Dan Barker @ OU

Dan Barker spoke tonight at OU in Dale Hall. He was brought in by CFI. His lecture was titled “How to be good without God.” Here are some of the highlights and my brief responses:

-> “What we need and what we want is the basis of morality.”

This makes ethics arbitrary: our wants and needs can change. Also, he applied morality to animals and plants… how can this be done if it is defined by human wants and human needs? This seems arbitrary as well.

-> Good is the reduction of harm.

Why? Where does this definition come from? Also, defining harm seems to presuppose a definition of goodness. I don’t see how this isn’t viciously circular.

-> Sticking a needle in a baby is generally bad… unless we are doing so to give the baby a necessary or beneficial shot.

Basically, this is a greater good argument. Sticking a baby with a needle is bad unless it is done for the purpose of accomplishing a greater (or perhaps sufficient) good. If a person has a sufficiently good purpose that can be accomplished by something normally considered evil then it is justified… What then about the problem of evil? Can God have a sufficient reason for allowing/purposing evil to exist? When asked about this, Dan did not deny this possibility. I wonder how he can then continually bring up/mention/argue the problem of evil while admitting that a good, all-powerful God can create a world that will contain evil.

There were plenty more absurdities espoused by him tonight and certainly many more within all of his lectures and debates; however, these are the ones that most stuck out to me. I might post more later.

Multiple Interpretations: A Problem?

In an ethics class I am in, the author of the book lays out many reasons within the first chapter as to why he believes religion cannot be the basis of a rational system of ethics. Among many of the ridiculous reasons given is the idea that religious people disagree and there is no criterion with which to determine the correct view. Specifically, he mentions that there are many differing interpretations of the Bible; the supposed problem is that we have no basis of deciding between them and cannot know which interpretation is correct. I have heard this and similar claims many times from a wide variety of people. When I hear it in person it typically follows a statement I have made based on the biblical text and is expressed in the form of, “Well, that’s your interpretation.” So, does the existence of multiple interpretations negate the possibility of biblical authority and provide grounds for its dismissal? Does the existence of multiple interpretations of a given passage prove those interpretations meaningless? Is there criterion by which an interpretation can be adjudicated?

It is my contention that this dismissal of the Bible stems not from a way to discern between interpretations, but from a presupposition that the Bible is not the word of God. If one starts with the idea that the Bible is not the word of God and that it is both fallible and false, then one may easily dismiss all interpretations of such a text as equally invalid - all the while thinking that disputes over interpretations are not decidable and frighteningly absurd.

On the other hand, if the Bible is presupposed to be the inspired Word of God, can the conflicts between interpretations be revolved? Assuming the Bible is the Word of God, let’s examine what it says about itself:

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (ESV)

All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

Romans 15:4 (ESV)

For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.

Given that the Bible is profitable for reproof and correction, there must be things it is not saying. That is, there must be teachings and interpretations that are false and ergo correctable (see also 2 Peter 3:13-18). We can also see that Scripture was purposed for our teaching and instruction.

Isaiah 55:10-11 (ESV)

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it.

Job 42:1-2 (ESV)

Then Job answered the LORD and said: “I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted.”

If God’s words and purposes will be accomplished, then the Bible must be able to teach, instruct, correct, etc. the man of God (see also Isaiah 46:9-10). This necessitates that there is a criteria by which the Bible can be correctly interpreted.

2 Timothy 2:15 (ESV)

Do your best to present yourself to God as one approved, a worker who has no need to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

This implies that the Christian can and ought to interpret the Bible correctly, further implying that there is a means to do so. While I have not yet said anything about what the criteria is, I believe I have demonstrated that if one supposes the Bible to be the Word of God, then criteria exist for doing so.

So, if one does not believe the Bible to be the Word of God, then biblical interpretation and disputes over interpretation are rather worthless, but it is not because of a lack of criterion, rather a lack of truth and authority. On the other hand, if the Bible is the Word of God, then criteria must exist. Concerning the similar objection that “that’s just your interpretation”: if both x and y interpretations exist of a given passage, the existence of interpretation y does not invalidate interpretation x. The mere existence of differing interpretations does not make them all invalid.

I am going to suggest that because the Word of God was given by use of language that it has canonical context, a context within a specific book and genre, a context within each argument, and a construction within each sentence that contributes to meaning. Since it was given to specific people at specific times, I also suggest it has a historical context. It is then my contention that the grammatical-historical hermeneutic is the criteria for deriving interpretations from the text and deciding between them.

God and Ethics

“These are absolutely wrong, not wrong based on religion.”

I recently read these words, written by a friend of mine. I disagreed with much of what he wrote, but I believe these words to be illustrative of the source of our disagreement. He makes a distinct separation between religion and ethics. More than that there is the implication that there is an absolute nature to what I’m going to call the secular ethics and a subjective nature to the religious ethics. I think this sentiment is fairly typical in the western world.

Can a Christian Separate God and Ethics?

Perhaps my friend did not use either ‘God’ or ‘ethics’ in this phrase; however, the context provides that the religion in question is Christianity and it could be rewritten “not wrong based on the Bible” or “not wrong based on the belief in the God of the Bible.” So, is there a way for the Christian to call something ‘absolutely wrong’ by appealing to something other than God?

I think the obvious answer is no. If we consider the purpose of man this becomes rather clear. The Westminster Larger Catechism defines it as thus: ”Man’s chief and highest end is to glorify God, and fully to enjoy him forever.”¹ This corresponds with 1 Corinthians 10:31 (ESV): “So, whether you eat or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God.” and Colossians 1:16 (ESV): “For by him² all things were created, in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities-all things were created through him and for him.” If man is created for God’s purposes and our chief purpose is to glorify him, then can we determine our success or failure without consideration of the God we are to glorify?

It is by God that we know right from wrong. Not that He simply informs us, but that he is the standard of goodness! God is held as the standard by which we are compared in Matthew 5:48³ and Romans 3:23⁴. If not God, by what standard are we then to call something absolutely wrong? What are we to make of Proverbs 3:5-7?⁵

Christians cannot separate God and ethics; they cannot appeal to an absolute right or wrong apart from acknowledging God. Man is always rebuked for merely doing what is right in his own eyes.⁶

Can a Non-Christian Separate God and Ethics?

The short answer is no. Given that Christianity is true, the unbeliever will have the same problem the believer has in this separation. Since God is the standard of good, appealing to anything else as the standard will only end in error. You might ask: why do many non-Christians seem to be such good, caring and moral people? It is not my intent to demonstrate that non-Christians cannot live up to human standards of morality. I contend that they cannot live up to correct standards of morality⁷, but even that is not my point. There is no basis for morality apart from God and all beliefs that are structured in attempt to build morality on top of another foundation will be incredibly arbitrary and inconsistent.

Conclusion

Ethics does not exist in a void. Ethics must have some sort of foundation and standard. Either God is the absolute standard of morality or he isn’t. Christians ought to remain Christian consistently throughout their thinking, which would mean acknowledging God as an absolutely necessity in determining right from wrong. Why would a Christian become secular in his thinking in this (or any) belief, when we are commanded to do the opposite by God’s mercy when presenting ourselves as a living sacrifice in Romans 12:2?⁸

1. Most people are likely more familiar with the Shorter Catechism, which reads “Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him for ever.” And, of coarse, there is John Piper’s assertion that it is better stated, “The chief end of man is to glorify God by enjoying Him forever.” {John Piper, Desiring God: Meditations of a Christian Hedonist. (Multnomah Books, 2003), 17-18.} [↩]
2. Jesus Christ [↩]
3. You therefore must be perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect. (ESV) [↩]
4. for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, (ESV) [↩]
5. Trust in the LORD with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the LORD, and turn away fro evil. (ESV) [↩]
6. See Deuteronomy 12:8; Judges 17:6, 21:25; Proverbs 12:15, 21:2. [↩]
7. as it is written: “None is righteous, no, not one; no one understands; no one seeks for God. All have turned aside; together they have become worthless; no one does good, not even one.” [Ps. 14:1-3, 53:1-3] “Their throat is an open grave; they use their tongues to deceive.” [Ps. 5:9] “The venom of asps is under their lips.” [Ps. 140:3] “Their mouth is full of curses and bitterness.” [Ps. 10:7] “Their feet are swift to shed blood; in their paths are ruin and misery, and the way of peace they have not known.” [Prov. 1:16, 3:15-17; Isa. 59:7-8] “There is no fear of God before their eyes.” [Ps. 36:1] Romans 3:10-18 (ESV) [↩]
8. Do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewal of your mind, that by testing you may discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable, and perfect. (ESV) [↩]