The Emptiness of Humanism

The authors, Jacques Thiroux and Keith Kraseann of "Ethics: Theory and Practice" lay out their five point plan of how ethics should be viewed.  They approach ethics from the standpoint of humanism.  What is humanism?  Humanism is an ethical way of life, in which humanity decides what is best for all.  Some of the tenants of humanism include: the non-existence of God, ethics are derived from human experience and are situational, human dignity is the highest value, any sexual behavior between consenting adults should be tolerated, and reason and compassion should be the ultimate guide for all decisions made by the human race.  This generalization of humanism comes from the "Humanist Manifesto II."  [1] 

What are the 5 points of ethics according to Thiroux and Kraseann?  1.)  The Value of Life Principle - Humans should value life and accept death.  2.)  The Principle of Goodness or Righteousness - We should strive to do good and avoid the bad.  3.)  The Principle of Justice or Fairness - The distribution of of good and bad on a just and fair basis.  4.)  The Principle of Truth Telling or Honesty - Necessary for meaningful communication.  5.)  The Principle of Individual Freedom - Individuals must have the freedom to choose their own way of being moral within the framework of the first four basic principles.  Can the world operate ethically by using these five principles?

In order for the ethical system presented to be considered valid it must be a system that the world could live with and be structured in a way that is fair to all individuals.  Can the world live with such a system?  No.  The overarching problem from which the whole five point system collapses, is that it falls victim to relativism.

If humanist ethics is situational and these five points are the correct way to do ethics, then who gets to decide what conforms to the five points?  In other words, point one deals with the value of life, but what is to be done with the unborn?  Are they to be considered alive?  It seems that the system of Thiroux and Krasemann fails here, in that, the person or persons in power get to decide the criteria for what is alive and what is not.

If humanism is the way to go, who decides the basic human principles?  Why should anyone accept what Thiroux and Krasemann have to say?  Though the five principles seem to be good principles, the problem arises when trying to ground the principles.  There is simply nothing to ground the five principles in.  Why these five points and not my own system?  Any humanist system of ethics turns out to be nothing more than personal belief without the ability to justify why anyone should believe that way.

Humanism fails to produce any type of justifiable system.  In the end, those in power decide what  others should believe.  In essence, humanism can lead right down the road of totalitarianism.  Once humanism throws off the existence of God, it has no way to find any foundational grounding.  If God does not exist, then why should anyone pledge allegiance to humanistic ethics?  Besides, how does this humanistic system justify "The Principle of Goodness?"  What is good on the humanistic ethical system and who gets to decide?  The "Humanist Manifesto", and even Thiroux and Krasemann indicate a moral law exists, but they have no answer from where this law comes.  It seems the ethics of humanism is empty because it has absolutely nothing to ground the system in.  As Fyodo Dostoevsky once said, "If God does not exist, everything is permissible."

[1]  Humanist Manifesto II

What to believe?

Recently, I have had various conversations with individuals who come from a variety of different worldviews from Atheism to Wicca.  I always have questions concerning how these individuals justify their belief system.  Many times, their views are based on relativism and after asking questions, they too have questions of why they are holding to their particular view.  I would like to offer three points that are necessary in order to justify and defend a belief system.

A few comments are necessary concerning relativism.  Relativism holds that universal truth does not exit.  Either what should be true is determined by the individual or the culture.  In either case, the number of different belief systems are going to be incredibly huge.  When talking of cultural relativism, the person or group in power gets to decide the so called true beliefs of the community.  In the end, relativism is self defeating, because it makes an ultimate truth claim as to how things are, while at the same time denying the existence of objective truth.

For any belief system to be valid, it must withstand scrutiny over time and still be able to stand.  In other words, if any belief system crumbles under the scrutiny then it lacks a foundation that must be in place for it to be accepted as true.  What are the points that justify a belief system?

   1.  There must be a foundation - Without a foundation the structure of any belief system will falter.  If the belief system fails to answer any question, then it must be discarded.  There is no way for a belief system to withstand scrutiny without a foundation.  The foundation would represent the basic structure of what the belief system is based on.  The foundation includes the big answers for the  particular belief system and the general principles by which the system is supported.

   2.  It must be able to withstand testing - Any belief system that is put out there must be able to come through rigorous testing.  The testing of a belief system is necessary to see if the foundation of the structure is solid.  Most belief systems, with testing can be shown for what they are.

   3.  It must correspond to reality -  Simply put, any belief system that does not correspond to way things really are should be completely discounted.  Correspondence deals with the heart of any belief system, for it drives the issue of truth.  If truth is not present, then there is no way to defend a belief system.  There are many avenues of correspondence that are necessary for any belief system to be considered valid. 

       A.)  Does the system correspond with science?  Are there scientific inconsistencies in the belief
              system?  If so, the system cannot be justified.
       B.)  Does the belief system correspond with logic/reason?  If the system is not able to be
              explained by way of reason, then the system is flawed. 
       C.)  Is the system historically accurate?  If a system cannot be shown historically viable, then
              major problems exist with the system.  For some belief systems history does come into play.
       D.)  Does the system make sense of good and evil?  There must be an answer to the objective
              nature of good and evil.
       E.)  How does the belief system address freewill? 
       F.)  Related to (A), how does the system address human consciousness?

Any belief system that fails to address or hold up to the three above questions must be considered invalid.  Ultimately, truth is what any belief system is after.  If no foundation exist, truth cannot exist.  Testing will show how any belief system holds up.  And, finally, any belief system that is considered to be valid, absolutely must correspond to reality.   Point one and two are both closely tied to point three.  Arguments will exist between individuals of different belief systems, but the three points listed will provide a framework to sift through the multitude of belief systems that exist. 

Will individuals disagree on how their system addresses the three points?  Absolutly!  Therefore, it is important to dialogue and continue to ask questions.  It is an arrogant position to claim that you have it all figured out.  There will always be questions on a variety of issues, but an honest peson interested in truth must be willing to defend their personal belief system.  Likewise, the honest person must be willing to change if it can be shown that his/her belief system is invalid.

• Click here to see an excellent article called, "Six Characteristics Which Make Up A Good Worldview" by Rob Lundburg

Do not judge?

Recently Rob Bell, pastor of Mars Hill Bible Church, generated a firestorm with his upcoming book and interview. The book is titled Love Wins. In one particular interview Bell seems to dodge every question thrown at him. The overriding question being asked of Bell is, "Is Jesus the only way?"; Bell never answers. Why? It is my belief that Bell does not want to pronounce judgment or suggest that anyone will be condemned to hell. Christian universalism is the belief that all will eventually be saved by Jesus. Is Bell correct, if this is his view, and how are Christians to answer the judgment questions?

Jesus does indeed say that we should not be judgmental in Matthew 7:1. This judgment is a hypocritical judgment where one is solely wanting to tear someone down. It is also clear that as Christians we should not condemn anyone to hell, as this type of judgment is left only to God. However, Later on in Matthew chapter 7, Jesus tells his followers to enter through the narrow gate (vs. 13) and to watch out for false prophets (vs. 15). Both of these verses imply that Christians need to make certain judgments. God expects us to make judgments as James indicates, "You adulterous people, don’t you know that friendship with the world means enmity against God? Therefore, anyone who chooses to be a friend of the world becomes an enemy of God (James 4:4)." Hell itself is a choice. So, why does Bell not want to say that Jesus is the only way? Again, I suspect Bell wants to create the impression that part of God's nature does not involve judgment.

Being a loving God is just one aspect of God's nature. Being a just God is another aspect of God's nature. Will individuals who rebel against Jesus (sinners) be condemned to hell if they persist in their rebellion? Yes! This is the story from Genesis on, that sin separated all humans from a holy God. The other message, that gives us all hope appears early also (Genesis 3:15), in that redemption can occur through the promised messiah - Jesus. Hell is a reality that the bible describes as many choosing to go to (Matthew 7:13-14).
One of the problems of the "Emergent Movement" is the relativizing of truth. I believe one of the reasons Bell leans this way is because of his belief and many "Emergents" that you should never offend anyone. Jesus claimed to be the exclusive way (John 14:6) and he also stated that the truth of his message would be hated (Mark 13:13). Is Jesus the only way? Absolutely! Will the message of Jesus offend? Yes! Should Christians be offensive in how they present the gospel? Absolutely not!

There is an aspect of Bell and other "Emergents" that all Christians need to follow, and that is being aware of our Christian witness. Unfortunately many Christians come across as too judgmental. Many non-Christians view the Christian community as quick to condemn. This type of attitude only hinders the Christian's ability to dialogue with those who do not know Jesus. Jesus came full of grace and truth (John 1:14). Too many Christians get involved at one end of the spectrum or the other. In other words, some Christians are all about grace leaving truth by the wayside, while others are on the truth side abandoning God's grace that needs to be extended to all people.

Should Christians judge? It depends on the type of judgment being addressed. All followers of Christ would agree that judgments are required on a daily basis on how to live your life. The real question that Bell and others seem to have problems with is, "Should we throw God's truth out so as not to offend others?"

• To read a blog I did on the need for Grace and Truth click here.
• Rob Bell's promotional video for his book, Love Wins, can be found here.
• A review of Bell's book, Love Wins, can be found here. 
• To read what some (Southern Baptists) are saying about Bell and the emergent Movement click here.

The trial of truth

This past week I was summoned for jury duty.  I was pretty sure I would not be picked being that the entire Sheriff's department meets with the church I pastor.  Sure enough, I was not one of the 24 that was originally called before it had to be narrowed down to 12.  The process was interesting and I hope to serve one day as a juror.  One of the interesting statements made by the district judge was, "Drawing from a large diverse group of individuals will help in finding truth."  The statement implies that truth can be known.  A second statement made by the judge was, "The evidence should lead the decision process."

Concerning truth, it was not only clear from the judge's statement that it is knowable, but was implied that truth is objective.  What is truth anyway?  Truth is that which corresponds with reality or representing things as they really are.  This is referred to as the correspondence theory of truth.  All individuals use the correspondence theory of truth in their everyday life.  Giving directions in how to go from point A to point B is using the correspondence theory.  Think of what the world would be like if we didn't believe in the correspondence theory of truth?  We could never know if someone was telling the truth or crying wolf.

For anyone to deny the knowability or objective nature of truth is an impossible feat.  Relativism does just that.  Relativism, in essence, denies that truth can be known or that it is objective, hence the term relativism.  The problem that makes relativism untenable is that it can not show why anyone should accept relativism.  It is logically impossible to support relativism, for when one states that relativism is the correct view they contradict themselves by making objectively true statements.

The judge was completely justified in asking the potential jurors to consider the evidence, because evidence will tip the scales toward the truth.  The evidence is important in deciding the truth.  It must be pointed out that even if evidence points towards truth, jurors or individuals can still disregard the evidence.  If one is to be honest though, he/she should consider all the available evidence in order to arrive at an informed decision of truth.  Truth in the courtroom was not viewed in a Humeian way.  Philosopher, David Hume had set the bar of truth to an unrealistic level by requiring 100% certainty.  The judge in the case was only looking for the preponderance of the evidence. 

When arguing for any position (i.e. theism vs. atheism, resurrection vs. non-resurrection) it is incumbent upon the individual to lay out the evidence in a convincing manner.  Looking at questions such as the beginning of the universe, moral values, the conscious mind, the structured universe, and the resurrection of Jesus, the evidence tips the scales toward the Christian worldview.  If the Christian worldview is discarded in the future it will not be because the majority of people feel it is an outdated concept.  Christianity or any view will fall because it does not conform to truth.

When your house of cards falls

As a young boy I would often construct card buildings.  I would start with three cards as my base and the wall of a particular room as the forth side of the base.  I then would lay two cards on top of the three vertical card pieces.  I would try to see how high my card building would go before it crumbled.  I sometimes could get three to four floors before the structure became too week to stand.  Each floor was more precarious because the new foundations became increasingly weak as the cards went up.  Without the initial foundation of carpet to solidify the base cards, it would have been impossible to even construct the first floor.

The foundation was crucial for my card structure to even be erected.  A foundation is necessary for any structure to go up.  Similar to structure in architecture is the necessity for foundationalism in truth.  Foundationalism is, "The theory of knowledge that affirms the need for certain foundational principles as the basis of thought." [1]  Simply put, foundationalism argues that knowledge of truth is not possible without these principles (called first principles, such as the law of non-contradiction). Foundationalism ties directly into truth, for without a foundation, truth has nothing to stand on.

Christian apologist, Ravi Zacharias was once taken to what was referred to as the first post-modern building.  This building was held in high esteem because of its randomness in design according to the architect.  One of the main tenants of post-modernism is that truth is relative or truth has no foundation to stand on.  If truth is relative, then truth cannot be known, but when one says truth is relative she is using foundational talk.  In essence, relative truth turns out to be contradictory, because the statement that truth is relative is based on a foundational principle while at the same time being denied by the statement.  Without a foundation it is impossible to know truth.  Ravi Zacharias rightly inquired about the foundation, because without the foundation, you have no building.  To make matters worse the architect further contradicts himself by saying he had "no design in mind." [2]

Truth must rest upon a foundation or there is no way to know the truth.  Truth by its very nature is exclusive and must correspond with reality.  When building my card structures of the past, it would have been impossible to construct a single wall without a foundation.  Similarly, relative truth is a like a foundational - less structure.  A truth without a foundation doesn't just cause your house of cards to fall, but it becomes impossible to build in the first place.

[1]  Geisler, Norm, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 259
[2]   Postmodern Architecture

Post modern poison - part 2

The main problem with post modern philosophy is the purposeful erosion of objective truth. This purposeful erosion is done by way of deconstruction. Deconstruction, an idea from Jacques Derrida, is a way to reconstruct text. It is looking for new meaning and new interpretation of texts. For example, the bible can be looked at in a different manner and deconstructed as well. Professor of philosophy John Caputo has this to say about deconstructionism, "Deconstruction is a way to reinvent things. Which means you need something to invent to begin with. You need some kind of tradition, inherited belief, structures, et cetera, which is where you start."[1]

The problem with deconstructionism is that it leads to relative truth. Christian scholar Norm Geisler states, "Deconstructionism embraces conventionalism. All meaning is relative to a culture and situation."[2] According to deconstructionism, truth is lost, because reinterpretation is always necessary. There is no objective truth on a post modern deconstructive interpretation. Again according to Caputo, "You’ll never get to the original intent. Second of all, if you could, that doesn’t settle anything. That was just the first interpretation; it’s not the last."[3] If everything is always reinterpreted, then no objective truth exists, and this is the problem of post-modernism.

Post modernism makes way for relative truth to wiggle its way into the the grand metanarritive, this is exactly why the interviewer (Luke Muehauser) asks professor Caputo, "Many analytic thinkers will say that post-modernism is bound at the hip with relativism about truth and morality."[4] Caputo states, "I don’t think it’s relativistic."[5] Caputo does nothing to dispel the notion of relative truth, for how can you? Anytime relative truth is explained away it is done so by way of objective statements. Relativism is self defeating and post-modernism destroys objective truth. This is the problem and poison of post-modernism.

[1] interview with John Caputo
[2] Geisler, Norm, Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, p. 192
[3] Caputo interview
[4] Ibid
[5] Ibid

Ethics Without God

Atheist, Kai Nielson wrote an article with the above title.[1] Recently, I watched a video by Atheist, Sam Harris titled, "Science can answer moral questions." I would like to make a few comments on Harris and what I took from the video.

First, Harris belongs to a group who refer to themselves as the "New Atheists." The new atheists are slightly different in that they have a passion for ridding the world of all religions. They see no distinction between Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, or any other religious group. Their perception is that religion causes harm to the human race, and therefore, it needs to be extinguished. Some of the prominent players of the new atheists include, Sam Harris, Christopher Hitchens, and Richard Dawkins.

The video of Harris lasts about 20 minutes and he makes a passionate plea for a new way to do Ethics. First, It should be stated that Harris obviously does not believe in God or in any type of Supernaturalism. Because of this belief, he believes that moral values are the product of the brain, which he so states in the video. Secondly, Harris seems to be promoting the philosophical view of utilitarianism. Utilitarianism is a philosophical belief that "all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people."[2] In order to make his point In the video, Harris compares Muslim women who wear burkas, verses women who are scantily clad. In his judgement there must be something better in between. He also implies that corporal punishment is wrong, but homosexuality is OK.

This brings me the the third point which I see as the overall goal of Harris and some of the new atheists. At one point, Harris remarks that, "we need a universal concept of morality." I believe what Harris wants is a governing body that determines what is morally acceptable and what is not. If this is the case, then it goes beyond cultural relativism (where cultures decide what is moral) and heads right to a universal relativistic world. Relativism posits that, "truth and moral values are not absolute but are relative to the persons or groups holding them."[3] In this case, those in power decide what is right and what is wrong. A universal relativistic world would make all the ethical decisions, since God does not exist and needs to be terminated on the new atheists view point.

What Harris and others are really advocating is nothing short of complete intolerance of any religious group. They have decided that all religions are bad without even inspecting the validity of each on its own merits. They (new atheists) are not interested in truth, but are more than willing to have others bow to the god of scientism. Scientism is the view that science, and only science, can give us meaningful knowledge of how things really are. In the end, ethics without God, becomes a form of self-worship that can only be spread by way of oppression.

* To see the video click here
[1] Nielson, Kai, Ethics Without Religion, from Louis Pojman's Ethical Theory, p. 619-624
[2] Utilitarianism
[3] Relativism

The Stepford Christian

There was an old show called, '"The Stepford Wives" where a family moves into a neighborhood only to discover that the wives within the neighborhood are all robots. There seems to be some "Stepford games" taking place within the emergent movement. What I mean is that all views within the emergent movement don't seem to be tolerated. For example, speaking the truth on matters such as the moral climate, politics, and orthodox Christianity seemed to be shunned by some. All of this is being done so as not to offend the outsider (non-Christian). In the end it is relativism that is accepted at the expense of truth.

In his book, A Generous Orthodoxy, Brian McLaren makes this statement, "I must add, though, that I don't believe making disciples must equal making adherents to the Christian religion. It may be advisable in many circumstances to help people become followers of Jesus and remain within their Buddhist, Hindu, or Jewish contexts. This will be hard, you say, and I agree. But frankly, it's not at all easy to be a follower of Jesus in many 'Christian' religious contexts, either."[1] What exactly does McLaren mean by this? If he is saying that the Christian should not forsake his previous culture so as to win them to Christ, I'm all for it. Paul even said, "To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all men so that by all possible means I might save some.(1 Cor. 9:22)" In this context Paul adapts to the culture in order to relate to them and win them to Christ without participating in a life of sin.

One of the problems that McLaren and others within the emergent movement have with the Church today is the notion of Christian colonialism. Brian has this to say about how he perceives the church of history's past, "Part of what goes along with a colonial approach to Christianity is a very control-oriented approach to things. One way to describe colonialism is that the people of Europe or people of European descent know how things are and the rest of the world needs to conform to their way of thinking."[2] Again, is McLaren relativizing truth, by saying that we just need to be kinder, gentler Christians without stepping on peoples toes? Is orthodoxy on trial in McLaren's view?

The emergent movement has a hard time taking a stand on anything it seems. One individual who was trying to define the emergent movement said, "It is like trying to nail butter to the wall." And, this seems to be a major problem for the movement, because as the old saying goes,"If you don't stand for something, you stand for nothing." The emergent movement's lack of orthodoxical backbone is exactly why many are calling them out today. McLaren and others refuse to answer the questions on issues such as homosexuality, objective truth, inerrancy of Scriptures, and abortion, all it seems so as not to offend others. It would be nice if the movement could take a stand on the S (sin) word, but so far they have failed to make the utterance. I think they have problems with the militant Christian who is always looking for someone to beat up on, I do too! However, when given the opportunity to address the truth question, the emergent movement is often moot.

In the end, the emergent movement is epistemically limited. Unless you are liberal, young, part of an urban church, and unwilling to take a stand on certain issues, then you don't fit. In trying to be open, in many ways, the doors of the emergent movement are shut on the individual who believes otherwise. The conversation that is valued so much in the movement seems to be flowing in only one direction. There is much good that comes from the movement, but the unwillingness to take a stand on clear Biblical principles, teaches others to fall in line and assume your "Stepford Christian" role.

[1] http://http://www.evangelsociety.org/rein/wandering%20orthodoxy.html
[2] http://www.homileticsonline.com/subscriber/interviews/mclaren.asp

The post-modern push

The post-modern era has brought a radical shift within some of the churches in the west today. We do live in a time that is after the modern age. Modernism in many ways sprang from the enlightenment period where much emphasis was put on reason and empirical science. Perhaps the biggest shift dealt with the field of epistemology (how we obtain knowledge). From the modern point of view knowledge could be grounded in absolute or objective truth. In a modern framework, truth could be known. However, those who hold to a post-modern view see truth as being subjective in many ways.

Deconstructionism has played a major role in post-modern thinking. Jacques Derrida, is commonly refereed to as the author of deconstructive thought. Deconstructionism [1] could be simplified as follows, "There is no grand metanarrative." To boil this down further, truth is not objective or absolute. A grand metanarrtive, would therefore, be objective or absolute, which the post-modern's would deny. It is this aspect of post-modernism that scares many Christians today. For when the grand metanarrative (objective truth) is called into question, the whole nature of Scripture and reality becomes incredibly fuzzy.

The post-modern push within the Church today has been explored and will continue to be explored in how it relates to orthodoxy. There are several points to be addressed in the coming blogs. What are the effects of post-modernism in the church today, specifically the "Emergent Church" movement? What views are espoused by the "Emergent Church" movement? Finally, How should the Christian community handle itself in a post-modern society?

1 Jacques Derrida and his views of Deconstructionism