Home
Okay, boys and girls, it's apologetics time. I'm still in dialogue with my old friend on Facebook, and we got into something worthy of a new thread.
As a recap, this friend was in my youth group as a kid but left the faith while pursuing higher education. He's a philosophy major, a Rhodes Scholar, and studied abroad at either Cambridge or Oxford (forget which). Meanwhile, I have an English degree and can't even keep grammar straight.
But apologetics isn't about knowing every answer, it's about knowing why you believe what you believe. Or something like that.
I think the moral argument is one of the best arguments for why there must be something beyond us. I think it's a good entry point to get to the truths of Christ, which are the best arguments for the Christian God being that something.
Thus, I posed this question to my friend:
"So, you don't come across to me as a relativist. You're against racism, authoritarianism, and dishonesty. In your worldview, how do you determine what is good and what is bad?"
He gave a pretty long response.
There's a lot to pick apart here. I've been watching some short videos from William Lane Craig and Frank Turek on the moral argument. Turek's presentations are more practical to a layman like me.
I'm contemplating how much I should answer directly. I'm thinking I should just choose one point and question him on it. For example, he says he tries not to be a jerk. I could ask, "If being a jerk means seeking out your own desires without any care as to whether or not your actions cause other people harm, why do you think it's wrong to be a jerk? And are you saying that everyone should strive to not be a jerk?"
As for the story of the debate experience, I get the sense that being embarrassed in situations like that did a lot to mess my friend up. I would think that the correct response to the lemonade stand story would be to answer a question with a question: "Why is it wrong to hurt the feelings of a group of 1st graders?" Also, I don't know that I would say that it's always wrong to lie. That may be a topic for another thread, but if you're hiding Jews from the Nazis, and the Gestapo asks you directly, "Are there Jews in your house?" should you lie and say, "No"? I think you probably should, but I don't know how that squares with the Biblical command not to bear false witness. And I don't think I'll address this to my friend right away.
Any thoughts or wisdom from anyone? I hope I'm not being annoying by still talking about this guy. I just don't want to waste my opportunities or misrepresent the Truth (capital T).
As a recap, this friend was in my youth group as a kid but left the faith while pursuing higher education. He's a philosophy major, a Rhodes Scholar, and studied abroad at either Cambridge or Oxford (forget which). Meanwhile, I have an English degree and can't even keep grammar straight.
But apologetics isn't about knowing every answer, it's about knowing why you believe what you believe. Or something like that.
I think the moral argument is one of the best arguments for why there must be something beyond us. I think it's a good entry point to get to the truths of Christ, which are the best arguments for the Christian God being that something.
Thus, I posed this question to my friend:
"So, you don't come across to me as a relativist. You're against racism, authoritarianism, and dishonesty. In your worldview, how do you determine what is good and what is bad?"
He gave a pretty long response.
His response wrote:so I don’t believe in Truth (capital T). But I do believe that truths are knowable because all evidence shows we live in the world together and have found some stuff out about it along the way. The sciences being a very reliable way to learn things. Mathematical truths seem to be true on a very deep level. And like anyone I take my experiences and those of those I know and have read about into account with how I think about what’s likely or not to be true. I don’t know if you would call that relativist or not. But that’s epistemology.
Obviously there’s a whole realm of philosophy, ethics, that deals with what’s good and what’s bad question. Many without relying on a God to justify anything.
Generally I still try to live by, do unto others. I think it’s a useful way to not be a jerk. And no one wants to be a jerk but a real jerk. Be kind. Be polite. I would say that’s my personal ethics, as far as I have any. And I don’t live up to them.
On larger political questions looking at questions through multiple ethical lenses is often helpful.
Will this do the most good for the most amount of people? (Utilitarian)
If you were an unborn person who could be born into any amount of status/wealth in your society, would you be okay with being born into the lowest? If not, that’s an unjust society. (Butchering Rawls)
Don’t make something illegal if it’s not causing anyone but the person doing it harm. (Bad paraphrase of JS Mill/ sentiments of everyone I’ve ever met that lives in the West)
These are examples of how I might think about the right and wrong of something. But obviously it depends on the thing, any of that would apply.
I once gave a speech against “moral relativism” as a Sophomore in High School. I was convinced that right and wrong had to absolute or be meaningless by people like Chuck Colsen and Harold Bloom. One of my classmates decimated me in like a second.
Him: So you say all right and wrong is absolute, so it’s always wrong to lie?
Me (with absolute confidence): Yes
Him: So if you go to a lemonade stand being run by 1st graders and they give you some lemonade and you try it and it taste terrible and right then these kids ask you, “is is good, mister?” Your going to tell them, “this lemonade is awful!”?
Me (falling for his trap): well, not in those words but I would...
*audible gasps from the class that I could be such a monster*
I went on to further make an ass of myself by trying to claim that giving the kids tips on how to make the lemonade better would be better for everyone, but I had dug my hole.
I don’t think things are so black and white anymore.
Sometimes it’s better to be kind than truthful, for instance. But not all the time. It depends on the context.
There's a lot to pick apart here. I've been watching some short videos from William Lane Craig and Frank Turek on the moral argument. Turek's presentations are more practical to a layman like me.
I'm contemplating how much I should answer directly. I'm thinking I should just choose one point and question him on it. For example, he says he tries not to be a jerk. I could ask, "If being a jerk means seeking out your own desires without any care as to whether or not your actions cause other people harm, why do you think it's wrong to be a jerk? And are you saying that everyone should strive to not be a jerk?"
As for the story of the debate experience, I get the sense that being embarrassed in situations like that did a lot to mess my friend up. I would think that the correct response to the lemonade stand story would be to answer a question with a question: "Why is it wrong to hurt the feelings of a group of 1st graders?" Also, I don't know that I would say that it's always wrong to lie. That may be a topic for another thread, but if you're hiding Jews from the Nazis, and the Gestapo asks you directly, "Are there Jews in your house?" should you lie and say, "No"? I think you probably should, but I don't know how that squares with the Biblical command not to bear false witness. And I don't think I'll address this to my friend right away.
Any thoughts or wisdom from anyone? I hope I'm not being annoying by still talking about this guy. I just don't want to waste my opportunities or misrepresent the Truth (capital T).
