The source of TRUTH: option 1 of 1
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.From a purely logical standpoint (read: not religious), in order to operate in American society and under our Constitution one must recognize and affirm three things: there is a Creator, that he created us, and that he bestowed on us unalienable rights. Any belief in unalienable rights inherently infers God. Without him there is no truth, no standard on which to claim right and wrong. Relativism--that ludicrous idea that nothing is absolutely true for all people at all times--is inherently fallacious. It's amusing to note that even those who proclaim relativism with their mouths don't ever practice it--at least not consistently. If you disagree with this post because you think you are a relativist, you've just proved my point.
~ Declaration of Independence
If all men are created equal, that is final. If they are endowed with inalienable rights, that is final. If governments derive their just power from the consent of the governed, that is final. No advance, no progress can be made beyond these propositions. If anyone wishes to deny their truth and their soundness, the only direction in which he can proceed historically is not forward, but backward toward the time when there was no equality, no rights of the individual, no rule of the people. Those who wish to proceed in that direction cannot lay claim to progress.
~ Calvin Coolidge
The truth is this: There is God who created this world, who is necessarily the source of all truth and the standard by which to measure it. There are basic principles of morality in the natural world that we all recognize and affirm. This is not about a specific religion or creed, but about the Natural Law, or the Moral Law. (That the morality of the Moral Law lines up with the religion of Christianity is irrelevant right now.) No, we are not simply amoral animals who have figured out the best way to run society over thousands of years. We are creations of an intelligent higher power.
This realization is the first step to knowing or claiming anything worthwhile. Trash it and you've got no legs to stand on.
posted by Seth at 9:08 PM
6 Comments:
Solid post good sir.
"No, we are not simply amoral animals who have figured out the best way to run society over thousands of years. We are creations of an intelligent higher power."
G.K. Chesterton said, "Progress is Providence without God. That is, it is a theory that everything has always perpetually gone right by accident. It is a sort of atheistic optimism, based on an everlasting coincidence far more miraculous than a miracle."
All progress has come from humans looking to a God. Science has always been about the study of God's creation. Once God goes--as they have apparently explained him away--what need have we for progress? There is nothing to know after all.
If people need God to act as decent human beings, than a God they shall have, but it doesn't say much for their intelligence or sense of humanity. It also does nor explain how many of the wisest and most moral people in the history of this world were not only people who were ignorant of theology, but those who were completely aware of such ideas, and rejected them entirely.
You can twist words as long as you like, but it doesn't prove or disprove anything. God, as it is written in the most ancient books of the Bible, is not 'lord' or 'master' or even 'god', but simply 'the is that is'; the unknown and unknowable aspects of the universe. To say that this God set for us certain standards or precepts, even if such a thing were not contradictory and absurd, is pointless because without understanding God (who is unknowable) we could never comprehend such vast truths. And what we do not know, we must pass over in silence. God is what we do not understand. That's all.
Loyal, you're not making any sense. How do you know that God is unknowable? On what basis do you claim that as being true?
The best way to prove that everyone believes in the Moral Law is not by their actions (ie what people say/write/claim), but by their reactions. Writes Norman Geisler, "[Y]ou may not be conscience of the Moral Law when you lie to someone (your action); but when someone lies to you, the Moral Law becomes bright as the sun, because being lied to upsets you as soon as you realize it (your reaction)." Just because someone claims he doesn't believe in truth or God or morality, it doesn't mean jack squat if his actions/reactions show otherwise.
"God, as it is written in the most ancient books of the Bible, is not 'lord' or 'master' or even 'god', but simply 'the is that is'; the unknown and unknowable aspects of the universe."
Loyal, did you just attempt to use the Bible to justify your belief that God is unknowable? Firstly, you are well-versed in a variety of subjects, but Bible study is not one of them. The Bible very clearly portrays God as knowable, personal, loving, and just--and the list goes on. Secondly, don't you see the hilarity in using a religious text about God to bolster your claim that he doesn't exist?
Finally, you are confusing morality with religion. This post is not about religion--that is, a specific creed of belief or worship. Rather, it is about a basic Moral Law that is found in the universe, and which everyone recognizes and abides by at some level. I have said nothing about theology because I'm not discussing a religious idea--simply a moral one.
The Moral Law is a kind of "moral common sense," which is why we all agree on it--by our reactions.
Finally Loyal, I have a question for you: You obviously think I'm wrong, which is why you claim that I "twist words." Yet, all I am claiming is that there is a universal standard (called God) by which Truth is judged. In other words, I am saying what C.S. Lewis penned so eloquently: "One cannot call a line crooked unless he has some idea of what a straight line should be." But you seem to disagree with that. You seem to think that my idea is a "crooked line." Why? How? On what basis?
Do you see how your reasoning in inherently self-defeating?
Loyal, you're not making any sense. How do you know that God is unknowable? On what basis do you claim that as being true?
I base that claim because God as the Unknown is the very basis for all theistic religion in the history of the world. That's why I brought up the description of God found in the Bible; because it serves as a useful illustration of the concept of God in its clearest expression, not because it 'refutes' anything.
The best way to prove that everyone believes in the Moral Law is not by their actions (ie what people say/write/claim), but by their reactions. Writes Norman Geisler, "[Y]ou may not be conscience of the Moral Law when you lie to someone (your action); but when someone lies to you, the Moral Law becomes bright as the sun, because being lied to upsets you as soon as you realize it (your reaction)." Just because someone claims he doesn't believe in truth or God or morality, it doesn't mean jack squat if his actions/reactions show otherwise.
No one would be so audacious as to claim they didn't believe in truth or morality; what people intend by statements like those is simply that they reject the artificial definitions of 'truth' and 'morality' they believe are being imposed on their actions.
Loyal, did you just attempt to use the Bible to justify your belief that God is unknowable? Firstly, you are well-versed in a variety of subjects, but Bible study is not one of them. The Bible very clearly portrays God as knowable, personal, loving, and just--and the list goes on. Secondly, don't you see the hilarity in using a religious text about God to bolster your claim that he doesn't exist?
I have already explained why I used that quotation from the Torah; and I can tell you that the current reigning concept of God as simply a greater, better human being was never for a moment meant to be taken literally by the nomadic desert tribesmen who came up with these stories; nor did they think anyone would ever conceive of such an idea. It was so clear that they were using 'God' (Yahweh) as a stand-in for everything they didn't understand, or fate, if you prefer. One might as well say that Aesop genuinely believed in a country mouse going to his cousin in the city for a visit.
Finally, you are confusing morality with religion. This post is not about religion--that is, a specific creed of belief or worship. Rather, it is about a basic Moral Law that is found in the universe, and which everyone recognizes and abides by at some level. I have said nothing about theology because I'm not discussing a religious idea--simply a moral one.
Morality, of course, is not religion, and the two are often mutually exclusive. But your concept of religion is so totally religious - as evidenced by your original post, in which you mentioned a 'Creator' again and again' - that I could hardly deal with one without the other. We do not need a sentient 'creator' to be moral, because morality is an invention of human intelligence.
Do you see how your reasoning in inherently self-defeating?
Clearly not, or I wouldn't have said it.
Of course, I'm not sure the world is a better place since Christianity and Capitalism conspired to kill God. It is somewhat of a shame.
Pardon, i meant to say that your concept of morality is so totally religious etc.
Loyal, the Biblical concept of God is not of an unknowable deity. There are countless verses that detail and describe God's character. The entire message of the New Testament gospel is that God sent His son Jesus Christ to earth to pay our penalty for sin and therefore make fellowship with God possible again. The Christian life is about a personal relationship with God through Christ, and as believers grow in knowledge and depth of insight they are conformed to the likeness and character of Christ.
No one would be so audacious as to claim they didn't believe in truth or morality; what people intend by statements like those is simply that they reject the artificial definitions of 'truth' and 'morality' they believe are being imposed on their actions.
Two things. One--yes, people most definitely do claim they don't believe in truth or morality, explicitly and implicitly. Two--what are the artificial definitions of truth and morality you refer to? What are the "true" definitions?
Apparently simply belonging to a people group doesn't necessarily include an understanding of its history. Your ancestors, those "nomadic desert tribesmen," didn't make up the stories in the Old Testament (why would they make up stories about themselves in a consistently disobedient and rebellious state that cost them lives, freedom, and prosperity?). This is neither the time nor the place for a defense of Scripture's integrity, so I'll leave it at that.
"...your concept of morality is so totally religious - as evidenced by your original post, in which you mentioned a 'Creator' again and again - that I could hardly deal with one without the other. We do not need a sentient 'creator' to be moral, because morality is an invention of human intelligence.
Morality does in fact require a "sentient creator." If man is where the moral buck stops, if man is the final arbiter of morality, then in essence there is no morality. The innate sense of right and wrong that each of us has is not because mankind over the ages decided it would be so. If that were true, I could claim or create a "new" morality, one which allows me to kill those I disagree with. You would oppose such a moral code, I am sure, and defend yourself as such. Yet on what basis of moral principle could you consider your morality superior to mine, if morality is simply an invention of human intelligence?
What if two appellate courts reviewed the exact same case and came to exactly opposite rulings. Both can't be right. There must be a final arbiter above both parties that decides which ruling is correct. Thus the Supreme Court. Such is the same with God and morality. With no Creator, there is no morality.
Post a Comment
<< Home