by Joseph E. Torres
Tom: Morals have nothing to do with God. I knew right from wrong long before I had any concept of God, and I continued to hold true to my ideals of reciprocity long after I heard of, and disagreed with, the concept of God.
Logic has nothing to do with God. I will take a bit out of Michael Martin's TANG argument. According to the brand of Christianity assumed by TAG, God created everything, including logic; or at least everything, including logic, is dependent on God (i.e., it is contingent on God). Moreover, if principles of logic are contingent on God, God could change them. Thus, God could make the law of non-contradiction false; in other words, God could arrange matters so that a proposition and its negation were true at the same time. But this is absurd. How could God arrange matters so that New Zealand is south of China and that New Zealand is not south of it? So, one must conclude that logic is not dependent on God, and, insofar as the Christian worldview assumes that logic is dependent, it is false. Logic is simply a byproduct of the observable and deductible universe.
Joe: Tom, I'm beginning to think that at some level we're speaking past one another. As I read your replies I continue to think that you're missing my point. I am not saying that non-Christians do not lead moral lives. You explain that you learned morality apart from a conscious belief in God. Fine, I never said, nor do I believe, the opposite. I'm not asking about how we came to learn the details of morality. Rather, I'm asking: What is the ultimate authority behind moral injunctions? I am arguing that it cannot be reduced to personal preferences or societal consensus. You've mentioned examples of people having a moral sense apart from theistic belief, as if this were a refutation of my position. But Tom, it is not. I am not saying that non-Christians do not think rationally. I'm asking the question: What would have to be true of the world in order to justify our everyday assumption regarding morality, logic, science, values, etc?
The TANG argument misunderstands the Christian doctrine of God. God cannot violate his character or change his essential nature1. When logic is properly conceived and applied, it reflects the consistency that has already characterized God's thoughts. We, as creatures created in his image, can thus reflect his thinking on a finite scale. Thus, the example that Dr. Martin provides of God possibly changing things around arbitrarily is a straw man. One cannot go about arguing against a generic concept of God. I defend the biblical God. Thus, arguments against such a God must be familiar with the nature of the biblical God.
1.Num. 23:19; Mal. 3:6; Tit. 1:2; Heb. 1:11-12; 6:12; Jam. 1:17
Reformed Perspectives Magazine, Volume 8, Number 12, March 19 to March 25, 2006
No comments:
Post a Comment