In the latest discussions on the emergent church movement, the theme of “absolute truth” seems to be a recurring theme. Since it appears to draw a line of division between postmodern Christians and your standard evangelicals, I think it is an issue that needs to be addressed.
While I don’t think I can change anyone’s mind that is already convinced, I do hope to be able to show what evangelical Christians mean when they are speaking about “absolute moral truths” (hereafter abbreviated as AMT) and why they believe it is a valid concept.
The sticking point in the discussion appears to me to be a general confusion about the relation between ontology, epistemology, and ethics. By confusing these three areas we have muddied the waters and made it difficult to comprehend what it is when we are talking about AMT.
Before we can begin, though, we have to define the branches of philosophy that we will be referring to:
Ontology is the study of the nature of being or reality. For our purposes, Christians need to believe two statements are true:
--God exists and humans exists. (Not too radical an idea, I hope.)
--Ontology precedes epistemology. A being must exist before it can know.
Epistemology seeks to define truth and determine what and how we can (if we can) know anything at all. For this discussion we need to take as true that:
--God has perfect knowledge (that is, he can know everything that can be known*).
--Humans have imperfect knowledge (we can know some things but not everything).
--Some things are true while other things are false.
Ethics is the study of moral good and evil, moral and non-moral actions. For now we only have to assume that some things are moral and some are immoral.
Now we can move on and examine how secular postmodernism relates to Christianity.
The secular postmodern world believes that God doesn’t exist. Ontologically speaking he possesses no Being and, obviously, no knowledge. Postmoderns do, generally speaking, believe that humans exist. Since epistemology follows ontology, humans are the ones that determine what is true and what it not true. In fact, since humans exist individually rather than collectively their epistemic standards are also individual.
In other words there is no outside standard by which they can determine if something is objectively true. It is either “true for them” or “false for them.” (Two or more humans might collectively agree, but that is a decision they make rather than a standard imposed upon them from the outside.)
Postmoderns can combine statements about ethics (“X is moral.”) and epistemology (“X is true.”) but they have no objective value. When a postmodern person makes a moral statement such as, “It is true that it is wrong to torture babies…” they are simply saying, “It is wrong, in my opinion, to torture babies.” If another person agrees, then they share the same opinion. But if the other person disagrees he cannot, in any meaningful way, be considered “morally wrong.” The postmodern worldview puts all ethical knowledge squarely within the realm of epistemology, and since all knowledge is individual, moral statements are simply matters of opinion.
The Christian, however, view things differently. Ontologically speaking, God does exist and therefore can also possess knowledge. God, like humans, can determine what is true and what it not true. One difference between God and man, though, is that God is infinite while man is finite. Man can have finite knowledge about what is true or false but God can have infinite knowledge.
If moral truths exist then God can know them. In fact, God can know all moral truths. Unlike the postmodern human who is finite and can only have opinions about right and wrong, God is infinite and can have perfect knowledge about what is morally right and morally wrong. We can also deduce that if AMTs exist then God knows what they are.
But what is an AMT? Let’s start by defining moral act and moving from there.
--A “moral act” is one in which it is (a) the right thing to do, (b) in the right proportion, and (c) for the right motive.
--A “moral truth” is an “ought” statement about such an act (“A person “ought” not kill innocent humans for fun.”).
--An absolute moral truth is one that is a moral truth that applies to everyone, at all times, throughout history.
Either there is at least one moral act that is also an absolute moral truth or there are not. (Presumably, if there is one there is more. But to prove that unicorns exist you only need to capture one unicorn. The same goes for AMTs.)
I propose that the following statement is an AMT:
It is morally wrong to torture infants for pleasure.
This statement, put in the negative form, includes a right thing not to do (torture infants), the right proportion (no torture at all), and right motive (not for pleasure). Many people will be tempted to gloss over this statement as trivial but if you believe that morality is at all meaningful then you must address this question. Could this act every, at any time, be “moral?” If you answer no then you must agree that this is one AMT. We’ve captured our unicorn.
Now if you agree with this and you are a finite human being, then God knows it also. If God knows it then he knows one AMT (and presumably others). If fact, since he created us it is possible that he could either have “programmed” us with such knowledge or tell us about particular AMTs.
Know here is where the confusion comes in. Postmodern Christians want to carry over this skepticism about AMTs that they gleaned from secular philosophy. They want to contend that we can never know that AMTs exist.
If a postmodern Christian believes in God then she can’t rule out that AMT’s could exist. We cannot rule out what type of things that God can know. The most the pomo Christian can claim is that humans can’t know what these AMTs are. In essence, they are saying that if AMTs do exist then either God hasn’t told us what they are or he is unable to do so.
This post is already longer than it should be so I will reserve the discussion for how we can know AMTs for later. For know I want the postmodern Christians who contend that AMTs can’t be known to answer two questions:
1) Has God not told us or is he unable to tell us about AMTs?
2) When and for who is it morally right to torture babies for pleasure?
*I phrase it this way to leave the question of divine foreknowledge open. For our purposes it is not relevant whether or not God what we will or will not do.
2
Started off good, but I think you are undercutting your arguments by stating that there is truth and moral truth. Alternatively, you could clarify your position by refering to the good as being true, rather than being a moral truth.
If you insist on speaking using the term "moral truth" at least three problems arise. First, it is insinuated by the "moral" categorization that truth is whatever you define it to be. This idea is especially stuck in the postmodernists's head, as you well know; hence their tendency to read into the phrase "moral truth" a good deal more than you mean.
Second, calling the good a moral truth presupposes than humans must exist for it to be true. But that is not so. All good exists apart from existence of humans (and fully within the being of God). No good choice made by a human causes goodness to come into existence. (Conversely, I believe, no bad choice causes evil to exist. Evil doesn't exist as a property of anything. It is simply a void of good.)
Crap. There was third thing, that was kind of the cusp of the argument, but I forgot what it was and I have to get back to work.
Nonetheless, I agree with the main body of your argument, it is just a little weak when you distinguish between different kinds of truth.
posted on 01.15.2004 12:37 PM3
Joe,
First off, thanks so much for undertaking this discussion. My small group will be launching an apologetics study this evening (I'm leading it. Yikes.), and I can only say that I've been stunned and dismayed at the thorough lack of understanding of basic Scriptural precepts that inects much of the church today. Postmodern evangelicalism is, it would seem, only a natural outgrowth of the Church's long-term avoidance of rigorous study and teaching.
What scares me is that, if we begin to see conflict regarding Ontology and Epistemology - matters that have, at least for the most part been cast in stone as foundational matters not open to debate - can debates over Soteriology itself be far behind?
posted on 01.15.2004 12:41 PM4
Very nicely done, Joe!
A couple of comments:
- You moved quickly out of ontology and into epistomology with respect to God. A sidebar point might be that when a being is the source of being and in fact Being itself, Truth is self-defining.
- I trust that you are aware that with your venture into the question of skepticism, i.e., "The most the pomo Christian can claim is that humans can’t know what these AMTs are. In essence, they are saying that if AMTs do exist then either God hasn’t told us what they are or he is unable to do so," you are getting ready to leave the realm of reason and march off into revelation. I think it's a good place to go, but it's also a slippery slope.
- Take it from a Presby -- PLEASE please please don't take us down the foreknowledge berry path! ;)
5
Excellent post Joe.
Have you read What We Can't Not Know by J. Budziszewski? It's his follow-up to The Revenge of Conscience (which I am in the middle of).
posted on 01.15.2004 1:38 PM6
Brendan,
I don't think that word (moral) means what you think it means.
Mike, Jared and Rusty,
Yes, we are now seeing heresy on the level of ontology and epistemology. I'm not sure that this was covered with the anathemas of the early heresies. Something needs to be done, and quick. And Jared, I think your analysis of how it got this way is very likely right on the money.
7
Your ontology probably should include the nature of God. For your epistemology to work, God must be both infinite and personal. I think you are assuming that, but you have to lay that groundwork first, at least with non-Christians. I think that pomo Christians believe that the God of the Bible is infinite/personal.
posted on 01.15.2004 3:25 PM8
Uh oh. Looks like I’ve got some comments I need to catch up on:
Brandon,
You are right that the only difference in truth and moral truth is that one concerns ethics. I tried to focus on “moral truth” simply because I think that is the easiest way to get a foot in the door with the po-mo Christians. Once they concede that there is such a thing as “moral truth” then I can get them to concede that there are other absolute truths.
Your part about the ontology of the good is something that I’ll answer in my remarks to Rev. Mike.
Jared,
You’re completely right. Once we start conceding that truth is a relative concept then our entire theological structure falls apart. A po-mo who has a hard time grasping the concept of absolute truth will almost never be able to accept an orthodox view of other doctrines such as Christology. We may bring them in the door but the liberal mainline churches will pick them up from there if we can’t show them the errors in their worldview.
Rev. Mike,
Re: #1 -- You are right that I made the transition out of ontology too quickly. I believe that Truth has its ontological existence in God (Jesus: “I am the truth…) but that would probably have been too confusing.
Re: #2 – I worded it that way to leave myself an out. I think that at least some AMTs can be discerned by reason along (natural law) but I don’t want it to be a conversation ender if the other side doesn’t agree. Hopefully, I will be able to find a way to cover all the bases. I guess we’ll see.
Re: #3 – Actually you got me thinking about a future post. Coming soon: Newcomb’s Paradox, Divine Foreknowledge, and Free Will (I’m sure that everyone will be just waiting to read that one. ZZZzzzz)
Rusty,
I didn’t know J.B. had another book out. I’ll have to look for that one. How are you enjoying Revenge?
Lee Anne,
I agree with you that the ontology requires both an infinite and a personal God. Hopefully even the po-mo’s will take that as a given. If not then I don’t think that anything else I could say would be of much use. ; )
Thanks for all the comments. I would rather write about this stuff than post about Howard Dean’s latest blunders. So it’s encouraging to see Christians interested in discussing philosophy (even when it is presented by a bonehead like me).
posted on 01.15.2004 3:43 PM9
The most the pomo Christian can claim is that humans can’t know what these AMTs are. In essence, they are saying that if AMTs do exist then either God hasn’t told us what they are or he is unable to do so.
Matthew 7:1-2 "Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you."
Luke 6:37 "Do not judge, and you will not be judged. Do not condemn, and you will not be condemned."
Is some humility about your own understanding of AMTs an unreasonable expectation? Maybe you (or I) won't always translate the general guidelines in the Bible into specifics correctly?
posted on 01.15.2004 4:20 PM10
Scott,
First of all, I think you misunderstand the passages you quoted since you seem to have stopped after the first sentence. “For in the same way you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure you use, it will be measured to you." The passage simply states that I can expect to be “judged” by the same standards that I use against others.
This is not an apology for being judgmental, though, since it isn’t me but God’s word that is doing the judging. Again it appears that you are gripped by a radical form of skepticism. I’m not saying that we can’t be humble about the process; just that such a process can be fruitfully undertaken.
As I said, it will take another post to clarify what can reasonably be assumed to be an AMT and what cannot.
posted on 01.15.2004 4:38 PM11
The passage simply states that I can expect to be “judged” by the same standards that I use against others.
Why wouldn't you be judged against absolute standards?
This is not an apology for being judgmental, though, since it isn’t me but God’s word that is doing the judging.
Maybe its God's word doing the judging, maybe its your interpretation of it doing the judging. As you're imperfect, there will be instances where your specific AMT won't exist. That's not to say there's no absolute moral standard, just that you won't always judge others by it correctly, because you aren't perfect.
posted on 01.15.2004 4:49 PM12
"(Conversely, I believe, no bad choice causes evil to exist. Evil doesn't exist as a property of anything. It is simply a void of good.)
"
I believed this until someone pointed out to me the God claims that He creates evil. Otherwise I really liked what you had to say.
posted on 01.15.2004 4:50 PM13
Scott,
...you won't always judge others by it correctly, because you aren't perfect.
You're absolutely right. Just because there are some AMTs does not mean that we can break one out and use it in every moral dilemma. I never said that we could judge perfectly. Some moral issues are obviously more clear than others. I don't think that is too controversial.
posted on 01.15.2004 4:53 PM14
Joe can judge actions (like Paul did to the guy who was banging his father's wife) but he is not to judge people (write them off as bound-for-hell-goners like people do to Britney Speers.)
posted on 01.15.2004 4:54 PM15
Can Joe have his moral judgements enacted into law (i.e. locking up Britney for being 'loose')?
posted on 01.15.2004 5:01 PM16
Scott,
I wouldn't if I was a good Reformed evangelical who believes in sphere-sovereignty (which I am).
But I'm curious to hear on what basis you would establish laws. If there are no AMTs then every law that had a moral effect (i.e., murder) would simply be a matter of taste or opinion.
posted on 01.15.2004 5:09 PM17
Talking in church during the sermon is not exactly in the realm of AMT. But it is in the realm of Jesus' teaching in the Sermon on the Mount.
If I say "How horrible that Mrs. X was whispering in church to her friend during the sermon" I am being judgmental about something I have no knowledge about (maybe the friend is partially deaf and missed a word and Mrs. X was simply repeating it for her). However, I am also setting a standard for future judgment of my own actions (I better NEVER whisper in church).
Thus, best to not judge Mrs. X at all.
In other passages in other contexts, we as Christians are COMMANDED to judge as well. There is no contradiction. As Joe said, not everything in life falls into an AMT category.
posted on 01.15.2004 5:19 PM18
1) Has God not told us or is he unable to tell us about AMTs? 2) When and for who is it morally right to torture babies for pleasure?1. Assuming God's existence, I'd suggest that He hasn't told us. If He had, there wouldn't be all this squabbling you're trying to clear up. In fact, it would be awfully nice if He'd clarify things. You'll find that even among evangelicals, there are bitter disputes on points of detail.
2. Maybe torturing babies for pleasure isn't moral, but happy is he who dashes them against the rocks (Psalm 137:9). I'm sure I'm taking that out of context, but it ought to be entertaining to find out how that's absolutely moral in context.
Ah, what am I thinking, of course it's moral. If God says it's okay, it's okay, because that's what morality is. So the better answer to question 2, then, is "when God says so."
posted on 01.15.2004 10:30 PM19
Joe:
Why all this fuss over the Alternative Minimum Tax? Does it even apply to you? I mean, I applaud you for getting a jump on your taxes early this year, but you seem to be taking things a bit far, speaking of ontology and epistemology and everything. I mean, the tax code isn't that complex.
Sheesh.
:)
posted on 01.15.2004 10:32 PM20
tgirsch
As you said, you are taking it out of context. So why do you then try to claim that God said bashing babies heads is moral?
The verse merely indicates that Babylon will suffer the same things done to them. That doesn't make those actions by the attacking nation moral. Evil can attack evil. Essentially the verse claims that another evil nation will attack the evil nation of Babylon.
posted on 01.16.2004 12:02 AM21
But I'm curious to hear on what basis you would establish laws. If there are no AMTs then every law that had a moral effect (i.e., murder) would simply be a matter of taste or opinion.
If you're reduced to trying to get 51% of the people who show up on a given election day to support you, then that's an AMT you have no justification for putting into law. Rape and murder are illegal because of the wide ranging, long standing consensus that they are immoral. That, and the rape and murder victims (and slaves) have a specific right to object that an observer wouldn't have when he's pushing for a sodomy law or drug law.
(Obviously, the murder victim couldn't complain afterward, but could object before and during).
Can the liberals encode what they consider to be AMT into law, or would you complain when its your ox being gored?
posted on 01.16.2004 9:19 AM22
I was watching Jeopardy! once, and correctly guessed "Apologetics" as the response, but didn't know until today what it really meant.
Good discussion, and good points by all.
If I may, can one surmise that if Absolute Moral Truths exist, there must also exist Absolute Moral Consequences? Biblical prohibitions against adultery, for example, will, if violated, result in an equal and opposite moral reaction in the form of wrecked marriages, destroyed families, confused children, and moral confusion as to the act itself, and to Absolutism. I look at King David, who committed adultery, and for the ensuing two chapters became morally blind to (1) his murder of Uriah; (2) the implication of his general, Joab, in Uriah's deception and murder; and (3) his insouciance at the deaths of other Israelite noblemen during the attack in which Uriah was killed. It took Nathan to open David's eyes as to the gravity of his sins. Upon David's repentence, his actions were still punished: Absolom led a revolt in David's own house, slept with David's wives, and pursued David all over the countryside, just like Saul did.
In my admittedly limited view, I believe that if moral consequences follow from an act, whether good or evil, that a moral law is in operation, and it is absolute.
posted on 01.16.2004 9:29 AM23
Jason:
So why do you then try to claim that God said bashing babies heads is moral?
You misunderstand me. I've never claimed that. What I claimed is that given the way Joe poses the issue, if God did say that it was moral, then it would be so.
To Joe, if you don't think there are any moral absolutes, you have to be able to justify to him when it's morally acceptable to torture babies for pleasure. My counterpoint is that according to Joe's definition of morality, if God said torturing babies for pleasure was indeed morally acceptable, he would have no choice but to accept that.
The truth is that there is no such thing as morality, not "out there" in the real world. It's a construct that we as humans impose upon the world (and, I'll concede, a good and useful one). Humanity collectively decides what is and is not "moral" behavior, and as times change, those moral standards change, too.
You can scoff at that if you want to, and scream "moral relativism," but that doesn't change the way it really works. This is why things like slavery used to be considered acceptable and no longer are, while things like pre-marital sex used to be considered unacceptable and are now widely accepted.
If you want to argue that there actually is such a thing as absolute, divinely-inspired morality, taht's fine. Then explain to me precisely what that is. Give me a discrete, comprehensive list of "here is what you can do, here is what you can't" in plain, modern English, with justifications for each item. If you can't provide that list, then you're admitting one of two things:
- There are no moral absolutes; or
- We don't know what they are
24
Tim,
You still didn't answer the question I posed. Since there are no moral absolutes there must be a time when it could be considered moral to torture babies. If you are going to defend your position you have to follow it to its logical consequences.
The rest of your points I will address in a seperate post.
posted on 01.16.2004 11:38 AM25
You never answered this question I asked:
The passage simply states that I can expect to be “judged” by the same standards that I use against others.
Why wouldn't you be judged against absolute standards?
posted on 01.16.2004 11:55 AM26
One minor quibble: Your divisions are ontology, epistemology, and ethics. I think the primary divisions are metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. Ontology is the branch of metaphysics (the nature of reality) that studies which things there are, how many of them there are, and what's true of them. Metaphysics also includes the nature of truth. Epistemology only includes how we know which things are true, but that's about knowledge and not about truth.
Also, fundamentally speaking, truth is not something you possess. Truth just is. You possess knowledge of that truth. Saying that Christians have the truth is a category mistake. Christians have knowledge of the truth (on religious matters, though not necessarily on every matter of course).
I have other thoughts on this discussion that will have to wait.
posted on 01.16.2004 12:02 PM27
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2004/102/52.0.html
"The Bible Alone"? Not for John Calvin!
When we seek answers to churchly and societal issues in the Bible alone, citing the Reformation principle of sola scriptura, we are actually contradicting the Reformers.
By Chris Armstrong | posted 01/16/2004
There's no question that the Bible is at the very center of conservative Christianity in America. When tough legislation limited access to the Bible in our public schools, Christians sought creative ways around the wall, legal prosecution notwithstanding. When translators set out to "modernize" the Bible's gender language, conservatives kicked up a storm. When lawmakers removed a Ten Commandments monument from a courthouse, Christian protesters mobbed the scene.
All of this activity hearkens back to the Reformation tradition of Sola Scriptura—the belief that the Bible should be the ultimate authority for the church, trumping all human traditions. For many conservatives, this authority is not only unquestioned within the church, but extended beyond the church to society at large. The dream of some evangelicals is a country—perhaps some day even a world—where every moral and political question is submitted to the Bible, which will provide answers both obvious and immediately applicable.
Worth asking, however, is whether we really understand what Sola Scriptura means within the church itself. Does this Reformation principle mean that the Bible yields up obvious answers to all our questions? That we need not turn to any interpretation of Scripture other than the conclusions each of us draws from our own common-sense interaction with Scripture? That the great teachers in the church's earlier eras—the "church fathers"—should have nothing to say to us today, for they represent nothing but "human traditions"?
Clearly even the most conservative believers have never been able to live as if they are not influenced by the teachings of other people—past and present—on how to interpret their Bibles. Everybody reads through a set of lenses created by the church, the family, and the schools that have shaped them.
Of course, evangelicals have expended tremendous resources of scholarship on trying to determine the most basic, literal meanings of any given Bible passage. They have rejected outright the fanciful, allegorical interpretations of many medieval exegetes.
But there come issues—more numerous than some are willing to admit—where the Bible yields its direction more reluctantly. For faithfully biblical answers to these questions, we are thrown back on the resources of church tradition....
posted on 01.16.2004 12:06 PM28
Hey Scott,
Why wouldn't you be judged against absolute standards?
There are actually two answers to this question:
#1 -- If the act that was being judged is exactly equivalent to the act that I committed and it fell under an AMT. Then I would be judged by the same standard.
#2 -- Not all moral issues fall under an AMT, at least one that can be known to humans.
There are two reasons that this question doesn't
posted on 01.16.2004 12:12 PM29
#1 -- If the act that was being judged is exactly equivalent to the act that I committed and it fell under an AMT. Then I would be judged by the same standard.
Then you would be judged by the AMT, and your judgement on the other person wouldn't matter - thus nullifying the verse. Unless you're saying that if you don't judge someone under an AMT, then you won't be judged under that AMT, which makes it somewhat less absolute.
#2 -- Not all moral issues fall under an AMT, at least one that can be known to humans.
I thought the Bible told us all the AMTs. God would certainly want to, wouldn't He, and being omnipotent He could have, couldn't He?
posted on 01.16.2004 12:24 PM30
Tgirsch, you state, “The truth is that there is no such thing as morality, not "out there" in the real world. It's a construct that we as humans impose upon the world (and, I'll concede, a good and useful one). Humanity collectively decides what is and is not "moral" behavior, and as times change, those moral standards change, too.”
The simple act of making a truth claim such as, “The truth is…,” references a set of standards that must be “out there.” If not, then it is a self-referential statement and, pointless. Furthermore, after claiming that there is no such thing as morality “out there,” you make a value judgment on the construct we do have as being “a good and useful one.” If there is, in fact, no morality out there, how do you justify conceding the construct as “good”? Pragmatism and majority rule are useless defenses, for you can not justify their validity without referring back to the goodness of a morality you say doesn’t exist.
To be consistent you should strike the words, “(and, I’ll concede, a good and useful one)” from your post, for the ultimate consequences of the world you describe demand that no events or ideas be classified as either “good” or “bad.”
posted on 01.16.2004 12:27 PM31
People living by 'traditional' morality (and by that I mean rape and murder being bad, not the whole evangelical package) leads to less physical and emotional pain (in general, and in the long run), and we're hard wired to want to avoid that sort of pain. Sorry, that's gut animal instinct.
'Tradition' is an acceptable backing for morality, on "don't tear down a fence unless you know why it was built" grounds. We can also prove to more people that tradition exists than God exists (and regardless of the rationality of your belief in God, you still have to convince others if you want them to live by what you believe are God's rules).
Slavery was tradition, as was segregation, but both traditions were ultimately brought down by appeals to other parts of the shared moral tradition. Yes, scripture influenced tradition in some parts of the world, but didn't totally define it (and since there are 'traditional' ways of interpreting certain verses, the influence obviously went both ways).
posted on 01.16.2004 12:42 PM32
Scott,
Unless you're saying that if you don't judge someone under an AMT, then you won't be judged under that AMT, which makes it somewhat less absolute.
No, the point of the verse is that one shouldn’t be a hypocrite; you shouldn’t criticize someone while doing the exact same thing yourself.
I thought the Bible told us all the AMTs.
No, not to my knowledge it doesn’t. Since AMTs depend on the situation in which they are applied the Bible would have to outline every situation imaginable. Which would be pretty tough to cram into one book.
God would certainly want to, wouldn't He, and being omnipotent He could have, couldn't He?
Yes, he could have. Would he want to? Personally, I doubt it. Humans, remember, are sinful. We tend to twist God’s word as it is and there are times when it is probably better to leave some things in doubt.
For example, do infants go to heaven? I think so but the Bible doesn’t explicitly state that it is the case. Why doesn’t it? Imagine what would happen if some group of “Christians” decided that since babies go to heaven automatically it is probably best to slaughter all infants in order to keep them from ending up in hell.
If we, as fallible humans, can think of good reasons why he could have for not outlining every truth, I’m sure God has no problem in knowing what he should tell us and what he shouldn’t.
posted on 01.16.2004 12:45 PM33
No, the point of the verse is that one shouldn’t be a hypocrite; you shouldn’t criticize someone while doing the exact same thing yourself.
No, it said you'll be judged by the same standard, not that you'd be judged as a hypocrite. Jesus was perfectly willing to explicitly call someone a hypocrite when that's what He meant. He was saying to look after your own actions (where you have no choice but to act on your own interpretation of things) and not others (as you can avoid forcing your interpretation on them).
Since AMTs depend on the situation in which they are applied
Congrats - you just invented the relative absolute truth. AMTs shouldn't depend on the situation - they are, after all, absolute
We tend to twist God’s word as it is...
If we, as fallible humans, ...
All the more reason to lay off being absolutists about things, isn't it?
posted on 01.16.2004 12:59 PM34
Rusty:
The simple act of making a truth claim such as, “The truth is…,” references a set of standards that must be “out there.”
Well, even concepts like "truth" is just an abstraction. There are no atoms of truth, only atoms.
If there is, in fact, no morality out there, how do you justify conceding the construct as “good”?
Ah, but you see there's no such thing as "good" and "bad" out there, either. :) Those, too, are human constructs. Based on that, I should clarify what I meant by "good." I simply mean to say that the consensus moral standards we as humans have devised seem to have been effective in the survival and furtherance of the species.
Of course, that's speculative, as I have never encountered a human population that didn't have some moral code, so I can't confirm how well such a population would do in the absence of such a code. :)
But the larger point is that morality is not inherent in the universe. It is an imposed abstract construct. The only thing we're really arguing here is "imposed by whom?"
posted on 01.16.2004 1:15 PM35
"I simply mean to say that the consensus moral standards we as humans have devised seem to have been effective in the survival and furtherance of the species."
So, the survival and furtherance of the species is a... good thing?
C.S. Lewis said, "a man can't call a line crooked unless he has some idea of what straight is."
posted on 01.16.2004 1:38 PM36
C.S. Lewis said, "a man can't call a line crooked unless he has some idea of what straight is."
Humans define the terms "straight" and "crooked". Without us, neither concept would exist.
posted on 01.16.2004 1:44 PM37
"Humans define the terms "straight" and "crooked". Without us, neither concept would exist."
2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whether anyone is around to know about it. So it is with "straightness."
posted on 01.16.2004 2:35 PM38
Rusty, you've moved from the existance of absolutes to just about everything being an absolute. "Straight" and "crooked" are now Absolute Truths?
BTW, how do you absolutely distinguish between crooked, wavy, and bent?
posted on 01.16.2004 2:47 PM39
One other minor quibble - your definition of morality as subjective to the individual is much more characteristic of classic existential thought, as opposed to its offspring - postmodernism. Typical pomo offerings relate the subjectivity of morality to a particular communitry or tribe, culture, etc. So some of the so called Christian pomos try to deny the relativity of their morality by arguing that within their community there are absolutes, but since there are no metanarratives/metaethics, then they are only absolute in a relative sense.
Pure self-referentially incoherence to be sure, but it is a slight difference with your opening description.
Bill
40
Bill, were Thomas Jefferson and George Washington evil for owning slaves? Do you judge them in relation to their times (i.e. relative to their communities) or do you judge them the same way you would if your next door neighbor owned slaves today (which I assume you'd consider immoral)?
posted on 01.16.2004 3:27 PM41
Scott, I would judge them wrong in owning slaves then as now. In relation to your human beings being the standard of crooked and straight, does God's revealed will play any role in this for you?
Bill
42
Bill, did God reveal anything about geometry?
posted on 01.16.2004 3:40 PM43
One thing to be clear about is the difference between absoluteness and objectiveness. An absolute moral principle would be: "It's always wrong to lie." Compare that with what many people think is more reasonable: "Lying is presumed wrong" which might be outweighed by other concerns such as "it's wrong to send an relative innocent to death knowingly". So you might think it's ok to protect someone's life by lying to the Nazi soldiers who ask if you're hiding them. All of this is consistent with objective facts about morality. Different situations bring different evaluations of the same action, but each such evaluation is a moral fact nonetheless.
Someone who denies that morality is objective will say that moral claims are merely reports about our feelings and attitudes or merely expressions of those feelings and attitudes. Such a feeling could be absolute (e.g. I always hate lying). I think a couple people are mixing these up a little.
posted on 01.16.2004 3:48 PM44
You would judge Abraham and Jacob for owning slaves? Read that bit in Exodus, right after the ten commandments and see what God had in mind for slavery. It isn't immoral. The person who owes is a slave to the one to whom he is endebted, according to Proverbs. Slave of Christ is a compliment.
The Bible contains all of the AMTs. They are difficult to understand right off. Like Algebra, it looks stupid at first, then you figure it out. They don't change. Things change, like animals became unclean, and then became clean again. We still are not to touch the unclean thing, but thank God pork is clean again. I touch bacon whenever I can. I don't fornicate though, which is still unclean.
posted on 01.16.2004 3:52 PM45
Geometry is all over the Bible, in 1 Kings and the end of Ezekiel...
posted on 01.16.2004 3:54 PM46
Scott, Do we do the question back and forth game all day long or is there some time limit?
I have no idea whether God revealed geometry or not. I see no reference to any theorems in the Scriptures (Thank God for his mercy there!)
But the discussion was centered originally on absolutes, which God does speak to. The reference in my question was that you strongly implied that the only measuring stick available was the human one, and I was seeing just how far you took that.
If it is the case that the human standard, individual or collective is the standard, then you are left with a basic naturalist starting and ending point. Perhaps some emotivist position is one which you would argue for, but the naturalist weak spot is always present, the jungle just is, and no "oughts" need apply.
If not, then what role do you see for revealed truth?
Bill
47
Scott, Actually, the point of my second to last post was that tgirsch still can't get around categorizing something as "good."
My last post was to clarify to you that concepts can exist regardless of whether humans are around.
posted on 01.16.2004 5:11 PM48
I am truly depressed if geometry theorems are in the Bible as stated. Makes me want to revisit the theodicy question...
Bill
49
Scott, I would judge them wrong in owning slaves then as now.
But would you judge them as harshly as you would judge your next door neighbor for owning slaves today, or would you take TJ's and GW's times and communities into account? Would you refuse to vote for a slaveowner or former slaveowner in 2004 for President - if so, does that mean GW was disqualified to be our first on moral grounds?
I have no idea whether God revealed geometry or not.
My only point as far as the gemoetry is concerned (no pun intended) is that Rusty was going too far - just about everything seems 'absolute' to him.
Scott, Actually, the point of my second to last post was that tgirsch still can't get around categorizing something as "good."
We're hard wired to think of survival as 'good', because those of us who weren't didn't survive and reproduce themselves and their gut instincts. Rusty, you're just a sperm's way of making more sperm. :-) :-)
posted on 01.16.2004 6:28 PM50
Scott - I would judge them wrong regardless of what their community approved. Just as I judge the ante-bellum south wrong,(and I am originally from the deep south!) even though its community approved and even had a theology to justify its actions.
The question of whom should be voted for is always a choice of choosing among sinners, and therefore (hopefully) choosing the least among such.
Bill
51
and even had a theology to justify its actions
Showing the reason for humility and restraint when asserting Absolute Moral Truths - Christians have been tragically wrong about those in the past.
The question of whom should be voted for is always a choice of choosing among sinners
You always have the option to stay home if the choice is, for example, between two slave owners. You don't have to give one of them your vote.
posted on 01.16.2004 8:40 PM52
Scott, humility is always a good thing, and should be kept in mind at all times, but in no way does that undermine that God says somethings are always wrong and somethings are allways right. The fact that Christians have been terribly inconsistent in following the standards does in no way mitigate the reality or necessity of standards.
The option of not voting is my mind is not an option any more. I did that with Ford/Carter, because Ford had pardoned Nixon and because Carter and the Dems had become the party of Roe v. Wade, but in our system a no vote among sinners is abdication of responsibility. In a cheap way, it is similar to Bonhoeffer's attitude about returning to Nazi Germany, even though threatened,if he is not there during the problem he has no standing to be part of the solution (loosely paraphrased).
Bill
53
but in our system a no vote among sinners is abdication of responsibility
Let me guess, its absolutely immoral and you'll be judged by God if you don't vote, even if its a choice between two slaveowners (for example).
Face facts, good patriotic American Evangelical Christians believe both:
1. Morals are absolute (and before this thread I would have assumed opposition to slavery would be among them).
2. Washington, Jefferson, et al should be cut some slack because of the times in which they lived, because to harp on the fact that the USA was founded by slaveowners and Indian-killers (most evangelicals oppose genocide in principle) is something only America-hating leftists do.
posted on 01.17.2004 2:27 PM54
Scott, wow must be something in my keyboard to be communicating so poorly with you. I will try and say it plainer.
There are moral absolutes, but not all morals are absolute. I am opposed to slavery, have preached against, have critisized those who ignore current slave regimes (Sudan, Child slavery in Thailand, etc). I did not even compare in any way possible that with the choice of whether or not to vote. (not an absolute moral value)
I never said cut Jefferson or Washington should be cut some slack for being slaveholders. I pointed out that all men are sinners and as such a vote between sinners is always a dilemma. Which sins seem less grievous than others. There was opposition to slavery before the Revolutionary war, during and after. BTW most Indian tribes were also slaveholders and "Indian-killers" as well. The point still holding true, all men, peoples, tribes, cultures whatever,are filled with sin. America hating leftists are remarkably short sighted on individual sins, seeing only corporate sin (generally) and sometimes rightists forget corporate sin (much harder to define) and focus on individual sin. Both individual and corporate sin require some standard by which one could say "slavery is wrong" or "indian killing is wrong", or is it only wrong when a community says it is? If so then one cannot judge the country's founders, who were clearly living by the mores of their own community.
Bill
55
There are moral absolutes, but not all morals are absolute.
What exactly is a non-absolute moral value?
Which sins seem less grievous than others.
That ranks sins, and I thought an absolute was an absolute.
If so then one cannot judge the country's founders, who were clearly living by the mores of their own community.
Slavery is absolutely wrong, but you have to 'judge' people's actions where they are (i.e. within their times and communities). Otherwise, you are claiming an ability to rise above your own time and community that everyone else who ever lived evidently lacks.
posted on 01.17.2004 4:15 PM56
As I said in a previous post, there are lots of non-absolute moral truths. A good example is that killing is wrong. Killing isn't always wrong, according to most views. It's ok in self-defense, capital punishment, and just war. The Bible endorses at least the last two. That doesn't mean it isn't generally wrong. That's a moral truth but not an absolute one.
A clear example of an absolute moral truth (at least one Christians should agree on) is that it's wrong to rebel against God. That's true in every circumstance.
posted on 01.17.2004 6:46 PM57
Murder is wrong, absolutely. Its all a matter of definition ('killing' vs. 'murder'), which goes back to the problem of defining and imposing 'absolute morality' when you assume you understand absolutely what God meant to the point where you can impose it via the legal code, or thru public condemnation.
posted on 01.17.2004 11:02 PM58
2 + 2 = 4 regardless of whether anyone is around to know about it.
Actually, not true. Also a human-imposed definition, and assumes decimal notation. In trinary, 2 + 2 = 11.
posted on 01.18.2004 3:05 AM59
Actually, not true. Also a human-imposed definition, and assumes decimal notation. In trinary, 2 + 2 = 11.
Great - I hope you'll be happy when your attack on addition as The Truth Of God leads Rusty to despair over filling out his 1040 and ultimately tossed in jail for tax evasion. :-) After all, unless God spoon feeds you everything as an absolute, and in detail, nobody can make any decision on anything.
posted on 01.18.2004 9:24 AM60
Exodus 21
1 Now these are the judgments which thou shalt set before them.
2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
3 If he came in by himself, he shall go out by himself: if he were married, then his wife shall go out with him.
4 If his master have given him a wife, and she have born him sons or daughters; the wife and her children shall be her master's, and he shall go out by himself.
5 And if the servant shall plainly say, I love my master, my wife, and my children; I will not go out free:
6 Then his master shall bring him unto the judges; he shall also bring him to the door, or unto the door post; and his master shall bore his ear through with an aul; and he shall serve him for ever.
7 And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do.
8 If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her.
9 And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters.
10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish.
11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.
Exodus 21
21 Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.
Slavery is not evil.
posted on 01.20.2004 3:27 PM61
David O:
Hosea 13:16 "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
Infantcide and forced abortions for the unfaithful isn't evil either.
Ooh, and keep going, right after where you left off in Exodus 21:
Exodus 21
22"When there's a fight and in the fight a pregnant woman is hit so that she miscarries but is not otherwise hurt, the one responsible has to pay whatever the husband demands in compensation. 23But if there is further damage, then you must give life for life 24-eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, 25burn for burn, wound for wound, bruise for bruise.
Clearly, an unborn child is Biblically established to be of lesser value than (1) the mother; and (2) a born child.
(Yes, I realize that for this reason, some newer translations choose to render this as "gives birth prematurely" rather than "miscarries." But this ignores the fact that a premature baby was almost certainly a dead baby in Biblical times.)
posted on 01.21.2004 4:13 PM62
This is not law, this is judgment predicted;
Hosea 13:16 "The people of Samaria must bear their guilt, because they have rebelled against their God. They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to the ground, their pregnant women ripped open."
God is fuly within His rights to bring this on those people who had defied Him. He is not commanding His people to always rip up pregnant women. He does command His people to treat slaves a certain way, though. He says in Proverbs that the one who owes another something is a slave to that person. Slavery is not evil. God bringing judgment on people is not evil, but it is described by God in the Bible as bringing evil against them. Americans seem to be baffled by chastisement these days. That's why this seems unclear to you.
posted on 01.22.2004 8:32 AM63
Clearly, an unborn child is Biblically established to be of lesser value than (1) the mother; and (2) a born child.
Yes.
I believe that you are correct in reading the Bible this way. We are not all equal, except in our need for salvation and in our method for attaining it.
Jesus wants us to now take more crap from people than He required His Israelites to take. It seems to be because He did it first and we are to complete the work He started. So we are to let go of our personal righteous claim for justice for ourselves and just take the hits. I lost my children this way.
64
tgirsh: Your comment on 2+2=4 is ridiculous. It's obviously true that we can use the symbols '2', '+', '=', and '4' to mean things other than what they actually mean. However, they do mean something. Given what they mean, the sentence '2+2=4' expresses a proposition, a proposition that would be true regardless of whether anyone were around to know it. Your point is that words can change their meaning, but that says nothing about propositions. The point stands untouched.
posted on 01.22.2004 2:28 PM65
Scott: 'Murder' is defined as wrongful or illegal killing. Of course it's always wrong, but that's like saying bachelors are all unmarried. You can always come up with a term that by definition describes wrong actions, but defining your way into an absolute moral wrong doesn't tell us anything about morality.
posted on 01.22.2004 2:30 PM