in.”

All
of us need to be good Christian Case Makers so we can defend what we
believe about God and make the case for the claims of Christianity. But
we need to be careful to understand the proper role of evidence and the important distinction between believing the gospels and trusting the Gospel. I want to be more than someone who understands and accepts the evidence about Jesus. I want to be someone who understands and accepts the evidence about me. Only then will I begin to place my trust in the Savior that the New Testament reliably describes.

Subscribe to J. Warner’s Daily Email

By the way, J. Warner’s book (Kindle version) is on sale for $4.99 until August 15th.

Challenge: You're a Higher Source Than the Bible

In responding to what he perceives to be the Christian claim
that “atheists have no morals because they have no moral guide,” Pat Condell
says in his video
that not even Christians use the Bible as a moral guide:

You defy the Bible. You sift out
the bad and discard it for the ignorant, primitive barbarism it is. In short,
you edit the Bible to suit your own sensibilities. So where do you get the
moral guidance to impose your authority on the word of the Bible? It has to
come from a higher source, doesn’t it? These things usually do. And it does, of
course. It comes from you. You are a higher source than the Bible….

The evidence is clear. You sifted
the good from the bad in the Bible without the Bible’s help, you did it against
the Bible’s will, and you did it all on your own, because whether you like it
or not, you have a conscience, which means that you are capable of
distinguishing good from evil without the help of Scripture, and you have just
proven it beyond any shadow of doubt.

So in fact, the Bible is not your
moral guide, you are. It doesn’t provide you with a moral compass, you do. And
the only faith you need is faith in yourself.

There are a few different directions in which you could take
this one. Is that the claim Christians make? What does the Bible really say?
Are we sifting things out? What is morality? Why do we know morality? Does the
atheist’s knowledge of morality contradict Christianity? Are there questions
you could ask to draw out his inconsistencies?

It’s generally best to try to pick the most important point, and then keep the conversation focused. So
how would you answer this? We’ll hear Alan’s response on Thursday.

Webcast Tuesday

Greg is live online Tuesday 4-7 p.m. PT. Back from three weeks teaching in Europe - undoubtedly, with plenty of stories to tell. Open lines all three hours so give him a call with your question or comment at (855) 243-9975.

Listen live online. Join us on Twitter during the program @STRtweets #STRtalk.