Posted on 12/14/2009 5:11:35 AM PST by rhema
Confirmation of biblical wisdom came earlier this fall from an unlikely source: an Ivy League savant who says it's wrong to depend on the Bible.
The prestigious Oxford University Press sent me the new book Morality Without God by Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, a Dartmouth professor. (I'm going to quote him a lot, so I'll use his initials.) WSA begins by complaining that his students quote to him Dostoevsky's favorite line, "If God is dead, everything is permitted." WSA then argues that we don't need God: We all should simply agree not to harm others—cause death, pain, or disability—unless there is "adequate reason."
Wondering if WSA is one of those exceedingly rare secular professors with the courage to be pro-life, I emailed him to ask. He responded that there is no "simple solution to this complex problem . . . the moral problem of abortion cannot be solved by citing religious texts or religious leaders."
Hmm . . . How can it be solved? WSA wrote, "What matters is the present and future harm to the fetus and others. This does not solve the problem, but it tells us where to focus our discussions. I hope this helps."
Hmm . . . It helps only if WSA can tell us how to compare "harm to the fetus" (death) to other harms, so I emailed him again. He responded, "The bottom line is that I think some moral problems are insoluble. . . . They are just too difficult for us to figure out. . . . The answer, 'I do not know,' should become common."
Hmm . . . I asked WSA whether people could really make "I don't know" the default statement. He responded, "Why not? People get used to having a belief about everything, but they do not have to. Life can be lived like an experiment where you guess but do not believe until you see how it turns out."
Wow. My first thought was that he was describing how liberals lived in the 20th century. Let's wait and see how the rule of Stalin, Mao, Castro, and other Communists turns out: We don't want to assume that the preaching of class conflict, envy, and resentment will have any real-life effects.
My second thought was that WSA is right. Chapter 1 of Proverbs declares that "the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge." Biblically, those who do not believe in God should truthfully say, "I don't know."
But back to abortion. Ronald Reagan's logic was that if a hunter sees movement in the forest and doesn't know whether it's a deer or a person, he should not shoot. But WSA suggested in his book Moral Skepticisms (2006) that since we don't know whether abortion is morally wrong, it's unfair for employers to insist that health plans not pay for abortions.
Hmm . . . Health plans should pay for an abortion even though we know abortion does not protect the health of the unborn child? I asked WSA, and he responded by saying that abortions can promote the health (physical and psychological) of the employee.
So there we go. In theory, a person might say he doesn't know what's ethical in regard to abortion. In practice, he or she has to choose. Should a college cover abortion in its health plan or not? Gotta choose. A young man calls up and says his girlfriend is pregnant. Gotta choose. A professor claims to ride the fence. Gotta choose.
Four conclusions:
1. In many situations facts don't speak for themselves: That's where presuppositions and assumptions—worldviews, in short—enter in. Colleges should teach students to analyze situations and learn that ideas always have consequences.
2. Christians should not talk so much about "morality," a word derived from mores, the beliefs of a particular tribe. Ethics, however, are based on ideas that are true at all times and in all cultures. The ethical problem of abortion can only be solved by consulting wisdom that comes from God.
3. Chapter 3 of Proverbs has it right: "Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding." Those are deadly words to those who assert that they have no need of God. Those are words of life to those who have learned differently.
4. "If God is dead, everything is permitted."
“WSA then argues that we don’t need God:”
One day, WSA will get a chance to run his thesis by God, fact to face. It should be interesting but the outcome may not be what WSA hopes for.
It should be surprising that a Dartmouth professor’s reasoning is so pathetic, or that it wraps up to, “Kill other people if you think that will improve your life.” But it isn’t. This is what passes for elite thought these days. Heck, maybe it always was.
WSA can easily see societies which did not include God’s morality/laws. Nazi Germany made it legal to kill Jews, that was because they did not consider the moral/christian aspects.
Communist Soviet Union, also totally secular, murdered tens of millions of people, same with Communist China. We can see all through history where societies have done great harm by ignoring God’s will.
“We all should simply agree not to harm others;cause death, pain, or disability unless there is adequate reason.”
Who determines there is an “adequate reason”???
If there is no higher authority than me and I pay taxes in our society, my preference is to eliminate anyone that has been given a life sentence and save my taxes.
I really have a long list and the main cure would be to eliminate the habitual problem causers, of course I get to determine who that is. But they may feel the same, Anarchy prevails.
“Nevermind those Catholic/Protestant dust-ups in Western Europe all those centuries ago.”
At best, you confuse man’s free will with God’s will, there is a big difference. At worst, you believe the marxist tilt of history...most of those “dust-ups” had more to do with economic factors than religious. All too often we blame the religion for the actions of a man or few men.
Sorry dude, Daniel you are not.
They didn’t follow God’s will either, but their own. Further, they didn’t murder millions. Try again.
It's works righteousness and it's undoing is found every time a mistake is made and the mistakes are cumulative under it.
Thank God, the Lord Jesus Christ took the place of folks like us, on the cross and paid for all our mistakes; all of our mistakes before God and before Man. Since He did so, He says we are to extend it to others. Thus we love, we forgive, we extend grace to others. For the source of all that is God himself, for the scripture says "For Love is From God".
BUT without the source; those dry up as withered branches - stiff and ready to break; Trying to suck love from others and experiencing frustration.
From what platform do these Godless types get their marching orders? Is there a book called “Morals for Dummies”?
I have a favorite saying too: "A guy with a hyphenated last name has no testicles."
“Sorry dude, Daniel you are not.”
Now that was a very intellectual comeback...so you really believe in your previous argument enough to defend it...oh well, another idiot spewing whatever pops into his head at the moment...
Indeed, that is the logical progression when the Ten Commandments are eliminated. Scooge reigns "And they better Decrease the Surplus Population" as he says.
“From what platform do these Godless types get their marching orders? Is there a book called “Morals for Dummies”?”
Now that is one of the best posts I have seen in a while! Succinct, concise and right on!
I recently finished Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand identified what evil does but didn't understand the source of that evil. And failed to understand the source of goodness. Man's nature is sinful and in need of redemption. Any act of goodness outside that understanding is an accident.
I think you just called me a fool. That was not very nice. And presupposing that you know the condition of my heart is at best arrogant and at worst sinful.
“I recently finished Atlas Shrugged. Ayn Rand identified what evil does but didn’t understand the source of that evil. And failed to understand the source of goodness. Man’s nature is sinful and in need of redemption. Any act of goodness outside that understanding is an accident.”
Now that shows true wisdom...how come you shortchanged me on the other issue???
But 'deniers' (fun to used that word back on liberals) are not truthful, their line on abortion is the woman gets to chose. Now unless the woman is 'raped' she did make a choice, as did the man. The liberal lie is that flesh beings are one and the same as the rest of the animal species, having all descended from a hot steamy pot of primordial pond scum.
Yes, and when all goodness is an accident, it can become suspect in that another may be trying to suck it out of one craftily.
However, when one considers, the Lord Jesus's words "There is None Good but God Alone" - Clarity is found. God is the source of all goodness. He is the source and since folks like us have a reliable, secure and dependable fount, it is possible to extend it to others.
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.