Can we be good without God? Part II: Defining ‘good’
This post is part of a series on Can we be good without God?
In Part I introduced and gave an overview of the question under consideration. Moving on to our first point, we must first DEFINE our term ‘good’ so that we don’t waste time talking past one another.
Avoiding Ambiguity
When we say ‘good, what exactly do we mean? Ethical or moral? Subjective or objectively true? Situational or absolute? Pleasure-inducing or health giving? And good for whom? Humans, animals, the planet?
For the sake of argument, I want to use what I think is the common use of the word ‘good’ in this context – that is, MORALLY good.
Can we be good without God? Part I: Introduction
This post is part of a series on Can we be good without God?
I just finished listening to a somewhat frustrating debate between atheist Dan Barker and apologist Matt Slick on the topic Is there Reason to be Good Without God?
I say frustrated because (a) I think Barker makes too many logical mistakes and pot shots at Christianity that have nothing to do with the topic, and (b) I thought Matt’s answers were a bit hard to follow, and his responses during the rebuttal were often combative, defensive, or just plain humorous deflections because he was not prepared to answer well.
Of course, it’s easy to judge from the sidelines, but I wanted to clarify my current understanding of how a Christian apologist/theologian/philosopher might answer this question clearly.
I admit, I am not yet formally educated in these matters – I have been accepted into the M. Div. program at Gordon Conwell, but with three small children, a full time job, and a part time pastorate, I’m swamped. Â But here’s my view of what should have been covered clearly by Mr. Slick.
Are you a Christian because of your experiences, or because of logic?
In Why do some Christians become atheists?, I discussed five reasons why some Christians may have abandoned faith to become atheists – some noble reasons, some not. The ensuing commentary helped me see that these same principles can be applied to any faith or anti-faith decision. Here are those now six ideas, but I wanted to also ask the question – is Christianity primarily or first a decision of the heart or head? I argue that, to the chagrin of logicians and empiricists, Christianity is a religion of the heart – that is, conviction of the intuition and conscience, not an intellectual decision of the mind.
You are a Christian because (choose all that apply):
- You were raised that way, and have never seriously considered any other viewpoint, nor seriously questioned your faith.
- You made an emotional decision to become Christian during a dark time in your life.
- You felt a deep conviction and a reality in the presence and peace of God that led you to receive Christ.
- Your conversion was based on the first good argument you heard,
and you came from a position of weak ideological commitment – again,
you may have never seriously considered any other viewpoint. - You are caught up in the novelty of your new Christian world view
mostly because it is different, and will leave it when the novelty
wears off. - Reason and experience have led you to your conclusion that Christianity is true.
Collision documents an interesting friendship on the Atheism debate trail
You've got to hand it to Christopher Hitchens for making the decision to go out of friendly territory to debate Christians on their own turf across the US. Not content with doing a promotion tour for his infamous anti-theist screed God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, he decided to tour with Christian apologist Douglas Wilson.
You can hear some of Wilson's debates at Apolgetics 315, including one with "Hitch," as his atheist fans call him. You can also visit Richard Dawkins' site to watch a video of a Hitchens / Wilson Debate. Last, and probably best, you can read a six part back and forth email discussion between the two on Is Christianity Good for the World?
But if you really want to see what goes on on the Tour Bus as these two men travel together debating across the country, you should check out the new documentary Collision (some nice preview vids there).
For a mere $14, you can pre-order the video at Amazon: COLLISION: Christopher Hitchens vs. Douglas Wilson.
Watching the GOP debate
As I watch the GOP debate online, it becomes very clear who is and who isn’t a top tier candidate.
If you ever want to figure that out, all you have to do is listen to their answers to the opening question. The moderator asked about national debt, the front-runners answered the question while promoting their policies. The lower level candidates used the question as a platform to talk about their issue: no taxes, trade with China, illegal immigration, being a crazy conspiracy loon, etc.
D’Souza and Hitchens debate
In his latest debate-anyone-out-there-to-keep-my-book-selling debate, Christopher Hitchens takes on Dinesh D’Souza on whether Christianity is the problem or not.
Are Mormons Christian?
I am not much into debating Mormonism, but Dr. Al Mohler (Southern Baptist) and Orson Scott Card (Mormon, and author of my favorite sci-fi book Ender’s Game) have begun a debate on Mormonism and Christianity at beliefnet. Though both are being very nice to one another, if you read the comments, you can see that clarity is lacking due to some typical issues with such debates, i.e. definition of terms, a lack of agreement on a common authority (e.g. the bible), and infighting on who gets to own the term “Christian.” However, I do like Mohler’s approach in discussing the obvious – that Mormonism differs in significant ways from traditional, historic, orthodox Christianity, so that regardless of who gets to claim the label “Christian,” they are NOT the same faith.
The Ethics of Controversy – What NOT To Do
In Part I of this redux of Tom Wells excellent essay On The Ethics of Controversy (PDF), I covered what attitudes we *should* take in debating truth. However, he also mentions the many erroneous conclusions we should NOT draw based on the aforementioned principles of civil discourse.
The Ethics of Controversy – What TO Do
Resurgence is quickly becoming one of my favorite blogs, due to the depth of thought and the spirit of the site. And this week, they published On The Ethics of Controversy (PDF), a really nice examination of why, regrettably, controversy is necessary when you are handling truth, but that acrimony is NOT necessary. I have summarized his article below, but left out his many good examples, so it is really very much worth a full read.
Calling all Christian Apologists: A Call to Action
I was just reading Al Mohler’s latest blog post entitled A Tale of Two Crises? America, Europe, and Secularism, and I realized that loudmouthed, unbelieving, atheist bullies like Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett, and Christopher Hitchens are steering our country to the cesspools of unbelief, and affecting many impressionable young mean and women.
The fact that a larger proportion of young people are unbelieving in the West is alarming, and those of us who name Christ should join the intellectual fray. While some in the Emergent Church propose we are losing the young because we have not adapted to postmodern thought (and they are right), I have another thesis that needs to come alongside that one – we don’t have enough firebrand intellectuals taking on the atheist and anti-Christian messengers.
We need preachers and public debaters who will fulfill the dictum of the great evangelist John Wesley
Catch on fire with enthusiasm and people will come for miles to watch you burn.
Or as I like to say, people will come to watch a house burn. As a preacher, you need to light yourself on fire (metaphorically speaking!) and go out there and burn!
On Debate: Hedge’s Rules of Logick
One of the most interesting of epistemological arts is the art of debate. While we all like a good fight, we also like a fair fight, and those of us who are more interested in truth than victory like a civil debate rather than a heated, ad hominem attack-fest. As a good example of civil debate, the recent debate between Hitchens and Roberts shows that even contentious issues can be calmly and intelligently debated.
The late 1800′s and early 1900′s were a hotbed of public debate, especially on religion, and we can learn a lot about the art of debate from studying that time. One valuable and interesting book from that time period is Levi Hedge’s Elements of Logick: A Summary of the General Principles and Different Modes of Reasoning (PDF) (1855) in which the author, among other helpful items, included rules for debate, often referred to as Hedge’s Rules of Debate, or Hedge’s Rules of Honorable Controversy. (NOTE: You can buy this out of print book at Abe’s Rare Books, or presently, a really nice copy on ebay for $30)
If we followed these rules, epithets like bigot, pig, pervert, and miscreant would be less oft used.
God debate
The aforementioned debate between Mark Roberts and Christopher Hitchens happens today. *Ding, Ding, Ding* Round One!
