There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true. —Soren Kierkegaard. "…truth is true even if nobody believes it, and falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. That is why truth does not yield to opinion, fashion, numbers, office, or sincerity–it is simply true and that is the end of it" – Os Guinness, Time for Truth, pg.39. “He that takes truth for his guide, and duty for his end, may safely trust to God’s providence to lead him aright.” – Blaise Pascal. "There is but one straight course, and that is to seek truth and pursue it steadily" – George Washington letter to Edmund Randolph — 1795. We live in a “post-truth” world. According to the dictionary, “post-truth” means, “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief.” Simply put, we now live in a culture that seems to value experience and emotion more than truth. Truth will never go away no matter how hard one might wish. Going beyond the MSM idealogical opinion/bias and their low information tabloid reality show news with a distractional superficial focus on entertainment, sensationalism, emotionalism and activist reporting – this blogs goal is to, in some small way, put a plug in the broken dam of truth and save as many as possible from the consequences—temporal and eternal. "The further a society drifts from truth, the more it will hate those who speak it." – George Orwell “There are two ways to be fooled. One is to believe what isn’t true; the other is to refuse to believe what is true.” ― Soren Kierkegaard
Rep Anna Paulina Luna was on “Sunday Morning Futures” to talk about the importance of voter ID to secure future elections. She explained that the Democrat party wants mass amnesty for illegals, which makes it even more important to require ID to vote.
“Your reaction to that conversation and what you expect from the SAVE Act?” Bartiromo asked.
“I think right now Americans have made their voices very clear. They want voter ID. And I really will take a second to commend Senator Collins. She was the 50th representative to sign on to this, and this is a massive piece of legislation,” Luna said.
“Senator Thune has every ability to bring the standing filibuster to the floor,” Luna said.
“This is probably the number one thing, especially moving into the midterms,” Luna continued.
Rep Luna warned that the agenda of the Democrats in the Senate voting against the SAVE act is mainly because they want illegals to vote. The Democrats also want mass amnesty and mass naturalization to turn illegals into citizens.
“The Senate Democrats have made it very clear that they want mass amnesty, they want mass naturalization of illegals, and frankly, I think they are going to do it anyways,” Luna continued.
“The only way to really secure our country for future generations is to ensure that Americans have faith in the voting process and that if their Senators work against their interests, that they can vote them out at the ballot box, and that is exactly what this will do,” Luna continued.
“I am frankly behind every Senator that is for the voter ID,” Luna said.
“Thune needs to bring it to the floor, and it needs to happen immediately,” Luna said.
“I mean, this talking filibuster has never been used. Just heard the Senator from Tennessee, Senator Haggerty say they are examining it right now,” Bartiromo said.
Rep Luna discussed the importance of the talking filibuster and explained that historically it was used in the Senate.
“I would actually argue back with him and politely correct him and that the talking filibuster was actually how the filibuster did work historically,” Luna explained.
“You have only a few jobs in Congress. One is to argue your ideas and the other is to vote,” Luna said.
“Look, you are in the Senate. It’s a wonderful job. It’s a privilege, and you should get to it. So, I would say, that they need to actually embrace what the filibuster was, get back to what it traditionally stood for,” Luna continued.
“If Democrats are watching this, the Republican party is going to deliver on this for you, so remember that when you vote in the midterms,” Luna said.
In our series on “20 Arguments for God’s Existence,” we have relied solely upon the resource offered by philosopher Peter Kreeft “Twenty Arguments God’s Existence.” This week, we consider the Argument from Conscience from another work from Kreeft, the Pocket Handbook of Christian Apologetics.
Kreeft explains the argument as follows:Since moral subjectivism is very popular today, the following version of, or twist to, the moral argument should be effective since it does not presuppose moral objectivism. Modern people often say they believe that there are no universally binding moral obligations, that we must all follow our own private conscience. But that very admission is enough of a premise to prove the existence of God.
Isn’t it remarkable that no one, even the most consistent subjectivist, believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience? Even if different people’s consciences tell them to do or avoid totally different things, there remains one moral absolute for everyone: never disobey your own conscience.
Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority-an authority admitted even by the moral subjectivist and relativist? There are only four possibilities: (1) from something less than me (nature); (2) from me (individual); (3) from others equal to me (society); or (4) from something above me (God). Let’s consider each of these possibilities in order.
1. How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me- for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?
2. How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise.
3. How can society obligate me? What right do equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is “society” God?
4. The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will morally, with rightful demands from complete obedience.
Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source or ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul.1
I. The moral argument seeks to infer God as the best explanation for the moral facts about the universe. One popular formulation is as follows:
If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist.
Objective moral values and duties do exist.
Therefore, God exists.
II. Terms:
Moral Values: are what matter to us (love, mercy, justice, etc). They are what motivate our behavior. They ground our judgments about what is good or bad, desirable or undesirable.
Moral Duties: indicates an oughtness of action; whether an act is obligatory. ‘’I shouldn’t do that, or you ought to do that.”
Objective: There is a standard of morality that transcends human opinions, judgments, biases. Example: It is objectively true that Dallas is North of Houston. Here’s a moral claim: Shoplifting is wrong. On moral objectivism, the claim that shoplifting is wrong is a fact about reality.
Moral Realism: The meta-ethical view that there exist such things as moral facts that are independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings, or other attitudes towards them (similar to when we say “objective”).
Subjective: Based on or influenced by personal feelings, tastes, or opinions. Example: “I prefer Donates Pizza over Little Caesars.”
III. What’s the key in conversations? Discuss the following:
A Standard – provides a measure of good/bad, right/wrong.
People show by their reactions that a moral standard is being violated when they say the following: 1) “That’s wrong” 2) “That’s evil” 3) “That’s unjust” 4) That’s immoral” 5) That’s not fair”
This assumes people know:
The difference between what is fair and unfair
The difference between what is just and unjust
The difference between what is morally right and morally wrong
The difference between what is evil and good
IV. Where does the standard come from?
Individual relativism: moral values and judgments are dependent on individual feelings, tastes, or opinions.
Cultural Relativism/Social Consensus: Our morality is shaped and changed by the culture around us.
God: God’s nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself.
Moral Intuitionism: Says basic moral propositions are self-evident—that is, evident in and of themselves—and so can be known without the need of any argument. Knowledge concerning moral principles gained by intuition is not based on or inferred from perception, memory, prior conclusions, etc.
Is there an authority – someone/thing that has the right to impose the standard and enforce adherence?
V. The Lewis Argument (similar to saying there is an objective standard)
1. There is a universal moral law, which applies to everyone.
2. All of us are, have been, or will be breakers of this moral law.
3. Therefore, there is a moral lawgiver.
Objection #1
“There are no such thing as objective moral facts.”
Response: Really? Why do people generally think that some actions are “right”, and some actions are “wrong,” regardless of people’s subjective opinions? Why do most people believe that it is “evil” or “wicked” (1) for someone to walk into a random house, shoot everyone in it, and steal everything in sight? (2) for a man to beat and rape a kind, innocent woman? (3) for an adult to torture an innocent child simply for the fun of it? or (4) for parents to have children for the sole purpose of abusing them sexually every day of their lives.
Objection #2
Perhaps “right” and “wrong” are culture-specific; what is considered moral in one society may be considered immoral in another, and, since no universal standard of morality exists, no one has the right to judge another society’s customs.
Response: If objective morality doesn’t exist, then what about these issues?
Widow burning can be morally acceptable…
Cannibalism can be morally acceptable…
Murder can be morally acceptable…
Rape can be morally acceptable…
Gratuitously torturing innocent babies can be morally acceptable…
In order to argue that at least one of these cultures is wrong, one must appeal to an objective moral standard that is outside each culture.
Objection #3: “But I’m a moral person and I don’t believe in God. Are you saying that atheists can’t be moral?”
Response:
We should not confuse (knowledge) of morality with the basis for morality (ontology). Christians are not saying that the non-theist doesn’t have moral knowledge. After all, from the Christian perspective, since all humans are God’s image-bearers, it isn’t surprising that they are capable of recognizing or knowing the same sorts of moral values—whether theists or not.
The question is what justification do we have for knowing what is right? What is the justification for our moral knowledge?
Objection #4: “Is a thing good simply because God says it is? If so, then it seems that God could say anything was good and it would be?
Response:
We can ground moral obligations in the nature of God, rather than in the will of God.
God’s nature itself can serve as the standard of goodness, and God can base His declarations of goodness on Himself.
God’s nature is unchangeable and wholly good; thus, His will is not arbitrary, and His declarations are always true.
Objection #5: Evolution is what gives us morality?
Response:
Evolution is all about survival of species. We hold moral beliefs based on what confers a survival advantage and not on what corresponds to reality.
Rape may enhance the survival of the species, but does that make rape good? Should we rape?
Killing the weak and handicapped may help improve the species and its survival (Hitler’s plan). Does that mean the Holocaust was a good thing?
Natural science is a descriptive enterprise, only telling us what is the case, not what ought to be the case. For example, nature can describe what it is to be healthy, but it cannot prescribe a moral obligation to be healthy.
Evolution cannot adequately explain human value: On a naturalistic evolutionary scenario, human beings came to be through a blind process of chance and necessity. Thus, there is nothing intrinsically valuable about being human.
Which ethical theory makes the most sense?
1. Divine Command Theory: A thing (i.e., action, behavior, choice, etc.) is good because God commands it to be done or evil because God forbids it. What is good is not good simply because God commands it. It is good because it is reflective of His divine nature.
2.Natural law moral theory: Says the moral standards that govern human behavior are, in some sense, objectively derived from the nature of human beings and the nature of the world.
3.Virtue Ethics: To be virtuous, a person will develop specific characteristics, such as goodness, honesty, self-control, moral or practical wisdom that knows the right course to take in any circumstance.
4. Utilitarianism: It is a consequence-based ethic that looks at what will bring the greatest happiness — or “well-being” or “flourishing” — for the greatest number is “good.” Utilitarianism affirms that consequences matter more than means, motives, or character.
5.Emotivism: moral claims are not statements about truth but rather expressions of personal emotions.
A Christian ethic will most likely be able to utilize a combination of theories 1-3.
In my new book, God’s Crime Scene: A Cold-Case Detective Examines the Evidence for A Divinely Created Universe, I examine eight pieces of evidence in the universe by asking a simple investigative question: “Can I explain the evidence ‘in the room’ (of the natural universe) by staying ‘in the room’?” This is a question I ask at every death scene to determine if I actually have a crime scene. When evidence “in the room” can’t be explained by staying “in the room”, I’ve got to consider the involvement of an intruder. If the evidence inside the universe can’t be explained by staying “inside” the natural realm of the universe, we must similarly consider the involvement of a cosmicintruder. One critical piece of the evidence in the universe is the existence of transcendent moral truths. Can we explain these truths by staying “inside the room”?
Many atheistic philosophers and thinkers seek to explain moral truth from “inside the room” of the natural universe by offering societies and cultures as the source of morality. According to this view (termed “moral relativism”), morality varies from culture to culture. There are no objective, transcendent, universal moral standards “on all men at all times.” Moral relativists believe cultures and people groups create their moral codes rather than discover them. Moral codes are a social construct designed by the majority to help the group maintain social harmony and increase their ability to survive. But if cultural agreement determines moral truth, several problems emerge:
This Approach Confuses Cultural Diversity with Moral Clarity Moral relativism rightly recognizes the cultural and moral diversity of our world, but this observation fails to falsify the existence of transcendent, objective moral truths. Cultures can differ on their beliefs about what causes tuberculosis, for example, but this does not mean there isn’t an objective truth about the cause and nature of the disease. Diversity of subjective belief has little to do with the existence of objective truth.
This Approach Fails to Identify Which “Culture” Reigns If moral truths emerge from the consensus of people groups, which people group gets to decide? Does size or power dictate which groups are qualified to be an authority? Moral relativism denies us the ability to declare one group more authoritative than the other, unless we are willing to appeal to an authority transcending all groups.
Illustrations from God’s Crime Scene
This Approach Silences Cross-Cultural Criticism If moral truth is a product of cultural consensus, no specific culture is in the position to criticize or praise the behavior of any other culture. Moral relativism does not allow us to say, “Torture is objectively wrong.” At best we can simply proclaim, “We don’t like torture here in our culture.” But why should anyone care what we think in the first place if moral truth is relative to each culture? If morals are simply the product of cultural opinion, proclamations about moral truth are like statements about food preferences: interesting, but ultimately meaningless.
This Approach Is Too Dependent On Agreement If people groups decide what is morally right or wrong, how are we to consider a particular act if there is no definitive cultural agreement? Does this mean an act has no moral status until a majority of us can agree? And how large does the majority have to be? The issue of abortion, for example, is still a fluid and hotly debated topic. Consensus is sometimes difficult to find, particularly in some regions of the United States. Does the lack of consensus mean abortion is neither morally right nor morally wrong? If moral relativism is true, we can’t make a declaration on the moral status of any act until we’ve reached a cultural consensus.
This Approach Marginalizes Moral Reformers If moral truth is decided by cultural agreement, based on the beliefs of the majority—how are we to evaluate those individuals in the minority? Wouldn’t they be considered immoral by definition? Moral reformers like Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr., who began their efforts at moral reform as individuals advocating a minority view, would be powerless to effect change if moral truth was truly established as moral relativists propose. Reformers such as these appeal to moral truths transcending the majority opinion when they argue for change. If moral truth begins at the level of culture, there is no authority above one’s society to whom we can appeal.
This Approach Encourages and Employs Immoral Behavior If moral codes are systematically created and embraced by cultures in an effort to maintain social harmony and increase survivability, how are we to avoid culturally selfish acts? If a particular activity increases the social harmony and survivability of our culture—but accomplishes this at the brutal expense of a neighboring culture—does this make the behavior morally acceptable? Slavery can actually increase the survivability of one culture over another—especially over the cultures enslaved. In fact, one argument for the continuation of slavery in America revolved around its benefits to the economy. Goals related to survivability, including economic survivability, can and have been co-opted to excuse self-serving immoral behaviors.
This Approach Confuses Recognition with Existence While it’s clear people groups employ moral principles to further their own well-being and survivability, those who claim societies are the source of such principles—either through some process of social progress or psychological evolution—are confusing moral recognition with moral existence. Even the most robust evolutionary proposals related to the origin of moral truth simply offer a description of why and how humans have employed moral principles to increase their survivability. Cultures may recognize and employ moral principles, but this doesn’t mean they created these principles. In fact, many scientists and philosophers are suspicious about any causal relationship between evolution and moral virtue. The evolutionary process often results in disharmony and strife; morality seems to require us to overcome the “evolved beast” in each of us.
The best explanation for the existence of transcendent moral truth is simply the existence of a transcendent source of moral obligation “outside” the room of the natural universe. Share on X
Moral relativism is simply another failed attempt to stay “inside the room” of the natural universe to explain the existence of objective moral truths. The best explanation for the existence of transcendent moral truth is simply the existence of a transcendent source of moral obligation “outside” the room of the natural universe. This brief summary is excerpted from God’s Crime Scene and is part of a larger chapter on the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths. The existence of moral truth and obligation is just one of eight evidences “inside the room” that point to the reasonable inference of a Creator God “outside the room.” For a much more detailed examination of this important piece of evidence, please read Chapter Seven: Law and Order – Is Morality More Than An Opinion?
How are we to account for the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths? Some philosophers, like Sam Harris, believe “moral values are really questions about the well-being of conscious creatures.” Well-being (also described as human “flourishing”) is, according to Harris, the purpose of our existence as human beings. Since human biology transcends human culture, moral truths (if they are rooted in human biology), would also transcend culture. As a result, we can account for the existence of objective, transcendent moral truths without having to ground them in a transcendent moral truth-giver (like God). Harris believes these kinds of truths are simply grounded in the well-being of our entire species, and according to Harris, can be ascertained and apprehended by simply studying the science of human flourishing. Harris argues “that science can, in principle, help us understand what we should do and should want—and, therefore, what other people should do and should want in order to live the best lives possible. There are right and wrong answers to moral questions, just as there are right and wrong answers to questions of physics, and such answers may one day fall within reach of the maturing sciences of mind.” But this attempt to ground objective, transcendent moral truths in human biological flourishing is misguided for several reasons:
This View Assumes a Moral Definition of “Well-Being” What is Harris’ definition of “well-being” in the first place? Is it merely survival, or is it a particular kind of survival? Even philosophers who hold this view readily admit some behaviors (like subjugating slaves and stealing the resources of opposing groups) can actually aid in the survival of a people group. But these same thinkers simultaneously believe these kinds of behaviors are detrimental to the group’s well-being. This implies, however, there’s a right way to survive and a wrong way. Did you spot the logical inconsistency here? Those who believe the pursuit of human well-being is the origin of moral truth, begin with a definition of well-being already infused with moral truth. Who gets to determine the right or wrong way to survive or flourish? This approach to moral truth argues for something more than mere biological survival of the fittest. It argues for a kind of moral survival (described as “well-being”) before it has adequately explained the source for moral truth.
An Illustration from God’s Crime Scene
Those who believe the pursuit of human well-being is the origin of moral truth, begin with a definition of well-being already infused with moral truth. Share on X
This View Confuses Facts with Norms The majority of psychologists and neuroscientists, even those studying moral reasoning, understand the difference between scientific facts and moral norms. Philosopher and psychologist Jerry Fodor explains it this way: “Science is about facts, not norms; it might tell us how we are, but it couldn’t tell us what is wrong with how we are. There couldn’t be a science of the human condition (emphasis mine).” It’s one thing to describe what is (where in the brain, for example, one might find synapse activity corresponding to a moral choice), but it’s another thing to explain why a moral choice is either good or bad. As J. P. Moreland notes: “Moral properties are normative properties. They carry with them a moral ‘ought.’ If some act has the property of rightness, then one ought to do that act. But natural properties… do not carry normativeness. They just are.” Facts about how guns work, for example, cannot tell us whether or not you should use one to murder a rival. In a similar way, facts about how our brains work cannot tell us about the value or nature of our moral norms.
Facts about how guns work, for example, cannot tell us whether or not you should use one to murder a rival. In a similar way, facts about how our brains work cannot tell us about the value or nature of our moral norms. Share on X
This View Fails To Determine Which Behaviors Are Actually Beneficial Even if we believe moral truths are nothing more than biological facts about human flourishing, it’s not always easy to determine which behaviors are beneficial to our well-being in the first place. If the value of every action is to be determined by the consequence the action has on human well-being, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make these assessments with certainty. How can one truly know if an act will have a positive or negative impact on human flourishing many years down the road?
If the value of every action is to be determined by the consequence the action has on human well-being, it will be difficult, if not impossible, to make these assessments with certainty. Share on X
This View Fails to Determine Whose Well-Being Is Most Important Why would any of us consider the well-being of strangers prior to the well-being of our own families and communities? If history is any indicator, humans are far more inclined to care for themselves than for others, even when the activities of their own group may ultimately harm the survivability of the entire species. Who gets to define “flourishing” when cultures and individuals disagree about notions of happiness, compassion, contentedness, or physical and psychological health? When competing interests collide, whose definitions (and whose well-being) warrants our consideration? As philosopher Patricia Churchland observes, “no one has the slightest idea how to compare the mild headache of five million against the broken legs of two, or the needs of one’s own two children against the needs of a hundred unrelated brain-damaged children in Serbia.”
Even if we are only interested in the well-being of an isolated group, should we be more concerned about total well-being or average well-being of the group? Those concerned with total well-being prefer a world in which the most people possible are able to live with at least moderate well-being. Those concerned with average well-being prefer a world in which smaller groups maximize their well-being, even if others suffer, so the average for the species is elevated. If we derive moral value from an action’s impact on the well-being of the entire species, why should I, as a law enforcement officer, care at all about murdered gang members such as Jesse’s victim? Shouldn’t I be more focused on the fate of those better educated, wealthier or more intelligent contributors to our society than those who are actually preying on our society? Aren’t those in the first group more likely to contribute to the well-being of our species than those in the second? Assessing an action’s moral value on the basis of its ultimate consequence is nearly impossible to accomplish and leads to disturbing discrimination.
Assessing an action’s moral value on the basis of its ultimate consequence is nearly impossible to accomplish and leads to disturbing discrimination. Share on X
Sam Harris recognizes the existence of objective, moral truths and understands the futility of attempting to ground these truths in personal opinions or cultural norms. The source for transcendent morality simply must transcend individuals and people groups. But Harris’ solution (to ground such truths in the transcendent flourishing of the human species) fails. The best, most reasonable explanation for transcendent moral truth is the existence of a transcendent moral truth-giver: God.
This post is but a brief summary; for a more robust discussion of this topic (including a detailed examination of other explanations atheists and theists provide for the existence of moral truths, please refer to God’s Crime Scene, Chapter Seven – Law and Order: Is Morality More Than An Opinion?
George Haraksin of the Reasons to Believe apologetics organization spoke at the Southern Evangelical Seminary Apologetics Conference on October 11 on the disappearance of moral knowledge. To illustrate his point, he said that Google maps have replaced skill many people once had at reading maps and finding obscure locations. “Spatial memory’ and ‘mental mapping’ has [i.e., have] disappeared in a generation of people.” He finds this true of his students, and even colleagues who are younger. There is thus a “disappearance of directional knowledge.”
Haraksin then talked about the disappearance of moral knowledge. He oversees the scholar community at Reasons to Believe, and is also a father. “How do you make a good person,” he asked. Like directional knowledge, generally held moral knowledge has disappeared in our society. Following the Christian philosopher and University of Southern California professor Dallas Willard amd his book “The Disappearance of Moral Knowledge,” Haraksin quoted Willard saying “there is now in our contemporary time no recognized systematic body of moral teaching that can be presented as moral knowledge by the institutions of Western society.” Haraksin then summarized some of the conclusions of Willard and others regarding the lack of a common morality in contemporary society.
Confidently Holding Moral Beliefs
He asked what we mean by knowledge. It is not simply belief, or a belief which is in fact true, but a true belief which is justified. Again quoting Williard, he said that “knowledge is our ability or the human capacity to represent things as they are on appropriate basis of thought and experience.” However, one can have a belief with “some evidence” which is nevertheless untrue. Truth is essential to a evidentially supported belief being knowledge.
Knowledge is thus obviously “not a simple matter.” Philosophers identify “at least” three ways people know. First, there is “knowledge by personal acquaintance.” This involves being “directly aware of something.” We are directly aware of the things we experience in ordinary life. Secondly, there is there is “knowledge as a mastery of data, or know-how.” How to change a tire or play the piano would be examples. Thirdly, there is “propositional knowledge.”
He said that “when it comes to morality, we can have a direct awareness of right and wrong, even if we couldn’t propositionally articulate it.” This obviously is not the same as having an ethical system. But where moral knowledge is concerned, that gives “a person authority and power to do something in another person’s life.” Where one is recognized as having knowledge in a particular area, such as plumbing or dentistry, “people hand over trust” to others to intervene in their lives in that area, but not in other areas. Yet morality informs all of life. Secular law can intervene in any area, but without a common morality to back it up, it is not generally recognized as righteous, and people do not know that what is legally expected ought to be done. Haraksin referred to the prophet Hosea who said, “my people are destroyed for lack of knowledge (Hos.4:6).” Romans chapter 1 also refers to “the suppression of knowledge” leading to a world of violence and oppression.
The Loss of Moral Knowledge
In the present day moral knowledge is lost or obscured. Haraksin referred to the words of Martin Luther King and his booklet “Knock at Midnight,” referring to Jesus’s parable of the lampstand in Luke chapter 11 (Lk.11;33-36). King said that today, morality has become a matter of “what the majority is doing… right and wrong are relative to likes and dislikes.” But even though morality has been reduced to preference, paradoxically people speak as if morality were real. There is “much moral talk, and so much morals legislation in our society.” People talk a lot about morality. They are not simply expressing their own preferences, but making claims about what other people should or shouldn’t do. Pro-life Americans have long noted that people who profess to be “pro-choice” may be vegetarians, or campaign against factory farming. Similarly relativists may be opposed to “bullying, sexual assault, or greed” at the same time that they deny universal moral principles.
“What are some of the causes of the disappearance” of moral knowledge, he asked. They are, he said, “legion in lot of places.” These include “the discrediting of religion, particularly Christianity, maybe even Judaism, as a source of knowledge of reality, and especially moral reality.” People still may go to religious institutions “for comfort,” but not moral instruction. Secondly, “moral facts” have been rejected in favor of “moral opinions.” Thirdly, there is a rejection of the idea of the soul as a focus of moral activity, replacing it with physicalistic explanations of human behavior. Where an horrific crime has been committed, people ask what was wrong with the criminal’s brain. People back away from calling a bad act “immoral or evil.” To speak of brains as “immoral” sounds strange, it appears to be “a category mistake.”
A further reason is that differences between cultures are used to show that there are no universal moral principles, and so no standards of judgment that could be used to judge people in other cultures. Even Christian students may say “everyone believes differently about morality.” Finally, moral principles are “seen as power plays.” They are not regarded as something to be trusted, “but rather a manipulation.” Incredibly, “morality is seen as even harmful.” There is no talk of “what the vision of the good life is, what is a good person, and how do I become a good person,” Instead, ethics students are given moral dilemmas to wrestle with, but not told what true morality is.
Moral Confusion in the Institutions
Quoting John Mearsheimer, a political scientist and international relations scholar at the University of Chicago, Haraksin said that today’s universities try to “develop critical thinking, broaden intellectual horizons,” expose people to new ideas, and “enhance self-awareness.” But universities are not concerned with “providing truth.” Mearsheimer explicitly stated that “we’re not there to teach morality.” The result, Haraksin said, is “a confusing environment for a person.” He referred to Scott Soames – like Willard, a philosophy professor at the University of Southern California – who said that “since no single moral perspective dominates the others in society, especially the university, intimidation, coercion, and condescension fill the gap left by the absence of moral reasoning.”
Haraksin also cited philosopher of science Michael Ruse, who said that people who believe that horrific crimes are acceptable are “simply mistaken.” But he did not say “immoral” or “evil.” Like Nietzsche in the nineteenth century, Ruse followed the practice of collapsing “a moral category into a rational or intellectual category.” This, Haraksin said, “has been a big shift.” Yet despite pronouncing against atrocities, Ruse also said that “God is dead, so why should I be good,” and “morality is flim-flam.” Thus, Ruse seemed to both affirm and deny real, objective morality. Although there have been scientific efforts to “provide a foundation for moral knowledge,” these have been unsuccessful, Haraksin said, and the secular world is left with “moral nihilism.”
Finally, there has been a shift from “knowing moral facts, to moral opinions.” Little children have an innate sense of morality, which is frequently heard when a child says “that’s not fair.” Children must be purged “out of their moral awareness.” Unhappily, “this is actually what is happening in schools.” He pointed to a website for elementary school children, “Binky’s Games of Facts and Opinions.” In the game, facts can be shown, judgments of value are held to be opinions. Similarly, in the Common Core curriculum for elementary and high school, children are taught that all moral or aesthetic evaluations are opinions, yet the students must sign a statement that they will not “cheat or bully people.” Again, there appears to be confusion about how objective moral judgments are.
The Desire for and Aversion to Morality
Thus, students are effectively taught that all moral and aesthetic claims “are opinion claims, because you can’t show that they are true, or knowledge.” This means that “morality disappears.” People can hold beliefs about what is moral, but they are not commonly accepted knowledge. Haraksin said to the contrary that “a statement can actually be true even if I can’t prove it.” One can have a true, and thus factual, opinion of the weather, he said. Our innate moral awareness is clearly a fact. He seemed to suggest that the burden of proof lies with those who would deny its authority. Quoting James Davison Hunter, Haraksin said:
“As it is currently institutionalized, public education does just the opposite of what it intends. In its present form it undermines the convictions upon which character must be based, if it is to exist at all. We say we want character; we even legislate that way in our day, but we really don’t know what we ask for. To have a renewal of character is to have a renewal of a creedal order that constrains, limits, binds, obligates, and compels. This price is too high for us to pay. We want character, but without unyielding conviction. We want strong morality, but without the emotional burden of guilt or shame. We want virtue, but without moral justifications that invariably offend others. We want good without having to name evil. We want decency without the authority to insist upon it, and we want community without any limitations on personal freedom. We want what we cannot possibly have on the terms we want it.”
Haraksin also quoted T.S. Elliott saying that “we’re all looking for a system so perfect that we don’t have to be good.” This, Haraksin said, “is the waters we swim in.”
In response to a question, and noting Richard Dawkins recent advocacy of “cultural Christianity,” Haraksin said that “people are recognizing now the vacuum. It’s like the water has been sucked out.” Another questioner said that a common practice today is to apply moral standards to people we don’t like. Haraksin responded that people do not apply skepticism about the commonly accepted morality of the past (such as the commandment against theft) when morality is in their favor.
In response to another questioner, he said that we are indeed not in an era of relativism – but citing a book of the same name – in an era of “new absolutes.” These absolutes attempt to prohibit obedience to the precepts of traditional religion and morality from public, and now increasingly private life. They are based not on reason or revelation but simply on political power.
Haraksin said regarding the new moral environment: “I actually don’t think people have been reasoned into these positions, I think people have been messaged into these positions.” In particular, “the technologies we use message us in a certain direction.” He noted “from elementary school teaching all the way to the Supreme Court how you are taught that you create your identity, you’re not given an essence or an identity.” Technology “messages” us into creating our identity.
Haraksin clearly laid out the problem of the loss of moral knowledge, but left the issue of its recovery for future treatment another day. He did seem to propose two building blocks however – the innate sense of morality that children must be trained to discredit, and “creedal order” referred to by Hunter. (This writer would add the right of conscience, the right not to take an action believed to be evil, as intuitively known in a proper account of moral knowledge). It is unreasonable to expect unanimity in society, but if creedal order is to contribute to moral knowledge, it must be widely held, as it frankly no longer is. Apologetics supporting a personal, benevolent God, and Christianity in particular, will be important. Recovery cannot be expected in the near future.
In that regard, Haraksin said that “Christians have to have courageous, confident humility in demonstrating in our actions that we … have moral knowledge … If it’s going to be recovered, we better have a good vision, we better intend to do it, and we got to think carefully about the means of making good people.”
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet, and a light unto my path.…I will keep thy righteous judgments.
Psalm 119:105–106
What is God saying to His human creation in our day and time?
In brief, He is saying, “Jesus Christ is My beloved Son. Hear Him!”
Why is there rejection? Why do men and women fail to listen?
Because God’s message in Jesus is a moral pronouncement. Men and women do not wish to be under the authority of the moral Word of God!
For centuries, God spoke in many ways. He inspired holy men to write portions of the message in a book. People do not like it, so they try their best to avoid it because God has made it the final test of all morality, the final test of all Christian ethics.
God, being one in His nature, is always able to say the same thing to everyone who hears Him. Christian believers must know that any understanding of the Word of God must come from the same Spirit who provided the inspiration!
I am eager, Lord, to continue to learn from Your Word. Open my heart and mind that I might understand and act according to Your moral authority. I want to be obedient to Your will.1
Truth2Freedom's Blog 