The Personal and Transcendent ground of true morality

This was a response I made in a conversation on social media to a person who disclosed that  she did not believe in any god but protested that she was a good person. 

This seemed to me to be a good time to show why this is incoherent and why God is a necessary condition for the existence of morality.

 I am curious about how you define good and evil given your atheistic perspective?

I believe morality requires a ground that is both personal and transcendent:

If it is personal but not transcendent, then it is merely a matter of individual or collective preferences. What is perceived to be good for you might be bad for me. What 1930's Germany thought was good for Germany was very bad for Jews. Without transcendence there is no ground to views morals as binding on anyone who does not consent to the principle (moral subjectivism, moral relativism).

If morality is transcendent but not personal, then morality is a inanimate thing that sits alongside other things. Murder and the law against murder are equally real. Labeling one good and the other evil is arbitrary since both have an equal claim to existence. Without a personal ground, there is no basis to adequately differentiate an 'ought' from an 'is' (moral platonism).

If morality is neither transcendent nor personal, then morals do not exist. (moral nihilism).

If morals require both a personal and transcendent ground, then morals can only exist in a reality that allows such grounding. I would conclude that morals are only possible in a reality where some version of theism is true. (moral argument for God's existence).

I will conclude with a few thoughts on why denial of both a personal and transcendent ground for morality amounts to  a denial that morals exist. If morals are not grounded by personal perspective of at least one transcendent self and are not grounded by anything that transcends all finite selves, then it is grounded nowhere as these exhaust all of the logical possibilities. 
 

Defense of the view that Adam's sin is the cause of moral and natural evil

For centuries, the church has historically viewed The fall of man, i. e. Adam's transgression, as the cause of moral and natural evil. At least since the days of Augustine, this was the dominant view of the church in the West. While the Roman Catholics refer to this as the doctrine of Original Sin and Reformed Protestantism referred to it in terms of Total Depravity, most Evangelicals are more comfortable referring to this as the Fall of Man.  One of the passages that was used to defend this idea was Romans 5:12-21.

In recent years this doctrine has come under heavy attack. In no small part, this is motivated by a desire to make the Bible compatible with the speculative inferences and assumptions of Old Earth theories and Evolutionary theory. If it is a fact that the earth is old (millions to billions) or if it is a fact that evolution is the authoritative narrative of natural history, then it follows that animal death has been around for a long time before the fall. This comes into direct conflict with traditional teaching concerning the fall of man.

At stake in this issue is the nature of God and the nature of morality. The standard Christian answer to the problem of evil is that Satan's - then  man's - rebellion introduced evil into the world. If death existed before Adam and if death  was an original part of creation, then it follows that either God is not  good (He would be a masochist), or Judeo-Christian morality is not an accurate way to view moral issues.

Those who seek to conform the Bible to scientific speculations have sought loopholes in the passages. They allege that the traditional view cannot be right because:

--1 If Adam's sin caused corruption in creation or death to animals, then the atonement must apply to animals. (straw man).
--2 Death in Romans 5 can only mean spiritual death. (In this quasi-gnostic view, God is not interested in the body, only the spirit).

In this article, I will focus on the exegesis of Romans 5:12-21 and compare it to the bigger picture presented in chapters 6-8. I will show that:

--1 Adam's sin directly made all of his descendants sinner - and with that  brought spiritual and physical death.
--2 As a consequences of bringing physical death to man, the entire eco-system was infected with death.
--3 Jesus Christ reverses the curse of Adam on humanity.
--4 As a consequence of applying the redemption of humanity to the physical bodies of believers, the creation is restored to a pristine state that is free of death.

With that in mind, here is the verse-by-verse commentary, starting with Romans 5:12.

 12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—

This is introducing the concept that Adam's sin made all of his descendants sinners. Verse 19 explains this explicitly.

13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.

Paul is giving a proof that those between Adam and Moses were sinners. Because the Law was not yet given, there was no basis for specific charges of command-breaking (One must first be commanded before one can be guilty of breaking them). These people, however, possessed a human nature that was corrupted by Adam's transgression - a nature that was biased towards command-breaking the moment a command was given. Paul uses death as a proof that these people were sinners. If death was limited to spiritual death, then Paul's statement is not falsifiable - and therefore useless as proof. If death was already normative in the eco-system, then humans would have likely died from exposure to that eco-system regardless of whether they sinned - Paul's statement would be useless as proof. Physical death, however,  is falsifiable. Paul use of death is proof only works if death includes physical death and death is introduced into a system relatively free of death before the fall. While the focus is man, this idea also has implications for creation. Genesis 3 confirms that Adam's sin affected creation when it is written that God cursed the ground for man's sake. With that curse came death to the rest of creation.

15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one  man, Jesus Christ!

This is simply saying that Christ reversed the curse of Adam.

18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

This is comparing the universal scope of Adam's sin upon his descendants to the universal scope of Christ upon the redeemed. The universality of both of these is relative. Adam's corruption was passed on only to his descendants through sexual reproduction; Christ perfect human nature was replicated only to believers through spiritual reproduction that occurs when the word of God is mixed with faith.  All other effects of either are indirect.

20 The law was brought in so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more, 21 so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Paul is comparing the power of sin to the power of grace. sin reigned through death, while grace reigns through righteousness to eternal life.

Chapters 6-8 continues the theme of human redemption. Chapter 6:1-10 instruct us in how the corrupt human nature is destroyed and replaced with a perfect human nature. Chapter 7 begins with an illustration from marriage to show that our relation with Christ is a marriage whose purpose is for use "to bear fruit unto God." This fruit is the result of mixing the Word of the gospel with our faith, resulting in good works (Ephesians 2:8-9; Romans 1:16-17, etc.) The latter part of chapter 7 shows the futility of trying to live the Christian life in the power of the flesh.

Chapter 8 begins with instruction that the functioning of this new nature, called the law of the Spirit of life, is actually the Holy Spirit working inside the believer. The difference between the regenerated person and the unregenerate is the leading and work of the Holy Spirit. The connection to the Holy  Spirit is the difference between the new nature and the old.

Starting in verse 18, the text instructs us on the redemption of the bodies of believers. Unlike gnosticism where God is interested in only the spiritual, the Judeo-Christian God is also interested in the body. We are instructed that the restoration of creation is tethered to the redemption of the body.
 

18 I consider that our present sufferings are not worth comparing with the glory that will be revealed in us. 19 For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[h] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

22 We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. 23 Not only so, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for our adoption to sonship, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. But hope that is seen is no hope at all. Who hopes for what they already have? 25 But if we hope for what we do not yet have, we wait for it patiently. - Romans 8:18-25

Creation has been subjected to decay and must wait for the redemption of the bodies of God's people. According to verse 19, the restoration of creation is a consequence of the redemption of the bodies of believers. In God's program, this phase begins with the general resurrection of believers followed by uprooting from the earth all that is evil; after this creation can be restored (see also Matthew 13:40-43).

In conclusion, the traditional view both provides a powerful and coherent answer to the problem of evil and is supported by the text. Christ offers  redemption to the spirit now. When  Christ returns, He will redeem the bodies of believers. At that time he will restore the creation to a death free state where the lion will lie down with the lamb and there will be no more killing (Isaiah 11).

Bio-Semiotics - The Intelligent Design of Life Revealed

There is growing scientific evidence that intelligence is necessary for the development of life. This evidence is leading into the development of a new field, bio-semiotics. A growing number of biologists have realized that the laws of physics and chemistry alone cannot account for the behavior of DNA and other macro-molecules, because that same chemical composition and electrical affinities can produce many different kinds of molecules depending on the physical arrangement of the atoms in the molecule. These different physical shapes are important, as they determine what an organism is biologically. Biologist have developed models that account for semantic information in DNA that is not reducible to physical and chemical laws.

Archeological Confirmation of 50 People in the Bible

A recent article from Biblical Archeology lists 50 people that are in the Biblical narrative whose existence has been confirmed by archeological discoveries.

In “Archaeology Confirms 50 Real People in the Bible,” in the March/April 2014 issue of Biblical Archaeology Review, Purdue University scholar Lawrence Mykytiuk lists 50 figures from the Hebrew Bible that have been confirmed archaeologically. The 50-person chart in BAR includes Israelite kings and Mesopotamian monarchs as well as lesser-known figures. 

Mykytiuk writes that “at least 50 people mentioned in the Bible have been identified in the archaeological record. Their names appear in inscriptions written during the period described by the Bible and in most instances during or quite close to the lifetime of the person identified.” The extensive Biblical and archaeological documentation supporting the BAR study is published here in a web-exclusive collection of endnotes detailing the Biblical references and inscriptions referring to each of the 50 figures.

From Biblical Archeology.

.

The Multiverse Hypothesis and the Demise of Materialism

In recent years, there have been discoveries in a branch of astrophysics called cosmology that indicate that the universe we live in requires some very precise parameters in order to exist. If, for example, the gravitational constant or the mass of electrons are even slightly different than what they are, the universe could not exist in its present condition.

The precision level of these constants forms an argument for design that has given atheists and anti-theists an unusually hard time as the factual basis for the argument is generally accepted by the mainstream scientific community.  In response to this some atheists have backed a peculiar theory: our universe is just one of many universes that bubble out of a Multiverse. One version of this hypothesis, called the many worlds hypothesis,  is that there exist an infinite number of universes. In this view, everything that can possibly happen has happened in at least one universe in the Multiverse of infinite worlds.

If our universe is just one out of an infinite number of universes in a Multiverse, then the fine-tuning argument, sometimes called the anthropic principle, would not be remarkable. If there are an infinite number* of universes, then it is inevitable that there would be at least one one universe with the cosomological constants with the same settings that they have in our universe. For this reason, many theistic apologist have been leery of the Multiverse Hypothesis as atheists have been salivating over it.

The Multiverse Hypothesis, however, is lethal to Philosophic Materialism, whether it be atheism or some other flavor of "secular religion:"

If the Multiverse Hypothesis is true, then our universe is not all there is; it is an open system that was formed and shaped, with natural laws and cosmological constants set, by causes outside of the system. If the definition of supernatural means that which is beyond the natural scope, then the Multiverse Hypothesis is a supernatural explanation of origins and ultimate reality.

If the Multiverse Hypothesis is true, then uniformitarianism is limited. There is a discontinuity between causes within the system of the universe and causes that lie outside the universe. There are other discontinuities via black hole and subatomic physics. The falsification of unlimited uniformitarianism calls into question inferences that rely the assumption of unlimited uniformitarianism, such as the meta-narrative inferences of evolutionary theory.

 If the many-worlds hypothesis is true, then every event that is possible is inevitably true in at least one possible universe. The only limitation is the truths of logic and mathematics, which are necessarily true in every possible universe. Natural laws are the products of cosmological constants which very from universe to universe, so that events deemed impossible in this universe are possible in other universes. with this in mind.

The one version of the Multiverse Hypothesis that atheists love for its ability to destroy the fine-tuning argument, the many-worlds hypothesis, has implications that  falsify an atheist or materialist meta-narrative. The Materialistic meta-narrative is particularly vulnerable because of its narrow and reductionist view of reality that is absent from alternative wold-views. For example, an atheistic universe does not falsify a theistic Multiverse, as God can choose one universe to be heavily involved in while ignoring other universes. An atheistic Multiverse, however, is not compatible with the existence of a theistic universe. If the Many Worlds Hypothesis is true, then  it follows that in at least one universe, that Jesus Christ physically rose from the dead, all of the Bible stories literally happened, and Biblical Inerrancy is true. The Materialist meta-narrative simply cannot be sustained if the Multiverse Hypothesis is true.

As of the time of this writing, there is a plan to test for the Multiverse. This test involves searching for  "for disk-like patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation."  This test will determine whether our universe has had any collisions with objects outside of the universe. Thus, this test can provide proof that the material universe is not the only reality that exists and that it is an open system subject to outside influences This test will not, from a scientific perspective, tell us much meaningful information about the nature of what is outside the universe; it will only tell us that something else is there. It's just as likely that our universe could well be bouncing off  pillars in the Temple of God  as bouncing off of other universe. Because the natural laws of our universe do not operate outside of our universe, the use of  both direct observations  and the invalid inferences used to construct the evolutionary meta-narrative  to draw conclusions about what is outside of our universe is out of the question.

To quote Ken Ham, "There is a book..." (to be continued in a follow- up post. Hint: String Theory).

Justified Faith | Christianity and “Autonomous Reason:” Drawing an Important Distinction

We are both dependent on God as the only sufficient basis for reason and expected of God to use those faculties to think for ourselves. Christian philosopher Sarah Geis makes this important distinction in this  article concerning 'autonomous reason.'

The secular philosophy textbook from which I teach Intro classes proclaims that philosophy exercises rational autonomy. “You need to learn to think critically; think for yourself,” nascent philosophers are often told. Some think that this embrace of autonomy is a locus of conflict between philosophy and Christianity. Christians believe that we are created by God, redeemed by the sacrifice of Jesus, and we now belong to him rather than to the darkness. We are not our own; we were bought with a price (1 Cor. 6:20). Is Christian faith not then the very antithesis of autonomous reason? If philosophy is, in essence, an exercise in autonomous reason, but the Christian worldview proclaims that we are not autonomous, then how could Christians, in good conscience, be philosophers?

Read More.

The Genesis Hypothesis

For over the past 150 years, there has been vigorous debate concerning whether creation or evolution are better narratives for explaining origins. During this time there have arisen a plurality of views on the subject.

The Genesis Hypothesis is God's answer to this question. Genesis 1 is a straight forward account of creation. It is written in natural language rather than the technical jargon of modern science. There are, however, testable consequences to the Genesis Hypothesis. To better understand how the Genesis hypothesis can be tested, I will explain how the scientific method works, define the Genesis and Evolutionary Hypotheses, and then compare the Genesis Hypothesis and the Evolutionary Hypothesis.

The three step scientific method

The scientific method involves three steps. The best explanation can be found by Dr Richard Feymann. According to Feymann, testing scientific hypothesis involves three steps.

1.  Make guess of hypothesis.

2.  Compute consequences of guess. This done by constructing an if..then statement. If evolution is true…then…
  

3.  Try to falsify consequences. This can only be done by trying to falsify the then part of the consequent. Drawing a negative conclusion about the hypothesis or antecedent is a valid logical inference, called modus tollens. Confirming the  consequent and then inferring a positive conclusion about the hypothesis is the logical fallacy of confirming the consequent. Technically speaking, science can never prove anything true, but only false.

Difficulty for Philosophic Materialism: Belief in Immortality Hard-wired According to New Study

It appears that people are hard-wired to believe in immortality. A new Boston University study has discovered evidence that people are hard-wired with a bias towards belief in immortality. This discovery is problematic for atheism and philosophic materialism.Philosophic materialism asserts that the ultimate reality is impersonal matter/energy.

A new Boston University study led by postdoctoral fellow Natalie Emmons and published in the January 16, 2014 online edition of Child Development sheds light on these profound questions by examining children's ideas about "prelife," the time before conception. By interviewing 283 children from two distinct cultures in Ecuador, Emmons's research suggests that our bias toward immortality is a part of human intuition that naturally emerges early in life. And the part of us that is eternal, we believe, is not our skills or ability to reason, but rather our hopes, desires and emotions. We are, in fact, what we feel.Emmons' study fits into a growing body of work examining the cognitive roots of religion. Although religion is a dominant force across cultures, science has made little headway in examining whether religious belief-such as the human tendency to believe in a creator-may actually be hard-wired into our brains."This work shows that it's possible for science to study religious belief," said Deborah Kelemen, an Associate Professor of Psychology at Boston University and co-author of the paper. "At the same time, it helps us understand some universal aspects of human cognition and the structure of the mind."
via Belief in immortality hard-wired? Study examines development of children's 'prelife' reasoning -- ScienceDaily.

The fact that ultimate reality must be absolute truth creates difficulties for the Materialist narrative. When one considers that, according to the law of non-contradiction, nothing can be true and false in the same context; that truth is absolute. The very denial of absolute truth is a claim to absolute truth: it is either absolutely true or true only in certain contexts. If the denial of absolute truth is true only in certain contexts, then in the other contexts absolute truth is real and therefore absolute truth exists. Absolute truth is the reference frame for relative or contingent truths. Particular truth are defined in relation to or compatibility with absolute truth , with falsehood designating the absence of a relation or denial of compatibility. Particular truths, then, must be compatible with absolute truth. Absolute truth is, then, the ultimate reality.

How is it possible, then, for a material ultimate reality as absolute to produce delusions and structure that create delusions. Since it is impossible for truth to contradict itself then it is simply not possible for an impersonal, material absolute truth to create delusions or delusion creating structures, which this hard-wired belief in immortality would be if atheism is true. A material, absolute truth could only create material absolute truths. No delusions would be possible in a materialistic universe. While materialists may posit that consciousness, subjectivity and imagination are products of material processes, material reality lacks the categories to create virtual, imaginary, subjective universe with classes and objects existing at an inferior ontological status - as less than absolute truth.

This discovery that there is a hard-wired belief in immortality (or bias towards the same) fits the Judeo-Christian narrative very well. God created us ex nihilo. He used his subjective universe in his mind to create the world and its objects as having inferior ontological status to His. Because He is absolute truth, He instantiated this world as having a distinct existence by His Word. He created the world as being in harmony with Him, but because it is less than absolute truth (God's ontological status), it is subject to corruption.

God created man in his image and put him in this world. God embedded man with the trinity of personality: consciousness, rationality, and intentionality (free will). When man used these gifts to rebel against God in a world that now had an ontological status in which contradictions and conflict was ontologically possible, this rebellion brought contradictions and conflict into thew world. The possibility of delusions and deception is one of the consequences of this rebellion.

Our experience with delusions points to both the necessity of God's existence and our need of Him. Science is now confirming the proverb in Ecclesiastes that says that God has set eternity in the human heart by discovering that people have a hard-wired bias towards belief in immortality.