Posted on 06/11/2004 8:53:30 AM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Have you ever tried to debate moral principles with someone who doesn’t believe they exist? If you have, you know it’s an exercise in frustration. In our anything-goes society, even mentioning that there might be such a thing as a moral absolute truth is a good way to get branded intolerant, anachronistic, and a killjoy. And the more frustrated we get with this state of affairs, the more likely we are to turn the stereotype into a self-fulfilling prophecy. That is, our frustration can easily turn into anger, and our anger can begin to look very much like the arrogance that we’re already accused of harboring.
The goal that Christians need to strive for, argues scholar Art Lindsley of the C. S. Lewis Institute, is “absolutes without absolutism.” In his excellent new book, True Truth: Defending Absolute Truth in a Relativistic World, Lindsley writes, “Just as a need to relate truth to all areas of life does not make us relativists, so believing that there are some moral absolutes does not make us absolutists. . . . Absolutism might be defined as being synonymous with a cluster of characteristics: arrogance, close-mindedness, intolerance, self-righteousness, bigotry, and the like.” These are characteristics that many people already associate with Christianity, unfairly. And so these are the very characteristics that Christians need to work especially hard to avoid. After all, as Lindsley reminds us, the most fundamental doctrines of our faith—our fallen state and our desperate need for a Savior—are doctrines that make for humility, not pride.
But at the same time, we still need to be able to talk about absolutes. An explanation of the Christian worldview makes no sense without them. So how do we do it? Well, first remember that we can believe that there are absolutes—that is, moral truth binding on us—without being absolutists—that is, closing our minds to other propositions.
And Lindsley suggests that one of the best ways is to turn the tables on relativists. For instance, we can point out the absolutism in their own thinking. As Lindsley writes, “Relativists consistently stand guilty of the philosophical sin of making exceptions to their own absolute rules.” They claim that Christianity is a religion of intolerance, that Christians have committed abuses in the name of their faith, that Christians shouldn’t impose their values on others, but leave them free to choose their own value systems. But where did they get their ideas of tolerance and justice—of right and wrong in general—if they genuinely don’t believe in moral absolutes? Without such ideas, how can anyone formulate a meaningful system of values?
This kind of argument was effective with as brilliant a thinker as C. S. Lewis. Many years after his conversion, he wrote of his days as an atheist: “How had I got this idea of just and unjust? . . . A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”
If we’re patient and persistent, it’s not as hard as it might seem to make a relativist begin to see the truth about the “straight line.” But we must never forget exactly who and what we’re defending. Jesus was the embodiment of absolute truth, but never an absolutist. And so as Art Lindsley puts it: “The defense of the Gospel is most effective when combined with the demeanor of Christ.”
I'll be the first to admit I have failed in this, many times right here on the pages of FR. In this week, as we bury Reagan, let us strive to be like him: Charitable with our enemies, but charity and goodwill backed up with an iron will.
If anyone wants on or off my BreakPoint Ping List, please notify me here or by freepmail.
Isn't it funny how no one ever provides an example of such a "moral absolute truth"?
Here's one: It is always, without exception, absolutely positively immoral to hijack airliners full of passengers and fly them into skyscrapers.
Thank you for this post. Please add me to your BreakPoint Ping List.
example of such a "moral absolute truth"?
lying is wrong
stealing is wrong
sex outside of marriage is wrong
............for starters.
Really?
Have you never heard of the Ten Commandments?
They've been in the news the last few years.
Even so-called relativists have their own absolutes (see books like THE NEW ABSOLUTES). "Celebrate diversity," "separation of church and state," "Thou shalt not censor," "don't be homophobic," and many others are all part of the Liberal Moral Code--a tattered rag they pull out to whip anyone who dares look cross-eyed at their sacrosanct humanistic commandments.
Just use the exact same language they use & say "Why are you trying to impose your absolutist, moral values on KKKers, theocrats, book-burners, and homophobes? I thought you were inclusive and that your philosophy embraced a big tent and that these other folks simply wear different stripes and colors to the rainbow counsel flag you porport to fly."
Would you lie to the Nazi's if you were concealing jews in your attic?
stealing is wrong
Would you steal the secrets of the latest ChiCom-manufactured plague?
sex outside of marriage is wrong
That's just silly.
Please add me to your list? Thanks!
You want an example? Here's a few:
"Thou shalt not murder"
"Thou shalt not steal"
"Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor"
any problem with these?
Yes.
Amen.
Yesterday there was a very interesting discussion on this very topic - absolutes vs no absolutes - here's one of my replies, and a link to the thread if anyone wants to check it out.
(I soundly defeated "counterpunch" whose first comment declared his atheism. It was a rather gentlemanly debate, but heated.)
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1150953/posts?page=293#293
One comment of many:
To: nathanbedford
Your comments and chilepeppers are very observant and go to the heart of the matter. That's why there is such a huge divide in the nation (indeed, the world). There are two opposing world views:
1. The universe and everything in it is accidental, there is no God or superior spiritual force in control. Therefore there is no meaning or purpose other than what each person invents for themselves. And for persons who view their existence as ultimately meaningless, as tiny specks adrift in an empty universe, ready to get snuffed out at any minute, the only real purpose is to gratify the desires of the ego and senses. Dog eat dog becomes the actual driving force for such people.
2. God exists, He is the author of all that is, and is the generator of all existences. He created everything and everyone for a purpose. Generally religions express that purpose as being the reunion of the lost souls with God in love for eternity. People who hold to this world view see the purpose of their existence as meaningful and larger than their own personal desires or ego.
293 posts?page=293 posted on 06/10/2004 12:04:41 PM PDT by little jeremiah
If there are no moral absolutes, then on what basis do you have any rights at all?
If someone murdered your child, THEN would you have a problem with it?
True. And it's a good rule of thumb for most erroneous modernist ideologies. They never turn the gun on themselves.
"We can't know anything for sure." A: Well, what about your statement?
"There is no absolute truth." A: Is your statement true?
"There is no absolute moral truth." A: Is it good to believe this?
"Truth is relative to its historical context." A: Is your claim relative to its historical context?
Etc., ad infinitum.
(can't wait to hear this one....)
Thomas Payne "These are the times that try men's souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in the crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; 'tis dearness only that gives everything it's value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price on it's goods; and it would be strange indeed, if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated."
Lying is wrong, except to save lives or protect virtue.
Stealing is wrong, except to save lives or protect virtue.
Or in some cases, protect property.
If you want to defend sexual immorality as being a private and public good, it's up to you to provide arguments in favor of same.
The huge rise in divorce, abortion, STD's what to speak of AIDS, homosexual indoctrination of children, burgeoning porn industry + people becoming enslaved by it (evidence of enslavement are the organizations dedicated to helping them become free), children born illegimately (current about 1/3 of all children in the US) are some of my arguments against sexual immorality.
Have any counter arguments in favor of sexual immorality? Can you say that all of the above are GOOD things?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.