Skepticism and Christianity: Part Two
In Part One of this series, I discussed the issue of Christians and others becoming agnostic or atheist because of an inability to reconcile the presence of the massive amount of evil in the world with belief in a good, loving, merciful and compassionate God as He is characterized in the Biblical Scriptures.
While the inability to reconcile the presence of the massive amount of evil in the world with belief in God is the main reason Christians leave the faith, others do so because they come to believe moral law is not absolute behavioral mandates established by a god but see moral law developed and established by us humans. Therefore, they see no reason to continue belief in a god as the source of moral law. It is this issue we will examine in Part Two of this series.
As mentioned in Part One of this series, I will discuss the differences between Christians and skeptics from the perspective of an outsider looking in on the arguments presented by both sides. I will not make any value judgments one way or the other but let the reader decide what is most probable.
Morality and the existence of God
Does the existence of moral law prove the existence of God? Christians contend that it does. Christians postulate that if God doesn’t exist, there is no basis for objective morality. It is believed that morality is based on God having established moral law by which man is to live and this moral law was established at the time of man’s creation. Christians point to the Genesis account of Cain murdering his brother Abel which is seen as sinful behavior. This shows there was a prohibition against murder from early on. It is believed this shows moral law was established by God at the time of creation.
Christians argue that if there is no divinely established morality, there is no objective moral law. There are no absolutes. All prohibitions against certain human behaviors are subjective determinations and have no ultimate authority behind them. It is argued that without a divine source, the establishment of right and wrong is arbitrary and results in moral relativity or what is sometimes referred to as situation ethics.
Skeptics respond by saying you don’t need a god figure to establish moral law. Right and wrong can be established by human reason based on human experience and human observation. For example, murder leads to loss of life which goes against the basic human desire to preserve life. Murder is observed to produce heartache for the parents, spouses, children and friends of the person murdered. Therefore, murder is seen as an evil and humans pass laws prohibiting murder in order to avoid the collateral damage that murder creates. Therefore, the prohibition of murder becomes an objective reality as a result of human analysis of the dynamics involved.
Skeptics see the same for laws against stealing, lying, adultery, and numerous other human behaviors where through human experience and observation, such behaviors are shown to be detrimental to human welfare, culture and society. Therefore, humans create laws that govern human behavior in order to minimize behaviors that are detrimental to society. Skeptics see no need to conclude that moral law needs to be derived from a divine source in order to have validity or authority. To contend that we need a supernatural source to establish moral standards is seen as a non-sequitur argument where the conclusion does not follow from the premise.
Christians maintain that we need divinely ordained absolute law to establish universal standards for human behavior and avoid subjective standards that have no supreme authority behind them. Skeptics argue that moral law isn’t absolute, never was and doesn’t have to be. For example, murder is usually defined as the intentional taking of another human’s life and is therefore a violation of moral law. Skeptics point out that prohibition against murder is not an absolute moral law.
The intentional taking of human life is seen as permissible in war. The intentional taking of human life is seen as allowable in capital punishment of a criminal. It is seen as acceptable in self-defense. All three of these exceptions are commonly found in human society and culture. All three of these exceptions can be found in the Christian Scriptures. God ordained war is seen throughout Old Testament history. Capital punishment is seen as common under Old Covenant Law as seen in the Pentateuch.
Therefore, the skeptic will say that prohibition against murder is not an absolute moral mandate and never has been. It is a mandate subject to circumstances. It is a demonstration of situation ethics which is seen as taking precedence over a so-called absolute. Some Christians may argue that when killing is done in war, capital punishment or self-defense, it is not murder. Skeptics respond that it is intentional killing and therefore it comes under the definition of murder. The skeptic accuses the Christian of arbitrarily changing the meaning of murder to uphold an absolute law perspective.
This being said, some Christian and some non-Christians alike, see war as immoral in and of itself and refuse to participate in it. Such folks are seen as pacifists. However, skeptics will argue that it is pretty hard to make a case for Christian pacifism in view of the fact that the Old Testament Scriptures show God Himself orchestrating war through human agent’s time and time again.
What about stealing? If a man and his family have no food and have no readily available source to obtain food and will starve to death if food can’t be obtained through normal channels, the skeptic will say that situation ethics would dictate that it would be permissible to violate the general prohibition again stealing and steal some food to feed his family and prevent their death. A skeptic would see this as an acceptable and justifiable exception to the general prohibition against stealing.
A Christian would say this man is still guilty of breaking the absolute law against stealing even though he is doing so to prevent a tragic situation. The man choosing to break this law doesn’t make this law any less absolute. The man chose to violate it and in so doing committed sin which Scripture defines as breaking the law (1st John 3:4). The Christian would see it necessary that the man repent of his sin.
The skeptic would answer that the man’s theft is justifiable because of the circumstances and that this shows the law against stealing is not absolute. It is argued that the man did the right thing under the circumstances. His theft should not be considered a violation of law. If you want to insist it is a violation of absolute moral law against stealing, it should be seen as a justifiable violation of such law which in essence makes such law non-absolute. In fact, the skeptic would argue that stealing in this situation would be the moral thing to do. Since it is the moral thing to do, there is nothing to repent of. Why would you repent of doing the right thing under the circumstances?
What about lying? If a man, who in the past has threatened my wife with physical harm, knocks on my door holding a hammer in his hand and asks if my wife is home, should I tell him the truth that she is home or should I lie and tell him she is not home and thus protect her from possible physical assault? Would I be justified in lying about the whereabouts of my wife in order to protect her from harm? Would this be situation ethics at work and an acceptable behavior in view of the circumstances. While the Christian who believes in God ordained absolute law would see this as a violation of the absolute law against lying, the skeptic would see this as an acceptable departure from adherence to the general prohibition against lying thus showing moral law is not absolute.
The skeptic points to the account in Joshua 2 of the prostitute Rahab hiding the Israelite spies who had sneaked into the city of Jericho to spy out the land. When Rahab was approached by city authorities as to the whereabouts of these spies, she lied to the authorities, telling them they had been there but had left. The fact is that they were still there as she had hidden them under stalks of flax she had laid out on the roof of her house. Later on, she facilitated their escape. It is recorded in James that she was considered righteous for what she had done. In other words, her lying was in this case the right thing to do.
James 2:25: In the same way, was not even Rahab the prostitute considered righteous for what she did when she gave lodging to the spies and sent them off in a different direction?
It is instructive that Michal, the wife of David, lied to save her husband from being killed by Saul (1st Samuel 19:11-19). Jonathan, son of Saul, is enticed by David to lie to his father to save his (David's) life (1st Samuel 20). In Exodus 1 the Hebrew mid-wives are seen as lying to the Pharaoh about the birth of male babies in order to save them from being killed by Pharaoh's soldiers. The narrative shows the mid-wives being blessed by God for what they did.
Corrie ten Boom, living in Nazi-occupied Holland, hid Jews in her home to protect them from the Nazis. Nazi soldiers come to her home and asked her if she knows where any Jews are hiding. She denied knowing of this while all the while hiding them in her home. This resulted in a number of Jews initially being spared from being hulled off to concentration camps.
The skeptic would see this as justifiable lying and an example of moral relativity. Some Christians may see this, as well as the above Biblical examples, as justifiable violations of absolute moral law but not as moral relativity per se.
Moral relativity/situation ethics:
The skeptic sees the establishment of moral law as a response to the experiences and observations of human behavior throughout human history. The skeptic does not see such law as being absolute and never allowing for exceptions. Skeptics see moral relativism/situation ethics as perfectly reasonable where warranted.
Skeptics refer to author Michael Schermer’s book, The Science of Good and Evil. This author believes we humans inherit from our ancestors our morality and ethics and tweak them to fit into our unique historical circumstances. In doing so, moral principles are not seen as absolute and applying to all peoples and cultures under all circumstances all of the time. Schermer believes moral principles are provisionally true and as such they apply to most people in most cultures and in most circumstances most of the time but not all of the time.
Christians see moral relativity/situation ethics as unacceptable as such approach to morality allows for humans determining moral right and wrong which is believed to only be the prerogative of God. To deem moral relativity/situation ethics as acceptable is to sanction immorality as it allows humans to define certain behaviors that are believed to be prohibited by God as being acceptable by humans. It allows for man to be the final arbitrator of right and wrong.
For example, many Christians believe homosexual behavior is immoral because it is prohibited by God in the Biblical Scriptures (See my essay on this issue at “Homosexuality and Christianity”). Yet such behavior has become increasingly acceptable, even among Christians. Christians that believe homosexual behavior is contrary to God’s moral law will say that because people, including Christians, disobey this law doesn’t negate the law. Christians point out that people, including Christians, disobey God’s Law all the time. It’s called sin. Christians point out that moral law is not about how we behave but how we ought to behave. Christians believe how we ought to behave is spelled out in absolute laws established by God.
Some Christians believe planned, intentional abortion is immoral because they believe life begins at conception and to intentionally terminate such life is murder (See my essay entitled “A comprehensive examination of the abortion issue”). Yet, planned and intentional abortion is accepted by many including many Christians. Pro-life Christians, as well as pro-life non-Christians, see such acceptance of abortion as unacceptable because it is seen as contrary to the natural order that God has established. For the pro-life Christian, abortion is contrary to how we ought to behave.
Skeptics point out that how we ought to behave is not agreed upon by all as seen in the different beliefs about homosexual behavior and abortion. To the skeptic, this demonstrates that so-called absolute law is illusionary.
Many Christians believe that because of the trend to think in terms of behavior being determined by circumstances (moral relativism) and not by adherence to absolute moral law, man has come to allow for and approve of many deviations from what are considered God ordained moral/ethical laws.
Skeptics don’t see a problem with this because absolute moral law is not seen as existing. As seen in the writings of Michael Schermer cited above, morals and ethics are seen to be developed and inherited down through the ages and are tweaked to fit changing times, circumstances and viewpoints. Since moral principles are not seen as absolutes but provisional in nature, changes in what is considered moral and immoral are seen as acceptable. In other words, because moral/ethical standards are believed by skeptics as not divinely given but humanly developed, changes can be made without any concern about divine repercussions.
Moral behavioral consistency:
Having said this, skeptics see general consistency throughout history as to what is considered moral and immoral behavior. Skeptics do not see this consistency occurring because of morality being established by a divinity in the far distant past. Skeptics simply see that certain behaviors throughout the historical past have come to be seen as detrimental to a tranquil society and therefore laws were/are established to regulate such behaviors for the good of society. Human experience, human observation and human trial and error is seen as the impetus for establishing right and wrong. It is on the basis of this paradigm that atrocities such as the holocaust can be condemned as immoral.
Christians argue that the reason for this consistency is that God has written moral law in the consciousness of humans which results in humans having an intuitive awareness of right and wrong. Christians see moral law as a universal and therefore inherent in all humans. Christians argue that without absolute moral law we are unable to define evil. Evil can only be identified against an objective standard of right and wrong and that objective standard is not something fallible humans can create but must be created by an infallible divine entity. For example, we are repulsed by the holocaust because God has placed within us an intuitive awareness of the wrongness of such an event.
Christians point out that when you look at the moral codes of the many cultures around the world, you will find a similarity as to the kind of behavior that is seen as acceptable and non-acceptable. Christian apologist C.S. Lewis, in his book Abolition of Man, lists the moral codes of many cultures from around the world and throughout the history of man and finds them to be very similar. Most such moral codes see murder, stealing and lying as unacceptable behaviors while behaviors such as faithfulness in marriage, honoring one’s parents and caring for the poor are seen as virtuous. Christians believe this is so because God created humans with intuitive awareness of right and wrong.
Skeptics point out that while most people are repulsed by the holocaust, the planners and facilitators of the holocaust and many German people who aligned themselves with Hitler’s agenda were not repulsed by the holocaust. It is asked where was their intuitive awareness of right and wrong? To this day antisemitism is in evidence around the world where Jews are maligned and considered by some as sub-human and therefore, they should all be killed. So-called radical Arabs believe this. Certain members of the Islamic community believe the killing of non-Islamics is to glorify God (Allah). Those who take this position have no apparent intuitive awareness that their position is wrong or immoral. When Christian crusaders went to war against Muslims in the Middle Ages, these crusaders had no qualms about killing Muslims. In fact, they believed what they were doing was morally right as they were fighting on behalf of the Christian faith.
To the skeptic, these kinds of events throughout human history clearly show that humans are not endowed with some kind of universal sense of right and wrong. One’s sense of right and wrong is conditioned upon the culture and circumstances one is born into. Skeptics believe that awareness of right and wrong is a learned awareness and not something innate to the human psychic that has been placed there by a deity. The skeptic argues that if humans were created with an innate sense of right and wrong, we would be living in a very different world from what we have.
Objective right and wrong:
The Christian says I’ll give you that. But here is the problem: If you’re going to conclude that right and wrong is determined by culture and circumstances, there can be no objective right or wrong. For the perpetrators and supporters of the holocaust, the holocaust was right. For those opposed to the holocaust, it was wrong. If there is no objective, absolute and universal standard that can be appealed to, who’s to say who is right and who is wrong as to the holocaust?
The Christian believes that in order to determine whether a behavior is right or wrong, there must be an absolute standard to compare it to. That standard can only be established by someone in a position of authority outside of and beyond the human realm. If moral relativism and situation ethics is the standard, all concepts of right and wrong are subjective and the reality is that your right can be my wrong and your wrong can be my right. There is no ultimate standard by which to measure a true right or wrong.
The skeptic insists that human experience and observation creates ultimate standards. Moral standards are based on the experiences and observed consequences of human behavior. The consequences of the holocaust was great pain and suffering for millions. Since humans have a general aversion to pain and suffering and despotic rule, most humans will see the holocaust as an evil. Based on the evidence, the holocaust has come to be seen as an objective evil, an objective immorality.
However, there are humans who do not see the holocaust as evil. For them the holocaust is not an objective immorality. However, since a majority of humans would define the holocaust as immoral, it becomes the standard way to look at the holocaust. By becoming the dominant perspective, it becomes an objective standard against which other perspectives on the holocaust can be measured.
The term objective is generally defined as a belief or perspective based on verifiable information. It is a belief or perspective based on facts and evidence. The term subjective is generally defined as a belief or perspective based on feelings, opinions, or emotions as opposed to a critical evaluation of the facts. In the case of the holocaust, a critical examination of the facts and evidence strongly point to this event being contrary to what has come to be seen as acceptable human behavior. Therefore, this event is seen as objectively immoral. Skeptics conclude that such a determination isn’t made based on some divine revelation as to what is absolutely right and wrong but on human observation and experience which leads to determinations of right and wrong for the human race.
Skeptics believe that our perception of right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral is based on the many dynamics of life that makes us who we are and how and what we think. The culture we are born into, the education we have received and the dynamics of life we have experienced will determine what behavioral standards we find acceptable and non-acceptable. Where a majority of humans see a particular behavior as moral or immoral, that becomes the standard for that behavior. While such standard will not be accepted by everyone, if the majority accept it, it becomes the objective standard for that majority.
As stated above, the skeptic sees no standard as absolute as there will always be justifiable exceptions. However, such exceptions do not negate the force and reality of certain behaviors being considered right or wrong within the overall context of human experience. Skeptics believe humans can and do collectively arrive at objective consensus on what is to be considered right and what is to be considered wrong behavior. It is this kind of consensus that makes civilization possible. However, such consensus is never universal and doesn’t need to be.
Skeptics will bring up the issue of homosexual behavior which we touched on briefly above. Such behavior has been extant throughout recorded history. Some have concluded such behavior is objectively immoral because it is seen as contrary to sexual standards established by God. It is believed that the Biblical God has set the standards for sexual behavior and has revealed such standards in the Biblical Scriptures which includes prohibition against homosexual behavior.
Others will take those same Scriptures and interpret them in ways that denies they are teaching an absolute, universal prohibition of homosexual behavior. For these folks, homosexual behavior is not a violation of a supposed absolute moral standard but instead can be considered an acceptable behavior based on its prevalence throughout human history and its believed lack of being a threat to the general welfare of society. Skeptics see this as humans determining what is moral and immoral based on observation and experience and not on some divinely established norm.
Skeptics will see homosexual behavior as not negatively impacting cultural and societal welfare and therefore see no reason to mandate it as an immoral human behavior as compared, for example, to rape which is considered a sexually immoral behavior because of the damage it causes to the victims of such behavior. Therefore, rape is seen as a threat to the welfare and tranquility of society and should be prohibited by law.
Should law against rape be considered an absolute moral law? The Christian would certainly say yes. The Christian would challenge the no absolutes perspective of the skeptic by asking what possible exception could there be to a law against rape that would make it less than absolute? What could possibly make rape acceptable?
The skeptic would respond by saying law against rape is pretty much universally recognized as valid but would not go so far as to call it an absolute law as it is possible that rape could be an acceptable behavior in some cultures. To reiterate, skeptics believe moral law is established on the basis of determining what is conducive and what is not conducive to the general welfare within a particular cultural setting or society. This is accomplished by considering all the dynamics of a particular behavior within a particular cultural setting and coming to a consensus as to whether such behavior is good, bad or indifferent as to the welfare of that particular culture. Therefore, it is believed no law is absolute in that it has universal validity for all humans in all societies, all cultural settings and all situations with no possible exceptions.
Summary:
Christians believe humans don’t determine right and wrong, they discover right and wrong. For Christians, the discovery of right and wrong is based on what the Biblical Scriptures teach about right and wrong. The determination of what is moral and what is immoral is discovered in the pages of the Bible. It is believed that God given moral law is there to show humans how they ought to behave and such law is absolute. While we humans are free to violate it, such violation doesn’t make it any less absolute.
For skeptics, the discovery of right and wrong is based on human reason reaching a consensus on what is moral and immoral. How we ought to behave is based on human observation and experience and not on divine revelation. For Christians, moral standards are established by the Biblical God. For skeptics, moral standards are established by us humans. This is the basic difference between Christians and skeptics on this issue.
The Christian believes that moral law exists because it has been given by a divine law giver. To the Christian, the existence of moral law is a proof of God’s existence. To the skeptic, the existence of moral law is the result of human reason determining right and wrong based on experience and observation. The skeptic sees no supernatural involvement in this process. To the skeptic, moral law has no bearing on establishing the existence or non-existence of a god. Skeptics believe to argue that the existence of moral law proves the existence of the Biblical God is to argue in a circle. Skeptics say that the existence of moral law can no more prove God's existence than God's existence proves the reason for the existence of moral law. I leave it to you the reader to decide which position is the most probable.
In Part Three of this series, I will discuss the behavior of the Biblical God.