Bible in Brief

I've just remebered I have this picture.  A bible overview created by the LIFE 2010 team. I hope you enjoy.

From Whence Comes Morality?

 

Where do objective moral values come from?  What makes something good or evil?

Before looking at this question, what do I mean by an objective moral value?  I mean something that can be considered good or bad throughout time and space.  An objective moral value doesn't change.   So where do they come from? Assuming they exist.

Let's assume there's a God. That He is the creator of the universe.  Are morals external to Him?  Something for Him to obey and be judged against?  Or are they His arbitrary rules to which we must conform?

Can there be an evil God?

The first question suggests that there is something that God is not sovereign over, so can He really be God?  And the second is hardly satisfactory: morals just become some crazy test for us to pass.  So here's a better proposal: that morality reflects God's character.  An action is good in so far as it conforms to how God would act.  Lets see how this leads to objective morals.

If there is a creator then He transcends the universe and time.
Therefore His character does not change in space or time.
Morals reflect God's character.
Therefore morals transcend space and time.
Therefore morality is objective.

So morals are neither arbitrary nor some external rule which God must obey.  So to talk of God as evil makes no sense.  Because if God was different then what we refer to as good or evil would be different.  God is good by definition.

Let's look at some examples. 
Why is adultery wrong?  Because God is faithful and loving, existing as a Trinity.
Why is lying wrong?  Because God is truthful.
Why is murder wrong? Because God is the giver of life, and to take a life is His prerogative.

So how can we know objectively what is right or wrong?  We need to look at how God has revealed Himself.  We need to look to Christ.

This then raises a final question:
If there is no God, can there be objective moral values?

Why do you believe what you believe?

I know the answer that I'd like to give.  But I'm not sure it's true.  We'd all like to say that our beliefs are based on evidence and reason.  But I doubt that's always true.  How big a role do our emotions play?  How much do I believe something... because I want to?

I've noticed how what I want to believe affects how I weigh up competing propositions.  If I want to believe something then I'm more prepared to listen favourably to the arguments.  If I don't want to believe something then I'll search high and low for reasons not to.  I'll still try and rationally weigh up the arguments, but I'd be naive to think I didn't require different burdens of evidence in each situation.

So for Christians and atheists, what might it be about our beliefs that causes us to cling to them?

For Christians:
It's comforting knowing God's watching over our lives and loves us. We cannot face the meaningless of a universe without God. A desire to see justice finally triumph.

For atheists:
A desire for autonomy and not wanting to be accountable to a higher being.  To be thought of as an enlightened person who can see through all this religious bunk. A dislike for who you perceive God to be.

So do you have better reasons for why you believe something?

Or do you just want to?

Submitted!

Hallelujah!

I've finally submitted my PhD thesis. 

I've had four years to do the project, yet somehow managed to only finish with a few hours to spare.  Now all I have to do is: present to the department, defend my thesis, find somewhere to live, and work out what to do with my life...

Not too much then.

But I might have a bit more time to blog now.

Then again...

Book Review: On Giants' Shoulders

 

This is less a book review and more a recommendation. Michael Reeves' book introduces us to some of the most influential theologians of the last 500 years with the plea that we don't ignore them. Reeve's desire is that we study the theologians of the past. In their own words. We should understand their works and influence, the questions they were asking and where they went wrong. And so this short book is designed to whet our appetites for their works. In short: it works for some of them.

Each chapter of the book is devoted to a theologian: Luther, Calvin, Owen, Edwards, Schleiermacher and Barth. The chapter begins with a summary of their life and the context of their writings. This is helpful for understanding what and why they wrote, and gives us an impression of their character. Reeves then summarizes their main works. He finishes with suggestions on which of their writings to make a start. Importantly Reeves comments, not just on each work's importance, but also on their readability. For example, I've always been put of reading Barth by the obscure quotes I come across, but Reeves claims this is the result of his writing style involving long sweeping arguments that don't lend themselves to being quoted. The result of all this is that I'm quite keen to get hold of works by Luther, Barth and Calvin's Institutes. I'm less eager to read Edwards and Owen. And I'm not tempted by Schleiemacher; though I'm probably more sympathetic towards him than I was before reading this book.  There's only so much time avaliable in life for reading. 

So my advice for you: give this book a read – it doesn't take long – and see if you can resist wanting to read some of the works mentioned within.