pmd@cbscd5.UUCP (06/10/83)
This was an interesting presentation. What I wonder, though, is
whether there is any good reason for someone who is not a monotheist
to adopt an absolute value system. Any opinions on the subject?
Tim Maroney
This is a good question. It caused me to think a lot. I really don't
see how someone who is not a monotheist *can* adopt an absolute value
system. Pantheistic religions seem so abstract and vague that they
can be made to promote any set of values. Atheists and agnostics have
to accept what ever values seem right to them.
However, if absolutes do exist, it follows that they apply to everyone
whether their existence is acknowledged or not. I think values only
make sense in connection with personality. Plants and animals do not
adopt values (at least they do not recognize a need to do so). If
absolute values do exist, they must be based on the character of a
singular personality. The personal does not arise from the impersonal.
I think this is true as far as it can be scientifically observed or
or locically determined. (If A is A then A is not non-A.)
What sense would there be in deriving values from the study of some
sort of natural, impersonal law? What would give these values any real
meaning? How can the values then be applied to society, when individuals
may interpret natural laws differently (if they are not connected with
some sort of revelation)? My point is that there is no good, observable
reason to believe that we, as creatures with consiousness, reasoning,
and the need to adopt values for ourselves and society, could come about
from impersonal chaos.
I think that anything that is absolute must be put int the same category
as physical and mathematical laws. The absolutes apply uniformly
(at least within our sphere of existence) and that they are discovered,
not made. The law of gravity applies to all. Its effects may be
temporarily overcome with the expense of proper technology, but
eventually all things must fall. Death is the same way. It may be
postponed at some expense, but not indefinitely. If there are
"absolute" values, it follows that their effects may also temporarily
overcome or postponed, but not without some expense and not indefinitely.
I can illustrate this with one example:
Suppose that the increased sexual "freedom" expressed in our society
is in violation of an absolute value that says that sexual activity
should be restricted to the bonds of a permanent marriage commitement.
Humans, being sensual beings, "naturally" suppose that this restriction
is artificial, since it is not observed in nature. So, sexual activity
begins to take place freely outside the bonds of marriage. One problem
is that with sex often comes pregnancy, and without the commitment of
marriage it is hard to responsibly care for a child. This is compounded
by the fact that the sex often takes place soley for the pleasure derived from
it and the consequences of a child are often unwanted. The means to
overcoming this consequence is either birth control (not 100% reliable
since its users may someday want children and therefore don't want
it to be permanent) or abortion. Both of these involve a certian expense.
For abortion to be justified the unborn had to be considered less
than human at some point and therefore subject to disposal. Before
the great desire for sexual freedom came about life was always considered
a continum from conception until birth. Abortion does present more
physical and psycological hazards that its advocates would like to admit.
The spread of venerial disease also requires expense and technology to
hold at bay.
Now that adults could practice their sexual freedom with
relative immunity from any unwanted consequences. The teenagers, who
model themselves after adults, saw no reason why they could not join
in. The adults could not offer any binding reasons either since the
old artificial value was not seen as absolute. Since teenagers, on the
average do not have as much accesses to the resources required to ward off
the unwanted consequences of sexual freedom, they became the "victims" of
those consequences more often. This resulted in the additional expense
of providing free birth control, sexual counselling, and abortion to
these teens. These services had to be provided on a confidential basis
because many teens were afraid of the reproof of parents who still held
to the absolute value concerning sex, but could not
instill it in their children because it contradicted what was "natural".
This deepened any distrust and lack of understanding that may
have existed between children and parents with different values--a problem
to be overcome with the added expense of additional counseling.
In extending the rights to sexual freedom to younger people
the line had to be drawn (at least temporarily) at young children.
But where a line is drawn, many people want to cross it (since drawing
the line is often seen as presenting and absolute and absolutes were not
thought to exist). The majority of people were appalled at the line being
crossed and passed laws to enforce the line. This enforcement required
great expense since the demand for "kiddie porn" increased, and with it
child abduction and molestation. But this may be alleviated soon, many
expert psychologist now say that sex really isn't that bad for kids and
if the industry were legalized it could be controlled and made safer for
the kids; after all the legalization of abortion did make it safer for
the women...
Where should it end? I don't care to speculate about the future.
what bugs me though is that those in favor of illegalizing non-theraputic
abortion are blamed for wanting to see an increase in the number of unwanted
and illigitimate children. Since the posibility that we are opposing
an absolute value is not considered in our justification of the things
that facillitate our sexual freedom, no one would think that the increase
in unwed mothers could be a moral problem. Is it really freedom? Or are we
temporarily overcoming the consequences of absolute values (i.e. the
sanctity of sex and unborn life) at greatly unperceived expenses?
Will it all come crashing down on us when we lose all restraint, when
the consequences of opposing the absolutes are so multiplied as to
get out of control, when the cost of the technology required to over-
come those consequences get out of out reach?
To me this observation seems to support the idea that the sanctity of
the marriage bed and (all) human life are absolute values that we can
either accept and live within or try to overcome with who-knows-what
as the result. If these are absolutes, are there others also?
The fact that they are given as commands in the Bible, is evidence
that the God of the Bible is the one behind the absolutes. Only time
will tell for sure. I'm afraid some people are not convinced of
gravity's reality until the plane their riding on crashes into the ground.
Paul Dubuc presents an interesting description of different
value systems and their relation to the Bible and Christian
theology. I think that the important issue here, though, is
not what value systems are the most valid by virtue of their
consistency with scripture, but rather how we can determine
the value of scripture in the first place. If someone already
believes in the divine origon of the Bible, then it makes
sense to ask what moral systems are compatible with it, but
I personally would rather ask how we can justify our belief
in the divine origin of the Bible in the first place...
Wayne
I agree that the divine inspiration of Scripture is the more
important issue. There are so many tangents to this issue I would
wear myself out trying to deal with them all. Basically I have not found
enough evidence to reject the Bible's claim to be the authentic
revelation of God. The evidence that has been presented by various
writers is voluminous. I will discuss some of the evidence though.
First of all, the Bible is a historical book. So many of the events
described in it can be verified by historical comparison and archeology
that it is hard not to believe that its record of the way God has
interviened in history is not also accurate. No other religious book
is as firmly grounded in history as the Bible.
The most important of God's interventions is his becoming a man, Jesus
Christ. This man claimed to be God incarnate. If this claim is true,
he can speak with the highest authority concerning man and his relationship
to God. And he did so speak; his teaching is recorded in the gospels.
Nothing substantiates Jesus' claim to be God more than his resurrection
from the dead. I can think of no more conclusive proof (that is subject
to human observation) of a man's claims to be the total fleshly manifestation
of God, than to demonstrate his total power over death--not just by avoiding
it, but by actually going through it!
John W. Montgomery has written in one of his essays:
Now it cannot be stressed too strongly that this claim to divine
intervention in history is solidly grounded in historical evidence
The textual case for the New Testament documents which record
Christ's devine utterences and acts is so excellent that Sir
Frederic G. Kenyon, director and principal librarian of the
British Museum, could write in 1940 in "The Bible and Archaeology":
"Both the authenticity and the general integrity of the books of
the New Testament may be regarded as finally established". The
world's formost contemporary biblical archeologist, W.F. Albright
of John Hopkins University, has identified the New Testament
materials as primary source documents for the life of Jesus, dating
all of them (including John's gospel) "between the forties and
eighties of the first century A.D. (very probably sometime between
about 50 and 75 A.D.)"... The N. T. writers claim eyewitness contact
with the events of Jesus' career, and describe his death and post-
resurrection appearances in minute detail. In A.D. 56, for example
Paul wrote (I Cor. 15) that over 500 people had seen the risen
Jesus an most were still alive. The N. T. writers explicitly
affirm that they are presenting historical facts, not religious
fables; [ II Pet.1:16 ] ... And if deception and fabrication were
involved, why didn't the numerous religious enemies of the early
Christians blast the whole business? F. F. Bruce ... has shrewdly
observed in his book, "The New Testament Documents", that if the
early proclaimers of Christ's deity had any tendency to depart from
the facts, the presence of hostile witnesses in the audience
would have served as a most powerful corrective...
It goes on and on. The problem is not with lack of reasons to accept
the Bible or Christianity as true; there is plenty of evidence. But
you can't expect it to fall out of the sky and hit you in the face, you
have to look for it. I don't mind presenting the reasons for my faith
to people who have a real desire to understand them, but I am not
convinced of this attitude in many of the atheists or agnostics I have
observed or talked to. This frustrates me. Especially since the usually
maintain that they are open minded and willing to change. The problem
I have is that they desire conclusive logical proof that God exists.
If there is *one* thing I can't explain, they say there is not enough
reason to believe. Athiests cannot prove conclusively that there is
no God either, but this lack of knowledge is somehow sanctified because
it is viewed as scientific and logical, whereas anyone with a "religious"
view is only using a god to explain what he doesn't know. Some athiests
don't consider their beliefs to be a religion. Some people have
told me quite conclusively that there is no reason to believe in God.
I always ask "How do you know?". What it comes down to is that there
is none because they haven't found any. I think most haven't looked
where there might be a good possibility of finding some. Books on
philosophy, religion, politics, science, etc. written by Christians
are strongly suspect because they
are "biased". After all, how can you expect a Christian to write objectively
about his religion? What makes thet atheist's view inherently more objective
or faithful to the truth than mine?
C. S. Lewis once wrote "One must look *along* and
*at* everything". Michael Murphy expounds on this:
C. S. Lewis explains the difference between these two different
ways of seeing. We see anything and everything either from
the "inside" or the "outside", either as participant or observer.
And each of these ways of seeing a thing yields a different
experience of the thing, which fact forces us to ask which
esperience is the "true" or "valid" one, which experience tells
more about the thing itself. Should we listen to people who
live inside the thing or to those who look at it as an object
of study? Many people have naively and irrationally assumed that
the external account of a thing is always superior to the account given from the inside, but in reality neither way of seeing is
intrinsically better or truer than the other way. And in
particular instances, we cannot know in advance whether one
kind of looking gives a more correct account than the other, or
whether both accounts are equally wrong, or whether both
accounts are equally correct, but in different ways.
I will be the first to admit that looking at Christianity from either
side reveals problems and inconstentcies. But this happens for a
number of reasons:
1) Our preception is inaccurate.
2) The things we observe, either from the inside or outside,
are not in accordance with the real teachings of
Christianity.
3) We have a strong resistance to accepting any point of
view that does not agree with our own or accepting
any teaching that makes personal demands on us, even
though it may be true.
When I first became a Christian, I was pretty ignorant of its teachings
and any good reasons fror believing it. It did provide me with many
benifits and when my beliefs began to be tested intellectually I searched
hard for the answers to my questions. Though I had strong doubts, I had
experienced enough of Christianity from the inside to believe that there
must be some truth in it. Finding the answers to my questions often
meant wading through a lot of garbage and insufficient answers but I can
say it was more than worth it. I'm still at it. If I had waited until
all the answers I have now were presented to me, I'd have waited until
death. I would not have had the intrest to look for them.
In answer to your question I think the best thing I can do is encourage
you to look for the answers yourself. There is only one type of prayer
that a non-believer can pray. It's the one that says, "God, I can't
believe you really exist. But if you do, I want to know more than anything.
If you do exist, I admit that, according to that Bible, I am a sinner.
I am out of my proper relationship to you. I am in need of your power
to live as you intend all to live."
If you can sincerely do this and are willing to actually read the Bible
with an open mind, I think God will at least show you enough of Christianity
from the inside to give you a strong suspicion of it's truth. It's
humbling, yes, but that's what it takes to get inside and look around.
Once your there, the rest is up to you, God will take you as far as
you are willing, or you can even leave if you want. But his ablolutes still
apply to you. If you stay in, it may take years before you are confident
enough to really stand up to those who will say you are a fool for believing
in a God you can't explain fully. But not knowing everything about the infinite
Christian God dosn't mean your a fool; it just means your not God yourself.
If you really want to know God, you really have to come on his terms, or
leave. There's nothing I can do about it. I've offered him all the excuses
I can think of; he just didn't believe them as much as I did.
Well I've rambled on to all of you enough. Now It's your turn; write
me if you think any of this is important. I'll just quote one last thing
from Murphy for you to consider:
But a person may be able to give intellectual assent to
the claims of Christ, at least tentatively, and yet not
be able to bridge the gap to volitional trust. For
Christianity, if it is anything, is a compelling threat
to our sense of independence and self-suficiency: it
pushes us to a drastic reevaluation of ourselves, both
as individuals and as a race. It tells us that we are
not alone in the universe, that we are not our own God
and never have been, that we would not even have called
to Him unless He had already been calling to us.
Paul Dubuc ...cbosgd!cbscd5!pmd
P.S.
I've heard many who are atheists say that those who are theists are
enslaved by their deity. This is true, at least for me, but not in the
sense that I can't leave if I want. I choose to enslave myself to this
Master because I trust him. I think we're all slaves in that sense,
either to a deity or to your own desires (which we don't always have
the power to control, or percieve the consequences of their fulfillment).
If my God knows the future, he know what's best for me better that I do.
I'll take my chances with Him.