What is the Mind-Body Connection?

Philosophy of mind concerns itself with a host of topics such as mental states, mental functions, and consciousness. One of the most passionately contested issues within the philosophy of mind is how these mental states relate to the physical body or brain. Within the contemporary debate, most come down on one of two sides, materialism or substance dualism. According to materialism, human beings are entirely material objects, where there exists no immaterial component, and undoubtedly no immaterial mind or soul. To avoid falling victim to the possibility of there existing anything that runs contrary to a materialist worldview, materialists will avoid language that may leave open the possibility of an immaterial mind. Therefore, materialists speak more about mental states then the function of the mind. Jeffrey E. Brower, Professor of Philosophy at Purdue University writes, “Materialism identifies human beings with their bodies, human minds with the brain, and human mental states with properties of the brain . . . .”[1] Substance dualists hold no contention to the view that human beings are entirely material. What they reject, however, are mental states being the kind of thing produced or identified with material substances. Substance dualists insist human beings be understood as a wholly material substance as it relates to the body, and wholly immaterial when it comes to the mind.

Although arguments in support of and against materialism and substance dualism exist, consideration will not be given to them in this post. Instead a third alternative to the mind-body problem will be offered, namely, a hylomorphic view. First, one will consider a hylomorphic view of the corporeal world as presented by Aristotle and Aquinas, which is a departure from the mechanistic view common to materialism and substance dualism. Next, further consideration will be given to the nature of human beings and will show that humans are neither fundamentally material beings nor immaterial beings; rather, humans exist as some combination of the two. Finally, given the hylomorphic view, explanation will be provided as to how the human mind and body relate to and interact with one another.

Hylomorphism

The competing views in the philosophy of mind, materialism and substance dualism, share a mechanistic view of the natural world, namely that all living and non-living things can be explained in terms of matter and the physical laws. The mechanistic view is a

shared belief that materialism gets at least most things right. That is, our account of nonliving things, plants, and lower life animals is no different whether one accepts materialism or a dualism about persons; that is, either way the mechanist takes it that the whole story about nonliving things, plants, and lower animals can be given in terms of matter, the physical properties of matter, and the relevant physical laws.[2]

If one adopts materialism as an ontology of the natural world, then it is not surprising that a mind-body problem exists. How does one reconcile a wholly material world with psychological functions that appear to be immaterial? The proper starting point is not to give an account of the mind-body relationship; rather, one must adopt an ontology of the material world where no such problem exists.

Hylomorphism is the theory that “matter” (hylos,) and “form” (morphos) are joined resulting in a substance. Common experience tells us that change is part of nature. Come autumn, the color of the Aspen’s leaves change into a spectacular and brilliant yellow. Come the spring, the same Aspen tree will produce young and tender green leaves. In this example of change, the Aspen remains substantially the same. While the color of the leaves may change throughout the seasons, the Aspen tree remains an Aspen tree. Aspen trees are a hardwood species that is commonly used by pulp mills in manufacturing fiberboard that is then used to create paper. Should the Aspen be subjected to the process of becoming paper, one can no longer call it an Aspen tree, for it lacks what is proper to an Aspen.

Upon reflecting, one can see that there are two different ways change can occur. In the case of leaves changing colors, the Aspen remains but underwent accidental change. The term accidental implies a non-essential property of a particular substance was changed; thereby the thing itself did not undergo change. However, in the case of the Aspen being used to create paper, it is changed substantially; it no longer is an Aspen, it has now become a sheet of paper.

To account for change experienced in nature, Aquinas accepts the Aristotelian doctrine of the hylomorphic composition of material substances, which asserts that all substances are a composite of prime matter and form. For Aquinas, prime matter is pure potentiality, which is to say it lacks form per se; prime matter is in potentiality to all forms.[3] Because prime matter is pure potentiality, lacking any actuality, prime matter is incapable of existing by itself, which brings about two characteristics unique to prime matter. First is the radical dependency of prime matter on forms and compounds for its continued existence.[4] Because prime matter is pure potentiality, it lacks the ability to exist through itself, and therefore, is dependent on the inherence of forms for its existence.[5]

The second distinguishing characteristic of prime matter is its non-individuality. For something to have individuality, that thing must satisfy two conditions. Brower writes

It must have actuality through itself; and second, it must belong to some natural kind or species. Insofar as prime matter is a being in pure potentiality, it clearly fails the first condition. Only forms, substances, and compounds have actuality through themselves. But insofar as prime matter is a being in pure potentiality, Aquinas thinks that it also fails the second condition. For strictly speaking, only something that has actuality through itself can be said to belong to a natural kind (or species), and hence possess a common nature (or quiddity).[6]

The second element of a hylomorphic composition is not as difficult to grasp as prime matter. The form (morphos) gives a thing the distinct properties belonging to a class or species. Take for example the statement, “Socrates is a man”. The statement is true because Socrates possesses the form of humanity. Socrates, therefore, partakes of the universal element that makes him a man, belonging to the species humanity.[7] However, Socrates is not humanity, he merely possesses humanity. When Socrates passes out of existence, humanity does not pass out of existence along with Socrates. Therefore, it is said Socrates is not humanity, rather, he has humanity. However, what is it that makes Socrates this man? What is it that individuates Socrates from all others who possess humanity? The answer can only be matter. This becomes confusing since it was previously stated that matter, being pure potentiality, lacks the determinations necessary to individuate form. In response to this apparent problem, Aquinas is compelled to say that, “the principle of individuation is material signata quantitate, in the sense of matter having an exigency for the quantitative determination which it receives from union with form.”[8]

The imagery of a statue is a common analogy to explain how matter and form come together to create a substance. Unformed clay represents matter that has the potential to be shaped into anything. The artist has in mind the form of a horse and after shaping the unformed clay into the form of the horse, the substance created is a statue that has the likeness of a horse. At the same time, the clay (matter) can take on a different form, thus creating an entirely new statue (substance). As the form becomes altered, the substance changes, whereas when the form remains intact, but non-essential elements are altered, an accidental change occurred.

As one can see, a hylomorphic view of the material world provides insight as to how change is experienced. Having laid this foundation, one can build a nature of man from which a philosophy of mind will emerge.

Form and Soul

For Aquinas, the soul is the form when discussing living substances; the soul gives living substances their form. All living substances have a soul that determines what kind of thing it is. For this to make sense one must “start from how we use the word anime [from which soul translates]. Animate means living and inanimate non-living, so soul means that which forms animates or makes alive the living things with which we are familiar.”[9] Now, different living substances possess different kinds of souls; there is the hierarchic scale of being: vegetative souls, the irrational sensitive souls of animals, and the rational soul of man. The hierarchic scale of being will aid in the understanding how the mind and body interact within the context of a hylomorphic view of nature.

At the bottom of this hierarchic scale of life is the vegetative soul. Vegetative implies the ability

to reproduce and bring living bodies into existence, to grow to a proper size, and to digest food so as to maintain that existence and size. The last two abilities affect the actual body they reside in, but the reproductive ability acts to produce other bodies, and so approaches the dignity of sense-powers. Digesting food serves growth; both serve reproduction. Such powers are often called natural powers, because their effects— existence, size and self-preservation—are similar to effect in [inanimate] nature, though more perfectly achieved, and because they act by means of natural [physico-chemical] forces.[10]

The three forces proper to the vegetative soul are nutrition, growth, and reproduction. Nutrition is the ability to take in nutrients for the purpose of sustenance, through which non-living matter is converted into living matter. Nutrition then adds to the power of growth, by which a particular organism achieves the quantity proper to its kind. As that organism grows, it develops the ability to reproduce, generating a new individual living substance resulting in the continuation of the species.

The sensitive soul of animals does all that the vegetative soul does; it too takes in nutrition, grows, and reproduces. However, there are two additional functions possessed by the sensitive soul that gives it higher standing in the hierarchy of animate beings; knowledge and appetite.[11] Like the vegetative soul, the sensitive soul moves itself. However, the movement of the sensitive soul is more pronounced, in that it is capable of moving itself from one location to another, also called the power of locomotion.[12] This movement or power of locomotion is in response to what it perceives (knowledge) from its surrounding environment. The movement of the animal can only be achieved through an awareness of its surroundings, which it obtains through the senses. From what is sensed, the animal is then able to move itself in the direction away from or near to that which is observed via the power of appetite. This ability to take in information via the senses, and move according to what is perceived is what sets the sensitive soul apart from the vegetative soul.[13]

Taking top position in the hierarchy of corporeal being is the rational soul in virtue of its intellective power. Like the sensitive soul, the rational soul possesses the five exterior senses, the four interior senses (see footnote 13), and the powers of locomotion, knowledge, and appetite. However, the rational soul’s activity transcends the physical in that it is not the activity of any bodily organ.[14] For Aquinas, the human soul straddles the corporeal and incorporeal worlds. Aquinas’ metaphysical world is structured in such a way that

at the top of the metaphysical hierarchy there are forms—the angels (or maybe God and the angels, depending on how one takes the implications of divine simplicity)—which exist independently and are not configurational constituents of anything else. Near the bottom of the hierarchy are forms that configure matter but do not exist independently of matter as configured things in their own right. . . And in the middle are human souls, the amphibians of this metaphysical world, occupying a niche in both the material and spiritual realm. Like an angel, the human soul is itself a configured subsistent form; but like the forms of other material things, the human soul has the ability to configure matter.[15]

Because the human soul is subsistent, it can go on existing beyond the death of the human being. The nature of man, being a composite of form (soul) and matter brings clarification when one reads God’s words to Adam, “you are dust, and to dust you shall return” (Gen. 3:19); while at the same time reading what the Bible says of the soul following death: “and the dust returns to the earth as it was, and the spirit returns to God who gave it” (Eccles. 12:7).

Although the continued existence of the human soul is certainly a distinguishing factor from the vegetative and sensitive soul, there is one other power of the rational soul that is most relevant to the purposes of this paper, and that is the manner through which knowledge comes about. It is in this uniqueness of the rational soul where the overlap begins to emerge in the philosophy of mind, providing an explanation as to how the mind and body relate.

Mind and Body Connection

 When the topic of mind comes up in conversation, most use the term to explain a function of the brain. Granted, this may be a simplistic and yet marginalized rendering on the philosophy of mind, but those new to the topic may not have considered the multiple views on what the mind is. Is the function of the mind reducible to brain impulses, or is the mind wholly immaterial and distinct from the human body? Going back to the hylomorphic composition of man, the mind is a function proper to the rational soul, and the rational soul is what configures matter so that the substance resulting from the configuration is a human being. The rational soul does not exist in a one distinct location within the body, rather, the “whole soul is entirely in each part of the body, just as whiteness is entirely in each part of a completely white thing.”[16] To say the soul exists in each part of the body, and the mind is a function proper to the rational soul, has implications that will help understand how a hylomorphic view of man helps to shape one’s philosophy of mind. When man comes to know something, the act of knowing does not exist merely in the brain; rather, knowing exists in the whole being.

Corporeal objects act upon the body’s external five senses. As discussed previously, sense perception is an act of the soul and body, not just the body. When corporeal objects act upon the bodily senses, a phantasm of that object appears in the imagination. The phantasm corresponds with the material object; however, the phantasm is not a universal representation. Instead, the phantasm, like the material object it mimics, is a particular. In fact, all phantasms are particulars. If one holds in his mind an image/phantasm of man, he may be thinking of a bald man or a man with hair. Either way, the image is not indicative of all who can be classified as participating in the species of man. Therefore, nothing can be known from a particular phantasm. Intellectual cognition occurs when the universal elements are apprehended through the act of abstraction. The process by which this occurs is through the workings of the active and passive intellects. Aquinas writes,

Since we can only understand what is actually understandable (just as we can only sense what is actually there to be sensed), our minds need to make things actually understandable by abstracting their forms from their material conditions. Our ability to do this we call our [active intellect]. Things outside us are already actually able to be sensed, so our senses need only to be receptive; but the mind must be part active, part receptive, for nothing material is actually understandable, and an immaterial receptive mind would be no use to us without an [active] mind to make material things actually understandable by abstraction.[17]

The human intellect does not contain any innate ideas or concepts, although was created to be fully receptive to them. The active intellect will abstract the universal elements, ideas, or concepts from the particular phantasm. The active intellect, which exists as purely active, is not capable of impressing upon itself the ideas and concepts. Therefore, there exists a passive intellect upon which the active intellect impresses the ideas and concepts, which give rise to knowledge and understanding.

The process through which the mind comes to know is dependent upon both material and immaterial elements, through which the mind and body connect. Knowing requires the five external senses coming into contact with a material object. Once that happens, the phantasm existing in the imagination becomes less material than the object it mimics. From there, the active intellect abstracts the universal elements and concludes by impressing upon the passive intellect those elements. As one works through the process of knowing, the thing known becomes more and more immaterial. The mind of the rational soul is dependent on the body and the body on the mind.

Conclusion

The hylomorphic composition of man provides an alternative position to the philosophy of mind. The materialist says man is nothing more than a material substance and the mind is a function of brain activity. The substance dualist believes there are two distinct substances that make man what he is, body and soul. The substance dualist may describe their position as the soul driving the body. However, those holding to this position are challenged with explaining the connection point between the body and soul. Furthermore, the substance dualist, like the materialist, has a mechanistic view of nature, which says matter gets most things right. Leaving behind a mechanistic ontology of the natural world and embracing hylomorphism, the mind-body problem no longer exists. Therefore, explaining the mind-body relationship begins with an ontology of the material world.

Everything that exists in the material world is a composite substance made up of form and matter. Those substances that are animate possess a soul, making it the kind of animate being it is, either a vegetative soul, sensitive soul, or rational soul. The top position in this hierarchy is the rational soul, possessing the powers that are proper to the lower animate substances while possessing an immaterial intellect. Although the intellect is immaterial, it requires a body to present it with objects, through sense perception, and it is at this point where the mind and body meet. It is this dependence on the body that makes the hylomorphic position unique from materialism and substance dualism. Although the hylomorphic position may sound similar to substance dualism, dualism cannot explain why the soul—if it is wholly different from and superior to the body—should ever be united to the body. Keeping in mind, however, the hylomorphic composition of man, it is for the good of the soul to be united to the body because the body is necessary for a soul to exercise all vital capacities, since nearly all vital functions are functions of the body and soul together.

 

[1]Jeffrey E. Brower, Aquinas’s Ontology of the Material World: Change, Hylomorphism, and Material Objects (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), 261.

[2]James D. Madden, Mind, Matter and Nature: A Thomistic Proposal for the Philosophy Of Mind (District of Columbia: The Catholic University of America, 2013), 22.

[3]Fredric Copleston, A History of Philosophy (New York: Image Books, 1993), 2:327.

[4]Brower, Aquinas’s Ontology of the Material World, 19.

[5]Ibid.

[6]Ibid., 19-20.

[7]By universal element I mean to say that Socrates has that which makes him human. I am not asserting that this thing called humanity exists apart from the mind. Universals exist via abstraction, where the mind abstracts from corporeal substances universal elements existing in material substances. This will be reviewed later in the paper as it touches upon how the mind and body relate via the act of knowing.

[8] Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 2:327.

[9]Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologia, ed. Timothy McDermott (Notre Dame: Christian Classics, 1989), 108.

[10]Ibid., 120.

[11]Joseph Magee, “Sensitive Soul”, Thomistic Philosophy Page, accessed July 27, 2015, http://www.aquinasonline.com/Topics/senssoul.html.

[12]Copleston, A History of Philosophy, 377.

[13] This is an abbreviated list of what differentiates the sensitive soul from the vegetative soul. Aquinas further expounds on the five external senses and the four internal senses that is proper to both the sensitive and rational souls. The five external senses are those that make it possible to interact with the external world: sight, sound, touch, taste, and smell. The internal senses, however, aid in making sense of what is apprehended via the the five physical senses. For example, there is an instinctual operation by which the beaver can determine if a particular log is useful to build a damn. The beaver does not reason or judge in the proper sense; however, there is an interior sense by which it apprehends the utility of the log, thereby triggering an instinctive judgement.

[14]Thomas, Summa Theologiae, 120.

[15]Eleonore Stump, Aquinas, Arguments of the Philosophers (London: Routledge, 2003), 200

[16]Ibid., 202.

[17] Thomas, Summa Theologiae,122.

It’s Not a Baby, It’s Just a Mass of Cells

This week marked the 42nd anniversary of Roe v. Wade, in which abortion became legal in our country. Few social issues are capable of igniting the flames of human emotion as can the topic of abortion. Those in favor of abortion believe the matter hinges on subjects such as privacy or reproductive rights. Those who argue against abortion believe the baby in womb has a right to live. As emotional as this topic is, it is important to keep a level head and try to argue using reason and logic.

So, when those of us who are pro-life find ourselves in the midst of this controversy, what is the argument most often leveled against us? In my experience, the two arguments I hear the most often are:

1. It is my body. Therefore, I have the right to choose.
2. It is a fetus, not a baby, or, it is just a mass of cells.

In this post, I will attempt to provide a reasoned response to both of these objections while providing you with additional material and resources should you want to learn more about the arguments or how to get involved in the fight for life.

It is my body. Therefore, I have the right to choose.

When we engage in thoughtful discussion, we assume certain laws. The laws of logic govern our ability to have thoughtful and meaningful conversations. Although many do not know what the laws of logic are, everyone presupposes them and can often tell when one of them has been violated. If I were to hold up an apple, point to it, and say that I was holding a book, I hope everyone present would correct me. What I have done is violated the law of identity. The law of identity simply states that something is what it is. An apple is an apple, and a book is a book. Identity is rooted in existence, nature, and essence. That which exists is something, and we can tell what that something is because we identify its nature and essence. Take a book, for example; one can know what a book is because it has a front cover, back cover, and pages between the two covers. In addition, if something has identity, it has a single identity. That which exists cannot share in multiple identities, an apple cannot be anything, but an apple and a book cannot be anything but a book. We know this because everything that exists has particular attributes that make it what it is, keeping it consistence with its nature and essence.

What does any of this have to do with refuting the first argument mentioned above? Pay attention to what the argument is asserting. It assumes that the life growing within the womb shares the same identity with the one to whom the womb belongs. However, this argument is false because it violates the law of identity. The baby in the womb has a separate identity from the woman carrying the baby. The woman assumes that the baby is identical to her body simply because it is in her body, the same way her heart exists in her body or any other organ for that matter. However, anyone who has taken elementary biology can tell you that the baby growing in the womb has its own set of chromosomes and DNA, thereby making it separate and distinct from the woman carrying it. The baby may be inside her, but the baby is not her. The baby and the woman carrying the baby are two separate and distinct beings. When people say that it is their body and, for this reason, have the right to have an abortion, what they are saying is that they want to abort themselves. This argument is more an argument for suicide than it is for abortion.

It is a fetus, not a baby, or, it is just a mass of cells

The law of identity helps us in responding to this argument as well. Essence and nature are tied to the existence as mentioned above. The essence and nature of something do not change, even though a particular thing may change in its appearance as it evolves during its life cycle common to its species. Take, for example, a caterpillar and butterfly. Both belong to the insect order Lepidoptera. A caterpillar is not a butterfly, and a butterfly is not a caterpillar. Nevertheless, a caterpillar is the common name for the larvae of members belonging to the Lepidoptera order (the insect order comprising of butterflies and moths).

Human beings also go through changes during various lifecycles. The process of puberty does not change the essence or nature of a human being. No matter what changes a man or woman may go through, his or her personhood (essence) remains intact.

Scott Klusendorf, the author of The Case for Life, offers the following easy to remember argument using the acronym SLED, which works to maintain the personhood and value of the life growing inside the womb.

Size:  While it is true that an embryo or fetus is small, can we say that human value is derived from size? Is the pro-abortionist willing to say that taller people are more valuable than those who may be shorter? Most men are larger than women, does this make men more valuable or entitled to more rights? Do the biggest among us deserve more rights than the smallest among us?

Level of Development: It may be true that embryos and fetuses are at the earliest stages of human development but do we want to use development as the basis by which we determine value? Should young adults have a greater right to life than those in adolescence? Does self-awareness make one valuable? If so, must you always be in a state of awareness to maintain value and rights? Does a person sleeping remain self-aware, or how about a person under general anesthesia or in a coma? Should these people have their rights stripped from them because self-awareness has been compromised, lost, or put on hold?

Environment: Where you are does change who you are. Does your value change when you leave the house in the morning, get into the car, or enter your office? If a journey across town does not rob you of value and the right to live, how then can the journey down the birth canal miraculously give the invaluable value.

Degree of Dependency: If human value comes from the degree of dependency, then there is nothing stopping us from killing newborn babies dependent on being fed and changed. We can kill at will those who require lifesaving medication to manage heart conditions, cholesterol, kidney problems, and diabetes. I know many adults who are still dependent on their parents; shall we kill them?

For additional resources from Scott Klusendorf visit his website, www.caseforlife.com 

Ask Questions

Most people are quick to give an answer when they hear something to which they object. However, having a debate should never be the goal. Rather than being ready to give reasons for what you believe, ask questions. I have learned that one of the best ways to have people consider something different is to ask questions, placing the burden of argument on them. Ask questions like; is the baby the same as your body? What is it that is growing in the womb? Is human life valuable? Is the embryo human? If not, then what is it? If not, when does it become human?

Most people have not thought through these questions, and asking them is the key to helping them find the answers to them. When they begin to answer them, they will struggle and will see that they do not have a response. This is the best time to walk them through some of the arguments mentioned above. You cannot get people thinking until you first get them doubting.

Remember the Heart

As I said at the beginning of this post, this is an emotionally charged debate and as lovers of truth, we must be tactful in our apologetic, an important lesson I recently learned. Behind every argument and question, there is a person whose heart requires ministering. Many men and women who argue in favor of abortion have been involved in an abortion in some way and are struggling with the pain in the aftermath of their decision. Be sensitive to them. The wisdom of the intellectual will never satisfy the pain of the emotional. If all you do is focus on answering the question, you will miss the heart of the questioner. The head talk of our apologetic must be undergirded in heart talk.

How to get involved

If you would like to get involved in helping bring an end to abortion, I would encourage you to consider 40 Days for Life. They are the largest internationally coordinated pro-life mobilization in history, working to bring an end to abortion through prayer, fasting, community outreach and peaceful vigil. To learn more about them, visit www.40daysforlife.com

Where is the Church?

As candidates for the 2016 Presidential campaign surface, people across the country are starting to have conversations about their candidate of choice. More importantly, people are beginning to have more conversations about what they believe to be wrong with our country.

As for me, I believe that we are living under the judgment of Romans 1. Time and again the Bible shows that God will give people over to the lusts of their hearts. As people move away from God, they bring upon themselves His wrath. Perhaps you don’t think that we’ve done anything to warrant His judgment. Consider the following.

This month we mourn 42 years of Roe v. Wade. In 42 years, 60 million babies of been sacrificed at the altar of choice. No one wants to call our unborn children babies, because the thought of killing babies convicts. Instead, we deceive ourselves that the child in the womb is nothing more than a blob of cells. To anyone who thinks that an abortion is merely getting rid of a blob of cells, I challenge you to watch the video titled, The Silent Scream.

In addition, we have marginalized the nuclear family, a key foundation to any healthy and growing society. People think it is no longer important or necessary to get married and stay married. Why would anyone want to when cohabitation gets us all the benefits of marriage without the commitment? The concept of staying together with one person for the rest of our lives is too long for our 30 minute sitcom minds to handle.

The heart of every problem that we experience in our country is not a political problem. It’s not a legislative problem, a republican problem, or a democrat problem. All of these are mere symptoms of something that infects the heart of every person who ever lived. We have a sin problem, and until we remember that there is only one cure for sin, we will continue to lose our country.

So, who is at fault? Apart from the obvious, that every person is at fault given our sinful condition, I submit to you the church is to blame. The church no longer preaches the full weight of the gospel because it offends. In our hypersensitive society, where political correctness is king, we have forgotten how to accept being told that we are wrong. The only attribute of God that everyone seems to know is that God is all loving, forgetting the fact that God is a righteous judge who hates sin, and all who stand before Him is guilty. Yes, God is all loving and merciful, but His love and mercy were made manifest in Christ. Only at the foot of the cross are we made whole.

Where is the righteous indignation of the church? People preach the health and wealth gospel, ignoring the fact that they remain in their sins. I believe we need more sermons like those that were preached in the 1700’s, which led to the Great Awakening. Imagine the charges of intolerance that would be leveled against the church if a sermon like Johnathan Edwards’ Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God were preached today? It is said that Edwards was interrupted countless times during that sermon because of people passing out and crying out, “What must I do to be saved?” Why did Edwards get this kind of response? Because his sermon convicted the hearts of sinners rather than making them feel comfortable in their sin. Leonard Ravenhill said it best, “If Jesus preached the same message ministers preach today, He would never have been crucified.” Here are some more insightful quotes from Ravenhill that speak to our time.

• The early church was married to poverty, prisons, and persecution. Today, the church is married to prosperity, personality, and popularity.
• Today’s church wants to be raptured from responsibility
• The world has lost the power to blush over its vice; the Church has lost her power to weep over it.
• When there’s something in the Bible the Church doesn’t like, they call it legalism.
• How can you pull down strongholds of Satan if you don’t even have the strength to turn off the T.V.

Our country is falling apart because our churches are failing. We have made the gospel conform to this age, rather than remembering what Paul tells us in Romans 12:2, “Do not be conformed to this age, be transformed by the renewing of your mind that you may discern the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God.” Today, ministers preach a diluted gospel made palatable so that it conforms to the pleasing and imperfect will of a fallen world. There must be a sense of conviction in our evangelism and preaching. Why would anyone run to a Savior if they don’t think they need to be saved from something?

According to a Gallup poll taken in December 2012, 77 percent of Americans identify as Christians. Really? Where are they? People are too comfortable living as carnal Christians. Too many take the name of Christ without knowing Him as their Savior. Religion has taken the place of relationship. Last year when participating in 40 Days for Life, a leader of this movement was visiting local churches looking for support. The leader spoke with the pastor of the First Presbyterian church of our town and was turned down. The pastor responded by saying they do not discuss social issues at church because they don’t want to offend anyone who may feel differently. Where is the church to call anathema on these pastors, ministers, preachers, priests and so on?   The church is the heart of our country, it always has been. The same way the body requires the heart to properly take in un-oxygenated blood and fill it with oxygen before being pumped back into the body, the country needs the church to take in sinners and through the preaching of the true gospel, release saints into the world. If the heart is pumping out adulterated blood, it will not take long for the body to die. Where the church goes, so will the country. The health of our country can be measured by taking the pulse of the Church.

Over the next two years, politics will become lively. Everyone will be listening to what the candidates have to say about the economy, social issues, and foreign policy. I want to know what the Church will say about the condition of our souls. Will they have the audacity to speak out on social issues and point out those candidates who align closest to the Bible and our founding documents? Will they preach on the full council of God, or will they shrink back and hide behind their 501(c)(3) tax status, which regulates the extent to which they can speak out on political matters.

Pain and Suffering; Why God? Where are You?

January is a difficult month for my family and me. Eleven years ago, my cousin passed away unexpectedly; a tragedy that hit the family hard. Last year, on January 4^th, my nephew Luke went on to be with the Lord; he was 12 days old. People say there are only two guarantees in life, death and taxes. Well, anyone who has walked on this earth knows that pain and suffering are also guarantees. Because pain and suffering is experienced by everyone, a question commonly asked is, “Where is God in my pain and suffering, and why does God not to stop it?” How can we reconcile the existence of an all-loving and all-powerful God with the reality of pain and suffering that we experience in our lives?

Is it possible that God already stops the greatest amount of evil, pain, and suffering that can take place? I believe He does. No matter the evil, pain, and suffering, one can always imagine greater evil, greater pain and greater suffering. As evil as Hitler was, even he loved his mom. Now do not get me wrong, I’m not saying that Hitler was a good guy just because he loved his mom, I’m simply trying to show that the outcome of any situation could always be more evil or painful. Still, someone may ask, “Couldn’t God do away with the greatest evils that take place such as rape, murder?” Sure He could, but what would we be left with? We would have a new set of most evil actions that God should stop such as physical abuse and mental abuse. We can “what if” our way down this road to where something like name-calling would be the worst possible evil. Considering that there are laws that dub name calling a hate crime; God would have to stop that as well if we continued down this road of hypotheticals.

People think that a perfect world would be one where pain and suffering do not exist, that somehow a perfect world implies everyone having their desires fulfilled. However, a sterile world such as this is not logically possible, at least not one where creatures with a free will can live. In order for God to create a sterile environment where pain and suffering do not exist, humans would have to be robbed of their free will. Don’t think so?  I can think back to a time in high school where a particular girl caught my attention. I remember slowly and nervously walking over to her and mustering up the courage to ask her out on a date. Although kind in her response, her answer of no crushed me. My desire was not met, but her desire not to go out with me was. A sterile environment where all desires are met is not logically possible. So long as humans have free will, there will be pain and suffering.

Another consequence of living in a sterile world would be the loss of virtues. A virtue is a character trait valued as being good. With the start of a new year, people are making resolutions to better themselves. People may want to be more patient, more forgiving, or charitable with their time or money, just to name a few. In a sterile world where evil did not exist, the virtues that so many work toward would not exist. That is to say, there would be no opportunity to be patient, forgiving, charitable, courageous, and so on.

All of this answers the second of the two questions that were asked at the beginning of this post; why does God not stop all pain and suffering? However, what about the first question, where is God in our pain and suffering?

About 5,000 years ago, a man named Abraham led his son Isaac to the top of a mountain. On that mountaintop, Abraham restrained his son, and raised a knife over him, ready to sacrifice Isaac to God. Just as Abraham’s arms began their downward movement, God yelled out to him, “Stop! I will provide the sacrifice.” 2,000 years ago, on a hill not far from where Abraham stood, God led His son atop a mountain. There, His Son was stripped naked and crucified, and this time, God did not yell stop. He honored His promise to provide the sacrifice, a perfect sacrifice. What God would not permit Abraham to do to Isaac; He did to His Son Jesus. On that cross, Jesus took on the worst kind of physical pain having been beaten and crucified. Jesus took on the worst kind of emotional pain, through humiliation and ridicule. He suffered relational pain, having been betrayed by a friend. Finally, Jesus suffered judicial injustice having been declared guilty and taking on the punishment for something He did not do. Every manner of pain and suffering that human beings can experience Christ suffered, which makes Him the perfect confidant in our times of need. He understands better than anyone what you are going through.

What we learn during times of pain and suffering we can never learn during times of comfort and bliss. During times of great pain, we begin to look for purpose and meaning in life, asking questions that we would not normally ask. Through suffering, God brings us to a point of brokenness so that He can build us back up. In his book, The Problem of Pain, C. S. Lewis says, “Pain insists upon being attended to. God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our consciences, but shouts in our pains. It is His megaphone to rouse a deaf world.”

Are you listening?

If God is All-Loving, then why . . . ?

A common question about God, or objection raised in the form of a question, begins with “If God is all loving then why . . . ?” So many words can be used to complete this thought, a few of which are evil, pain, suffering, or natural disasters. In this post, I will give my attention to that place where all are destined to go should they die in their sins and not in Christ, Hell.

Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God, was a sermon preached by Jonathan Edwards on July 8, 1741 and is considered by many the greatest sermon ever preached on American soil. The sermon pulled no punches and served as the catalyst to the Great Awakening. Typical of the preaching of the time, the sermon warns of the fragile and precarious position of non-believers and how there is nothing keeping them from hell, eternal torment, and damnation but the good pleasure of God, who at any moment, will call them out of this life. Edwards was interrupted many times during the sermon because people were passing out or crying out, “What shall I do to be saved?” The first time I read the sermon, it shook me to my core. Want to read it? Click here.

Many people today have a hard time believing that an all-loving God would send someone to a place where they would be tormented for all eternity. The thought is that if God is all-loving, then He must be all forgiving, since to forgive is an act of love. Therefore, if God will not forgive, He must not be all-loving. Another way to put it is to say, “It is not a loving act to send someone to hell, therefore, no one is sent to hell.”

What people forget is that while God is all-loving, He is also a Holy and Righteous Judge who hates sin. Because God is perfect, He will judge perfectly the lives of every person who has entered into history. Romans 2:5 reads, “But because of your hard and impenitent heart you are storing up wrath for yourself in the day of wrath when God’s righteous judgment will be revealed.”

As a parent, I love my children without condition. However, I have expectations of how they ought to behave, and when my children disobey either my wife or me, or act out in defiance, then I correct them through various means. Sometimes toys are taken away, others they are sent to their room, and yes, there are times when they have earned a spanking. From my children’s perspective, all they know is that mommy and daddy are doing something which cause them discomfort. From my perspective, my love is the motivating factor that drives the punishment. There is a correlation between the unconditional love I have for my children, and the punishments they receive when they behave inappropriately. How much more than does God’s all loving character serve as a motivation to punish when His standards are not met?

But doesn’t God forgive? Yes of course He forgives, but forgiveness is offered on His terms and they are non-negotiable. God’s all-loving character was made manifest when He poured out His wrath on His Son. Jesus died for those who put their faith in Him. When a sinner confesses Jesus as his or her Savior, Jesus is giving that person His righteousness, while taking onto Himself their sin; a spiritual transaction takes place. If that is not the ultimate act of love, then I do not know what love is.

When a person is called out of this life, they will either die in Christ or die in their sins. Where they stand with Christ when they slip into eternity will determine where they spend eternity. God does not force someone into heaven against his or her will. If a person does not want God in this life, then they will not want God in the next. Where do you stand with Christ?

Is Religion the #1 Cause of War?

A common objection raised against Christianity, is that religion is the #1 cause for war throughout human history. Therefore, Christianity, along with all other religions, cannot be true. Is this a valid claim and if so, does it somehow disprove Christianity? How can a Christian respond to this objection?

First, it is important to acknowledge that awful things have, in fact, taken place in the name of Christianity. The following are some of the the most well-known historical events with the highest reported causalities.

1. French Wars of Religion: 2,000,000 – 4,000,000 killed
2. Crusades: 1,000,000 – 3,000,000 killed
3. Thirty Years War: 3,000,000 – 11,500,000 killed
4. Christian Inquisitions: 3,000 – 5,000 killed

Taking the high estimate of these events, 20 million people died at the hands of those professing Christianity. Again, this is assuming a high estimate. The problem, however, is that nothing in Jesus’ teachings encourages this type of behavior.  As Christians, we should condemn the actions of any person who takes the name Christian and advocates violence in an effort to spread the gospel message. It is sad that this is part of our history, and we can agree with the non-Christian that this is unacceptable.

However, it is also wrong to judge a philosophy according to its abuses. Violence against fellow human beings is not the logical outworking of the gospel message. The Bible teaches that all are made in the image of God, and, therefore, have intrinsic value and ought to be cherished. We are called to love our neighbor and our enemies. Therefore, it should be easy to see that these Holy Wars is the antithesis of what is taught by Christ, and in no way reflects authentic Christian living.

It is a convenient thing for the atheist to forget all those who perished at the hands of atheistic leaders; therefore, it is our job to remind them of the following:

1. Joseph Stalin – 42,672,000
2. Mao Zedong – 37,828,000
3. Adolf Hitler – 20,946,000
4. Chiang Kai-Shek – 10,214,000
5. Vladimir Lenin – 4,017,000
6. Hideki Tojo – 3,990,000
7. Pol Pot – 2,397,000

The total lives lost at the hands of secular, non-religious dictators exceed 122 million. The other fascinating thing about this statistic is that these leaders ruled at various times in the 20^th century. The 20^th century is on record as being the bloodiest century in human history, even more so when compared with the total number of deaths that took place in the 19 centuries preceding it. The 19th century German Philosopher, Friedrich Nietzsche, predicted this statistic.

Toward the end of the 19^th century, advances in science coupled with the increased secularization of European society gave rise to the philosophical view of nihilism, the belief that nothing has any inherent purpose and that life is ultimately meaningless. Nihilism is often associated with Friedrich Nietzsche, who declared the death of God in his work titled, The Gay Science. Up until this point in history, God had served as the basis for meaning and value in the West. When man killed God, he effectively removed the moral compass that provided people with intrinsic value and the basis for objective knowledge.

Although Nietzsche did not believe in God, he understood the causal relationship that would follow from declaring God’s death; that objective meaninglessness would run rampant throughout society, thereby piercing every facet of human existence. Nietzsche went on to predict that because God had died in the 19^th century, the 20^th century would become the bloodiest and most destructive century in human history coupled with the breakout of universal madness. He was spot on as one can see from the above figures!

It would seem that the actions of secular leaders mentioned above are, therefore, the logical outworking of an atheistic worldview. If God does not exist, then objective meaning does not exist, and everything becomes subjective and true only according to its referent.

The Christian can look at the atrocities committed by so-called Christians and argue that they were nothing more than wolves in sheep’s clothing. What argument can the atheist offer to disassociate their worldview from the actions of Stalin, Hitler, or Mao? The answer is none. They were merely living out their atheism, defining morality and meaning for themselves. The atheist can make no claim that these individuals were objectively wrong, nor can they condemn the “Christian” who killed in the name of God. Without an objective standard beyond humanity, morality is reduced to a matter of opinion.

Therefore, the claim that Christianity is false because of its affiliations with violence is nothing more than an empty argument that lacks merit. Violence is not a prescribed behavior found within the New Testament. Consequently, those who commit such acts are not doing the work of Christ, and in no way invalidates the truth claims of Christianity.

Can I Trust the Bible

For a Christian, this is one of the most important questions that can be asked of us. While witnessing to people, the Bible is the Christian’s primary source of information that we reference. Therefore, the question is bound to come up, “Why do you trust the Bible?” How the Christian answers the question may influence the questioner’s thoughts on the validity of the gospel message. Even in my conversations with Christians, I have asked this question, because I am curious to hear how they will respond. The two answers I hear most often are:

1. Because the Bible claims to be true
2. I was raised to believe it is true.

The problem with these two answers is that they are not grounded in anything objective. Other religions have ancient texts that claim to be true; however, does that make them true? Also, people of other religions were raised to believe their worldview and ancient texts are true; however, that does not make them true either. The Christian has to be prepared to give a well thought out answer to the question so that the questioner is convinced that there is more to the Bible than subjective opinion.

So, how should a Christian answer this question? Voddie Baucham, Pastor and Author provides the following answer, “ I choose to believe in the Bible because it is a reliable collection of historical documents written down by eyewitnesses during the lifetime of other eyewitnesses. They report to us supernatural events that took place in fulfillment of specific prophecies and claim to be divine rather than human in origin.”

Whew, that is a mouth full, but consider the strength of the answer. The answer is not the result of subjective opinion. Instead it points to the historical reliability that has stood up to centuries of inquiry. The Bible is the most studied, most read, and most scrutinized book in all of history, and because of this, we can know that what the Bible aims to teach is true and as a source, is reliable.

The Bible is a reliable collection of historical documents. 

More often than not, the Bible is thought to be one work; however, this is a gross misunderstanding of what the Bible is. This is why the first part of the answer is so important; it clears up this confusion.

The Bible is a collection of many individual works. The Bible consists of sixty-six books, thirty-nine in the Old Testament and twenty-seven in the New Testament. The individual books that make up the Bible were written over a period of roughly 2,000 years by forty different authors spanning three continents, who wrote in three different languages. We refer to the books of the Bible as being historical because they record names, dates, places, and events in history. There have been over 23,000 archaeological digs related to the historicity of the Bible. The findings of each have confirmed the historical narratives, thereby validating the Bible as a reliable and trustworthy historical record. Click here to read about  some of these archaeological discoveries.

Another noteworthy find is the manuscript evidence that supports the trustworthiness of the Bible. One of the criticisms leveled against the Bible is that it cannot be trusted because it has been re-written so many times, and like a game of telephone, the truth as been lost due to multiple translations.

To determine if a document is reliable, Scholars begin by analyzing all the manuscripts in the original language that exist and compare them to the current text to check for inconsistencies. This process helps them conclude if the current document accurately represents the original. During this process, scholars take into consideration the number of manuscripts that are available, the time-span that exists between the manuscripts and the events they report, and the similarities between older and newer manuscripts. Clearly, the more manuscripts that exist, the closer they are to the events that occurred, and the greater the similarities there are between the numerous copies will determine if a particular text is reliable. The following are ancient works that historians and scholars have determined to be reliable based on the manuscript evidence that is available.

Document	Number of Copies	Date of the Original	Earliest Manuscript Available	Years Between Original and Earliest Copy
Caesar’s Gallic Wars	10	100—44 B.C.	A.D. 900	944 Years
Plato (Tetralogies)	7	427-347 B.C.	A.D. 900	1,247 Years
Tacitus (Annals)	20	A.D. 100	A. D. 1100	100 Years
Pliny the Younger (Roman History)	7	A.D. 61—113	A.D. 850	737 Years
Sophocles	193	496—406 B.C.	1100 A.D.	1505 Years
Aristotle	50	384—322 B.C.	1100 A.D.	1422 Years
Homer’s Illiad	643	900 B.C.	400 B.C.	500 Years
New Testament	5,600	A.D. 50 – 100	A.D. 130	Less than 100 Years

Considering the information in the above table, no one can make an intelligent argument against the Bible as being reliable when compared to the originals. In fact, Scholars have determined the Bible to be 99.5% textually pure.

Is Evolution Compatible with Creationism

Back on October 28 of this year, Pope Francis declared that evolution and the Big Bang are real and God is not, “a magician with a magic wand.” Click here for the full article.

There are two different events being declared as true by Pope Francis, the big bang and evolutionary theory. I happen to agree with the former as being true. There is good scientific evidence in support of the big bang such as the expanding universe, second law of thermodynamics, and Einstein’s theory of general relativity just to name a few. Furthermore, there is a synthesis between the big bang and creationism. Understanding the law of causality, namely that whatever begins to exist has a cause, it is logical to posit a cause necessary for the big bang to have occurred, which points to a Creator. However, there is no scientific evidence to support evolutionary theory. In fact, the evidence suggests something different. Most importantly, the theological implication to believing that evolution is true does great damage to redemptive history.

In his book, On Origin of Species, Darwin writes two chapters that focus on the problem with his theory and the evidence required to support his theory. Scientists are always looking for the missing link. Darwin realized the importance of finding the missing link to support his theory; however, Darwin was not looking for one missing link. Instead, he admitted that if his theory of evolution were true, then millions of transitional forms ought to exist. Darwin raises this question, “Why, if species have descended from other species by insensibly fine gradation, do we not everywhere see innumerable transitional forms.” Darwin knew that for his theory to be proven as true, the fossil record would have to yield not just one missing link, but millions. To date, not a single transitional form has been found.

Further to the problem of transitional forms, Darwin admitted that an event like the Cambrian Explosion would prove fatal to his theory. Darwin writes, “If numerous species, belonging to the same genera or families, have really started into life all at once, the fact would be fatal to the theory to descent with slow modification through natural selection.” The Cambrian Explosion is a term used for the great number of complex creatures that suddenly appeared in the fossil record, with having no evidence they evolved from lower life forms. You can read more on the Cambrian Explosion here.

The lack of scientific evidence in support of evolutionary theory ought to make everyone second guess what they were taught in school. Although much more can be written on the Science, I’d rather discuss the theological implications for the Christian who does not see a problem with believing evolution to be true.

If evolution were true—again there is no good evidence to suggest that it is—then the story of redemption falls apart. If evolution is true, then the fall of Adam and Eve is an allegorical tale filled with mythology. However, in the Bible we read over and over again that Christ is the second Adam. What does this mean if the first Adam never really existed? We read that as man, in Adam fell, now man can live in Christ? If the fall of Adam is not a historical event, then the redemptive work of Christ makes no sense. If Adam and Eve did not exist, then the biblical doctrine of the fall becomes impossible to maintain. However, the Bible testifies to the historicity of Adam.  In Romans 5:12-21 Paul linked God’s redemptive plan and Christ’s atonement for sin with the fall of described in Genesis. In Romans 5:12-14we read, “Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men because all sinned—for sin indeed was in the world before the law was given—but sin is not counted where there is no law. Yet death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over those whose sinning was not like the transgression of Adam, who was a type of the one who was to come.”

In 1 Corinthians 15:20-22 we read something very similar.  “But in fact Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who have fallen asleep.  For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead.  For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.”

Jesus Himself understood Adam and Eve to be historical figures.  In Matthew 19:4-6 In response to questioning from the Pharisees about marriage and divorce, Jesus declared, “Have you not read that he who created them from the beginning made them male and female . . . .”

If Adam and Eve are not historical than how does one explain the genealogies recorded in 1 Chronicles 1 and Luke 3?  If we read the book of Genesis allegorical, at which point do we stop.  The life of Abraham is clearly connected to the history that preceded him.  Without an historical Adam and Eve, and without an historical fall, the doctrine of atonement and redemption doesn’t make sense.

Part of the problem is that the Bible is no longer counted as a work in which historical events took place. This makes it easy for the skeptic to criticize the biblical account of creation and the Christian to harmonize the creation account with evolutionary theory. Theologian R. C. Sproul hits the nail on the head when he says,

It is the historical dimension of sacred scripture that is under so much attack today, and it is the historical dimension of our faith that is at the center of the controversy, that our faith is somehow not tied to history.  The New Testament marries history and redemption.  I’ve heard theologians say that the Bible is not normal history that it is redemptive history; therefore it doesn’t matter whether it is historically correct or historically accurate.  Let me remind you that, yes the Bible is redemptive history, the history of redemption.  But I also have to remind you that it is redemptive HISTORY. And the Jew put his life on the line for the historical reality of his faith.  We believe in the God, WHO was the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.  We believe in the God WHO brought us up out of the land of bondage, out of Egypt, out of a real historical place and gave us a real historical exodus and gave us a real historical redemption because I am a real historical person and I need real historical redemption.  Don’t play around with spiritualization’s of it, the Jew had no time for that in the ancient world.  And so the historical centrality of redemption is really a non-negotiable of Christianity.

Objective Morality and Moral Relativism, Part 3

In Part 2 on this topic I touched upon objective morality and moral relativism. It seems clear to me that there are internal problems with moral relativism, and those who cling to moral relativism are incapable of living consistently as moral relativists. However, if objective morality exists, which I believe it does, then does the objective moral law exist on its own, or is it grounded in something other than itself? It would make sense that if a moral law exists, there must be a moral law giver.

Grounding Objective Morality

To accurately identify the source of objective morality, one must first identify the nature of man. Dr. Kreeft states that “foundational issues always turn out to be metaphysical, what ought to be rests on what is.”[1] Man is either a spiritual being whose nature is directly tied to the existence of God or man’s nature, as a highly evolved animal, is tied to the natural world and the animal kingdom. The implications of one’s metaphysical anthropology will determine which moral philosophy is embraced.[2] Anthropology—what is the human being—is the decisive question that will determine how the human being ought to be treated and eventually what social-political ought to rule.

There is universal consensus that murder is abhorrently wrong; however, one must ask if murder has always been wrong? Was murder ever right—not just permissible or something to be tolerated but a moral imperative? Will murder ever be considered morally good as an act one ought to do? If murder is immoral today, tomorrow, and was immoral reaching back into the past, then the moral law is infinite, unchanging, and transcends man. Therefore, it logically follows that the source of the objective moral law is also, infinite, unchanging, and transcendent. These attributes also describe attributes of God. One does not find these traits in the animal kingdom and certainly nowhere else in nature.

If man is not a spiritual being made in the image of God, then one must find grounding for the existence of an unchanging objective moral law in nature. If man were not created in the image of God, but is instead just part of the animal kingdom, then one should judge the actions of all animals against the backdrop of the objective moral law. If man were just another member of the animal kingdom, then the only imperative imposed on man would be survival of the fittest and to propagate one’s offspring by any means necessary, for there are no moral dimensions to the actions played out in the animal kingdom. Humans alone have the capacity for moral reflection. Dr. William Lane Craig, philosopher and Christian theologian, gives the example that “when a lion kills a zebra, it kills a zebra, it does not murder the zebra. When a great white shark forcibly copulates with a female, it forcibly copulates with a female, but it does not rape her.”[3] The naturalist is unable to ground objective morality in nature.

 Conclusion

Throughout one’s life, one will be confronted with having to make moral decisions or supporting moral initiatives that impact one’s life, relationships, society, and eternal destiny. The human race is special, not because it is more evolved than other living creatures; rather man’s value comes from being created in the image God. Man is a spiritual being, and therefore, is called to live according to an objective moral law grounded in the character of his Creator. Love thy neighbor, thou shalt not lie, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not murder are moral imperatives that are as valid today as when they were first given to Moses; they are unchanging and eternal. Objective morality exists because God exists. If God does not exist, then neither does objective morality, rendering life ultimately meaningless. If life is meaningless and without purpose, then let us eat, drink, and be merry for tomorrow we die. The only imperative that ought to be observed is doing that which brings pleasure, without consideration for one’s fellow man. However, an objective moral law does exist, and its purpose is two-fold.

First, the moral law serves as the perfect standard by which man is called to live, fostering harmony and unity for all mankind. Second, the moral law serves as a mirror reflecting back to man his need for divine redemption. It is upon the hill of Calvary where redemption is found along with ultimate expression of love, where the God-Man gave his life as a ransom, so that whoever will look upon Him will not perish but have eternal life.

[1]Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 150.

[2]Ibid.

[3]William Lane Craig, On Guard: Defending Your Faith with Reason and Precision (Colorado Springs, Co.: David C. Cook, 2010), 132.

Objective Morality and Moral Relativism, Part 2

Objective Morality

Every day, people are making moral choices or judging the actions of others as being moral or immoral. One only needs to watch ten minutes of any news broadcast before being confronted with a disturbing story. While watching, the viewer appeals to some objective standard by which he judges an action as good or bad. To claim that there is an objective standard of morality is to assert that there is a standard that transcends human beings or the societies in which they live. Some believe moral standards are the result of how a particular society has established laws governing its citizenry. However, objective morality transcends societal norms. Most would argue that it is better to hug a child and show her loving affection than it is to torture and abuse her regardless of where one lives. When a person claims that one action is better than another, there is, in fact, an objective standard to which one is appealing. C. S. Lewis understood that

the moment a person says that one set of moral ideas can be better than another, you are in fact, measuring them both by a standard, saying that one of them conforms to that standard more nearly than the other. But the standard that measures two things is something different from either. You are in fact, comparing them both with some REAL Morality, admitting that there is such a thing as real Right, independent of what people think, and that some people’s ideas get nearer to that real Right than others.[1]

Norman Geisler and Frank Turek, noted apologists, argue that “all people are impressed with a fundamental sense of right and wrong. Everyone knows it is wrong to murder; even the person who commits a murder knows it is wrong, even if the murderer exhibits no sign of remorse.”[2] Perhaps the greatest test for discovering moral truths is to observe the reaction of someone who has been wronged and watch him appeal to some standard.

If an objective moral law does exist and all people are impressed with this law, then why is there disagreement about what is morally right and wrong? Throughout history, pride has caused people to rebel against laws that have been established, be it an objective moral law or laws governing civil virtue. Man wants to be in control, being free to decide what is morally right or wrong. It is far more convenient for a person to say, “That may be true for you but not for me,” than to acknowledge that they are held to a standard beyond themselves. Such a position leads to the contemporary appeal for what has been termed ‘moral relativism’.

 Moral Relativism

Relativism denies the existence of any and all absolutes. It maintains that truth is relative to its point of reference and does not extend beyond this point. Relativism is the antithesis of anything claiming to be absolute, including an objective moral law. The first time relativism reared its ugly head in human history can be read in the Bible, found in the third chapter of Genesis. In it, the serpent convinces Eve that she can ignore the law that she is subject to, forbidding her to eat from the tree of knowledge. Eve knew it was wrong; however, she gave into her desires, thus ignoring the mandate established by God.

Today, people treat morality as though it were a salad bar of moral thought, picking and choosing that which makes them feel good and validates their own preferences while leaving behind that which convicts. Man has moved away from absolute truths and objective morality, having established his own standards of moral ought-ness and embracing the philosophy articulated by pre-Socratic Greek Philosopher Protagoras that “man is the measure of all things.”

Problems with Moral Relativism

As already mentioned, relativism denies the existence of all absolutes, while claiming to be absolutely true. The law of non-contradiction reveals the absurdity of this statement and the internal contradictory nature of relativism. Relativism fails the truth test from its initial claim. However, there are additional problems with this philosophy. Those who deny the existence of an objective moral law will claim autonomy, living according to their own standards. However, the moral relativist cannot live consistently with this worldview. For example, relativists cannot accuse others of wrongdoing, cannot complain about there being evil in the world, and they cannot promote the obligation of tolerance.

When a person says that someone did something immoral, the implication is that he violated some objective standard that ought to be known. However, if relativism is true, then no standard can be violated since man is free to act as he pleases. Additionally, the moral relativist has no grounding for an argument against evil because according to relativism, real evil does not exist. The relativist cannot say that Mother Theresa was better than Hitler. Relativism does not recognize one as being better or more right than another; everything becomes a matter of opinion. This point was best made when Benito Mussolini wrote,

Everything I have said and done in these last years is relativism, by intuition. . . . If relativism signifies contempt for fixed categories, and men who claim to be the bearers of an objective immortal truth . . . then there is nothing more relativistic than fascistic attitudes and activities. . . . From the fact that all ideologies are of equal value, that all ideologies are mere fictions, the modern relativist infers that everybody has the right to create for himself his own ideology, and to attempt to enforce it with all the energy of which he is capable.[3]

In my next and final post on this subject, I hope to show from where objective morality comes and its implications for human beings.

[1]C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity: A Revised and Amplified Edition, with a New Introduction, of the Three Books, Broadcast Talks, Christian Behaviour, and Beyond Personality (San Francisco: Harper San Francisco, 2001), 13.

[2]Norman L. Geisler and Frank Turek, I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist (Wheaton, Il.: Crossway Books, 2004), 171.

[3]Benito Mussolini, Diuturna (January 1924): 377-374, quoted in Peter Kreeft, A Refutation of Moral Relativism: Interviews with an Absolutist (San Francisco: Ignatius Press, 1999), 18.