We definitely understand why many thoughtful pro-life individuals and organizations embrace a secular starting point in their engagements with pro-choicers, but we abolitionists actually question the wisdom of adopting such a reductionist approach to fighting abortion.
Please, just hear us out.
God’s aseity is his self-existence. He is self-sufficient and not dependent or subject to anything outside of himself. When God created the world, he designed the physical and moral laws that govern the world, and he created man in his own image. However, he didn’t just create the world and let it be, like some wind-up toy. No, God is sovereign over the world; not only does God sustain the world’s existence, but he remains in control of its proceedings, and he certainly maintains authority over the world.
What does that mean for the field of ethics? It means that ethics are derived from God. If God is not the standard of goodness, then when we say that God is good we must mean that God is subject to some law or ideal of goodness outside of himself. But, what if we were to accept that God is the ultimate standard of goodness, but that we can derive our ethics from some sort of created standard of goodness? In other words, rather than make reference to God, we make reference to something in this universe to construct our ethical standards. But, notice that creation has a context and purpose – both derived from God.
Consider for a moment the context of ethical discussion. Is ethics personal or impersonal? Are impersonal things, such as rocks, trees, etc. subject to ethical obligations? Persons, on the other hand are to account for their thoughts, motives, actions, etc. If there is a self-existand God, from whom everything else derives its existence and purpose, then we have an ultimate reality that is personal and we make sense of ethics. Not only that, but we must look to God in order to understand ethics and morality.
So, how does this tie back into science? Why would you avoid theological arguments, in favor of secular ones? I’m not suggesting that you just blithely throw Bible verses in people’s faces and tell them they’re wrong. But what does it say if you refuse to make Bible references or bring theology into the discussion? It severs your message from the Gospel and undercuts your Christian worldview.
But why would a non-Christian listen to you when you talk about God? Maybe they won’t. But consider also that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. There will be those who not change their mind in the face of proof. Nevertheless, the goal is persuasion, right? Yes. However, not persuasion by false or deceptive means. So, it first must be established that we have an obligation to be honest and to reason rightly. Secondly, it must be acknowledged that man is depraved and in rebellion to God (which is ultimately why proof and persuasion are not one and the same) and that only God can change a society. He restrains evil by his grace, but also transforms hearts through the gospel – something that won’t happen if the gospel is not preached.
Abortion is a result of man’s depravity and must be righted by confronting it with the person of Christ. Otherwise, if we abolish human abortion, there will simply be a different and potentially worse expression of rebellion against God. We must also remember that this isn’t just about saving children. Everyone involved in abortion is affected by its evil. Ultimately this is about the glory of God. Those involved in abortion bear the image of God, are the recipients of God’s grace, and we are given the task of loving them and pleading with them to be reconciled to God. Part of loving them is confronting their sin. Committing evil may harm others, but it most directly affects the person committing the evil.
You can’t confront sin without reference to God. Human abortion is sin. If you want to view it as something other than sin, you aren’t going to address the real issue. And if you get mocked for talking about God, so what? Better to be faithful and loving, calling a spade a spade, and getting mocked for it than trying to please the pride of those who massacre children by relying on secular methods. By the way, how well have secular methods worked over the past several decades? Just sayin’.
Present the theological arguments. If you don’t know them… there are plenty of Abolitionists who will gladly help you learn about theology! If people object to your using theology, ask them why? Why is it off-limits? Question their world-view right back! Ask them for their justifications and examine their presuppositions! To accept that references to God are off-limits is to buy into the idea that conversations with non-Christians must be ruled by non-Christian standards.
Ultimately we are arguing for consistency, which coincides with loyalty to Christ and the renewal of our minds and results in the presentation of the Gospel in the confrontation with real evil.
If the pro-lifer who bases their entire argument in "science" is actually engaging others on behalf of those not yet born, we certainly commend them for their willingness to do so, and pray their engagements change minds and save lives. But we do wonder why a Christian would ever purposefully avoid theological arguments in favor of voicing a solely scientific/secular claim? (Indeed, we are baffled as to why any Christian would ever leave the Gospel out of their engagements with the issue of abortion or conversations with the practice's defenders.)
We understand that some may want to argue on grounds that the other side will readily accept. After all, you want to be persuasive, right? But are you ready to abandon the Christian worldview to embrace a seemingly more pragmatic or easy approach to speaking the truth with love to people who ultimately need to know God more than anything else?
We understand that some may want to argue on grounds that the other side will readily accept. After all, you want to be persuasive, right? But are you ready to abandon the Christian worldview to embrace a seemingly more pragmatic or easy approach to speaking the truth with love to people who ultimately need to know God more than anything else?
When you pit science against religion, or when you insist on arguing without any reference to God, you deny at least one of three important theological truths: God’s aseity, his act of creation, or his sovereignty.
God’s aseity is his self-existence. He is self-sufficient and not dependent or subject to anything outside of himself. When God created the world, he designed the physical and moral laws that govern the world, and he created man in his own image. However, he didn’t just create the world and let it be, like some wind-up toy. No, God is sovereign over the world; not only does God sustain the world’s existence, but he remains in control of its proceedings, and he certainly maintains authority over the world.
What does that mean for the field of ethics? It means that ethics are derived from God. If God is not the standard of goodness, then when we say that God is good we must mean that God is subject to some law or ideal of goodness outside of himself. But, what if we were to accept that God is the ultimate standard of goodness, but that we can derive our ethics from some sort of created standard of goodness? In other words, rather than make reference to God, we make reference to something in this universe to construct our ethical standards. But, notice that creation has a context and purpose – both derived from God.
Consider for a moment the context of ethical discussion. Is ethics personal or impersonal? Are impersonal things, such as rocks, trees, etc. subject to ethical obligations? Persons, on the other hand are to account for their thoughts, motives, actions, etc. If there is a self-existand God, from whom everything else derives its existence and purpose, then we have an ultimate reality that is personal and we make sense of ethics. Not only that, but we must look to God in order to understand ethics and morality.
So, how does this tie back into science? Why would you avoid theological arguments, in favor of secular ones? I’m not suggesting that you just blithely throw Bible verses in people’s faces and tell them they’re wrong. But what does it say if you refuse to make Bible references or bring theology into the discussion? It severs your message from the Gospel and undercuts your Christian worldview.
But why would a non-Christian listen to you when you talk about God? Maybe they won’t. But consider also that there is a difference between proof and persuasion. There will be those who not change their mind in the face of proof. Nevertheless, the goal is persuasion, right? Yes. However, not persuasion by false or deceptive means. So, it first must be established that we have an obligation to be honest and to reason rightly. Secondly, it must be acknowledged that man is depraved and in rebellion to God (which is ultimately why proof and persuasion are not one and the same) and that only God can change a society. He restrains evil by his grace, but also transforms hearts through the gospel – something that won’t happen if the gospel is not preached.
Abortion is a result of man’s depravity and must be righted by confronting it with the person of Christ. Otherwise, if we abolish human abortion, there will simply be a different and potentially worse expression of rebellion against God. We must also remember that this isn’t just about saving children. Everyone involved in abortion is affected by its evil. Ultimately this is about the glory of God. Those involved in abortion bear the image of God, are the recipients of God’s grace, and we are given the task of loving them and pleading with them to be reconciled to God. Part of loving them is confronting their sin. Committing evil may harm others, but it most directly affects the person committing the evil.
You can’t confront sin without reference to God. Human abortion is sin. If you want to view it as something other than sin, you aren’t going to address the real issue. And if you get mocked for talking about God, so what? Better to be faithful and loving, calling a spade a spade, and getting mocked for it than trying to please the pride of those who massacre children by relying on secular methods. By the way, how well have secular methods worked over the past several decades? Just sayin’.
Present the theological arguments. If you don’t know them… there are plenty of Abolitionists who will gladly help you learn about theology! If people object to your using theology, ask them why? Why is it off-limits? Question their world-view right back! Ask them for their justifications and examine their presuppositions! To accept that references to God are off-limits is to buy into the idea that conversations with non-Christians must be ruled by non-Christian standards.
Ultimately we are arguing for consistency, which coincides with loyalty to Christ and the renewal of our minds and results in the presentation of the Gospel in the confrontation with real evil.
-Brian Biggs
I appreciate your point of view. Without God, it is hard to argue any morality, even the criminality of murder (of adults) becomes tenuous.
ReplyDeleteSorry don't know where to post this wanted some thoughts about it
ReplyDeletehttp://www.cnn.com/2011/12/01/tech/mobile/abortion-clinic-siri-iphone/index.html?hpt=hp_t1
I love it.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I'm disappointed that Siri can't point me to any crack dealers or hit men in the greater Los Angeles area.
"There will be those who not change their mind in the face of proof. Nevertheless, the goal is persuasion, right? Yes. However, not persuasion by false or deceptive means. So, it first must be established that we have an obligation to be honest and to reason rightly."
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean that if you could convince somebody that Christianity is true and that abortion is an abominable act by means of a dishonest or invalid argument you would pass on the opportunity?
Yes. We would pass on the opportunity to use a dishonest or knowingly invalid argument to convince someone that Christianity is true. Indeed, we would never even embrace such a method or take such an opportunity if it arose. We never set out to use an invalid or unsound argument to persuade anybody of anything.
ReplyDeleteBTW: We don't think people are "argued" into believing in Christianity. We think people begin to follow Christ because he is working on them and reveals Himself to them, and they turn to him in faith and repent of their self-worship and sin to follow him by His Grace.
But , to be sure, we do believe there are compelling, persuasive, and sufficient reasons and arguments that can be put forward on behalf of our beliefs and that our beliefs are entirely reasonable,... For sure, we are ready, willing, and wanting to argue that Christianity offers the only worldview that makes any fully coherent sense of reality. And you know that we will sit and do this till the small hours of the morning... but we do believe in a God who saves. Men just reject God’s conviction in their lives and turn to philosophical rationalizations in order to justify their rebellion and continued love of sin.
As for our position on abortion. No. We do not think it is right to use dishonest or invalid arguments to convince people that abortion is abhorrent or immoral. We think lying is sin. We also think that God does not honor this type of “strategy.” Our God, is the God of Truth. Yes we are all sinners, and the temptation to lie (among other things) is always there. However we do not as a society or as individuals adopt lying in the manner that you are asking about.
-IJP
My comment was not intended to be an accusation. To the best of my knowledge, the information and arguments presented by this group have been sincere and well thought out. I was just curious. I do have two follow up questions though:
ReplyDelete1. Do you think lying is ever morally permissible? Specifically, would lying to save somebody's life ever be morally permissible?
2. Are the philosophical justifications/arguments used to rationalize a sinful and rebellious life ever cogent/logically valid in light of the fact that a position can be logically valid, yet untrue?
To answer your second question (I'll get back to you in a little bit concerning the first question),
ReplyDeleteYes and No. Yes, I think there can be arguments that are valid, but untrue. But this is only the case in the *sense* of the argument. I don't think that can be said if we are talking about *both* the sense and the referent. This is because we can't interpret objects in a worldview-vacuum.
Brain,
ReplyDeleteCorrect me if I am wrong, but you position is that an atheist world view can be built on valid argumentation, but is never built on completely factual premises.
If this is your position, what premises do atheists typically accept that are false (besides the "God doesn't exist" premise)?
A.D. Graham,
ReplyDeleteNope. It is my position that atheists build their worldview from a combination of true and false premises. Now, making arguments for a position on a narrow topic is different from constructing an entire worldview. I think it is possible for an atheist to argue something far short of a full worldview using valid argumentation and perhaps even upon premises that are true in their sense but not in their referent.
What premises they use can vary from atheist to atheist. There is no universal or necessitated ethical theory produced by atheism, for example. I think an oft-used starting point for many atheist arguments is a denial of revelatory knowledge of God.
Ok, So, atheists fail one of two accounts (or perhaps both):
ReplyDelete1. Atheists argue using one or more false premises.
2. Atheists fail to account for a enough features to build a worldview.
Is this correct?
If so, what features do you feel are usually not accounted for by atheists?
On a side note, could you clarify what you mean by premises in their sense and premises in their referent? Are you making a distinction between things as they are perceived and things as they actually are independent of observation?
As for the false premise, are you saying that atheists fail to recognize the Bible as divinely revealed? If so, how could an atheist accept the Bible as divinely revealed and still maintain their status as an atheist? To me, arguing from this premise would be a clear case of question begging. After all, if one already accepts that a work of literature is the work of a divine entity, wouldn't they have to accept the existence of a divine entity?
1. My position is that the atheist's worldview is based on both true and false premises. And because of this the atheist worldview will necessarily contain invalid arguments.
ReplyDelete2. I'm not saying that atheists do not hold a fully-featured world-view. What I am saying is that because they hold both true and false premises, they can't validly argue for the entirety of their worldview. They can, however, make valid arguments within a more limited context than their entire word-view.
What features do I think aren't accounted for by atheists? Ethics, epistemology, and probably ontology.
Okay... my distinctions between sense and referent shouldn't be a side note... it's pretty central to what I'm saying. When you construct propositions they include nouns. The noun will be an expression referring to a fact or object. The sense of the mode of presentation of the object and the referent is the actual object the expression to refer to.
For example, suppose I say, "The President of the United States is from Texas." If I said it in 2006, then the "President of the United States" would refer to George W. Bush and the statement would be true. However, if I said it today, it would refer to Barack Obama and the statement would be false. The sense of the statement stayed the same, but the referent was different.
Now, let's consider a more complicated example: "A cat crossed the road." Suppose this is said after myself and an atheist watch a cat cross the road. If I said this, I would mean that a creature created, given life, and sustained by God walked across a street in accordance with God's decreed will. An atheist would mean that a complex collection of chemical compounds formed by an undirected wedding of chance and necessity walked across a street because of molecular interactions resulting from chance and necessity. Now, there are more differences in the referents than that, I just wanted to keep the example simple. We would both agree with it in the sense of the proposition - the cat walked across the street. But we have very different referents because we have radically different understandings of what a cat is.
When it comes to revelatory knowledge, I wasn't talking about the Bible. Yes, atheists don't recognize the Bible as divinely revealed, but its not my point. No, by revelatory knowledge, I meant general revelation, not special revelation. The Bible is special revelation; it was delivered to specific people by uncommon means.
General revelation is given to all humans. And no, I don't mean in the form of a book or a voice. This would be what Calvin called the sensus divinitatis and what later theologians would more specifically call cognitio insita - implanted or inserted knowledge. This isn't the same as innate knowledge, but denying that doesn't mean he is it saying that man is blank slate either. Turretin explained: "The mind of man is a tabula rasa not absolutely, but relatively as to discursion and dianoetical knowledge (which is acquired necessarily by inferring one thing from another); but not as to apprehensive and intuitive knowledge." (Institutes of Elenctic Theology, 1.9) I say atheists deny and suppress this knowledge.
ReplyDeleteNow, you might still object that if they did not object to it that they would not be atheists. This is true. Is it just question begging though? I think not. Usually this claim isn't explicit, but implicit and found in their demands for or the complaints of the lack of evidence. And it is ultimately in this implicit claim that grounds for agnosticism wash away and any claims that the Christian alone shoulders the burden of proof fall far short.
But, this also leads me to point out that worldviews aren't simple contructions. The choice of a starting point and our methods of building aren't done in neutral vacuums. If you have no worldview to begin with, then what criteria do you use for choosing your starting point, or what criteria do you use to guide your elaboration? I think you may be oversimplifying the situation when you focus on only premises and validity, as if a worldview were an narrow or isolated argument.
On top of all of that, people and the way they think isn't merely a collection of loccutionary propositions. There is a will involved and our thoughts themselves are not without motives and are subject to ethical inquiry. I propose that you not only have an obligation to tell the truth, but you also have an obligation to believe the truth.
This is what I got from 1. and 2.: you believe the only thing preventing the atheist worldview from presenting a cohesive and satisfying account for existence, meaning and the like is the fact that the system includes one or more false premises in its argumentation. Is this correct?
ReplyDeleteBrian: "What features do I think aren't accounted for by atheists? Ethics, epistemology, and probably ontology."
Could you elaborate on the specific features within these broad fields that you feel atheism fails to account for?
On Referents and Senses, I think I understand what your referring, but I would still like to see who you think this feature ties into the discussion. I understand that atheists and theist have very different methods for observing the world, and, as a result, interpret features of the world in very different lights. However, It isn't immediately obvious how that makes the methods of the atheist deficient in some way.
On Divine Implantation, I still think your premise still suffers from question begging. The fact that a god could reveal any kind of knowledge in any shape or form implies that there is a god to begin with. Any argument for the existence of god that is built on this premise is necessarily supposing that a god exists to prove god exists. Now, I think you have a rebuttal to this, but it appears that your response is missing a few sentences between "Is it just question begging though? I think not." and Usually this claim isn't explicit...". Am I right?
On Worldview, I completely agree that arguments must be made within a preexisting framework. There is no such thing as entirely neutral ground. Everybody holds premise that to them seem basic, but are in fact highly contestable. In light of this, I propose we set out to find starting points we both agree on before we continue on. That way, we can argue from a common point of reference. Surely two young white midwestern males are not so different that they can't find some cluster of statements they can agree upon. Would you like to start?
Thank you for this article!
ReplyDeleteI'm currently in a debate about abortion with an unbeliever. She's quite hostile at times and even with the scientific facts, she's found ways to argue that abortion is still a morally right decision.
I'm ashamed to say that, so far, I've really only tried arguing from the scientific standpoint. Because this kind of person will probably mock any mention of God. However, I've been praying for the words to say to this lost lady, because more than anything, she needs the LORD. I believe this article was an answer to my prayer. To remember that I need to share the love of Christ with her and leave the outcome up to HIM. I don't have the power to change her, but the Holy Spirit certainly does. I will proclaim Him and let Him do His mighty work!
Thanks again for the great article!
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteIs my comment actually posted? I was just wondering, because there is a weird symbol next to my post.
ReplyDeleteYes, there are no comments in the spam filter.
ReplyDeleteOK, Thanks Rho.
ReplyDeleteKari, you're very welcome.
ReplyDeleteA.D. Graham, sorry I've taken to long to reply... I just kept an eye on the comment numbers... I must have been off by one. I didn't notice any comments added until it jumped up to 18.
My position isn't just that atheist's worldviews are incoherent because they have one or more false premises, but because they have BOTH true and false premises.
My point about senses and referents wasn't directly concerned with methodology as much as the soundness of an argument. An argument can be logically valid, and I may agree with the atheist concerning the sense of the premises, but ultimately reject the soundness of an argument due to a difference in referents at some point in the argument.
Concerning the cognitio insita, I am simply answering your question about false premises. I'm not sure I need to give a reason for why the atheist would believe otherwise, given atheism. Now, most atheists don't start arguments directly from a denial of revelation. But, many do argue that there is a lack of proof or lack of evidence that justifies their unbelief.
My intention was mainly to state and clarify what I consider a false premise, given your request. My intention wasn't to argue why it was false.
But, consider that atheism doesn't actually preclude revelation if we are to take atheism as a lack of belief. However, justifications and arguments for naturalism do begin with it. (Justification and belief being distinct things)
If you want another example of premise I think is false - perhaps is an easier one to examine (this one probably won't entail a discussion on the difference between a visciously circular argument and a necessarily circular argument) - then consider this one: A loving God wouldn't allow evil to exist for any reason.
This is present in one common form of the problem of evil. I realize this isn't one that all atheists would argue, but it seems to be a simple example.
Did you just agree that there is no neutral ground... right before asking me to provide some?
It is no problem. I'm just glad you replied.
ReplyDeleteBrian-My position isn't just that atheist's worldviews are incoherent because they have one or more false premises, but because they have BOTH true and false premises.
Me- I don't think our claims are mutually exclusive. If one holds an indefinite number of true beliefs, but at least one false belief their worldview is flawed. However, the flaw in the worldview would only come from the false beliefs in the system, and not the true beliefs. That is all I was getting at. Do you agree with this?
Brian- My point about senses and referents wasn't directly concerned with methodology as much as the soundness of an argument. An argument can be logically valid, and I may agree with the atheist concerning the sense of the premises, but ultimately reject the soundness of an argument due to a difference in referents at some point in the argument.
Me-So, an atheistic arguments is deficient to a theistic, because theists are what is true while atheists refer to what is false? Using your examples, the only thing differentiating the theistic claim the "the cat crossed the road" and the atheistic claim that "the cat crossed the road' is that the atheist has the wrong definition of cat in mind. The atheist is wrong because " undirected wedding(s) of chance and necessity" aren't cats. "Creature(s) created, given life, and sustained by God" are cats.
Brian-My intention was mainly to state and clarify what I consider a false premise, given your request. My intention wasn't to argue why it was false.
Me-Fair enough. That is perfectly reasonable. Out of curiosity though, do you think one could argue for this concept under non-theistic precepts?
Brian-But, consider that atheism doesn't actually preclude revelation if we are to take atheism as a lack of belief. Me-I would define myself as more than an atheist then. I think that, while the evidence for God is scant, one can argue against Gods existence. So, I am not an agnostic atheist with respect to God. I believe one can be certain, as much as humans can be certain, that God doesn't exist. So, divine revelation for me is impossible, if that revelation is from God.
Brian-If you want another example of premise I think is false - perhaps is an easier one to examine
Me-Actually, I don't think a discussion of false premises will be fruitful until we can agree on some basic starting points from which to argue. I like where this argument is going, but I want to hold off in exploring it full tilt.
Brian-Did you just agree that there is no neutral ground... right before asking me to provide some?
Me-Not quite. I agreed that all people make claims based on preconceived notions of reality, but in order for us to have a meaningful dialogue we need to establish some basic points of agreement. These won't be entirely neutral in the sense that they are universally agreed upon. Nor will they be entirely free of cultural and personal bias. All that I am asking is for us to find a handful of things that we can both find noncontroversial. To go back to cats, we would both agree that, regardless of the ultimate cause of a cat, we both mean 'a quadrupedal mammal that meows'
Me- To show you that I am not trying to trick you, I will provide a list of the kinds of things I think we can agree on.
Premise 1.We are minds that receive sensory data.
Definition 1.A mind is something that is able to conceptualize and reason.
Definition 2.Sensory data is information that describes attributes of an object.
So, are these points that are basic and noncontroversial for you?
Yes, I think the flaws come from the false beliefs. The reason I was distinguishing between just saying that someone holds to one or more false premises and holding to both true and false premises is because the former allows for all premises to be false.
ReplyDeleteIn my cat example, my point wasn't that the atheist was wrong, but that the theist and atheist might agree on a proposition in one way and disagree in another way. I brought this up because of the thrust of your original comments... there could be an argument that I would agree is sound in the sense of the propositions, but ultimately reject as untrue due to the referents. Also, just in case I made this unclear - referents aren't always matters of definitions. There's the example of "The President of the United States" that could have many referents, and then there is Mark Twain and Samuel Clemens: two names with one referent.
I brought up the subject for two reasons. 1) I didn't want to agree to an oversimplified idea of a syllogism - I don't know what sort of arguments your going to make. 2) To point out that I don't believe in "brute facts."
I'm fine with Definition 1. I might be fine with the whole thing, but I'm not so sure about Definition 2. Is sensory data distinguished from sensory input? That is, are you saying that all sense perception rightly describes the attributes of an object? Or are you just saying that we are minds that do receive some data that rightly describes the attributes of an object?
On false beliefs, I think we are on the same wave length. Cool.
ReplyDeleteOn cats, after your last post, I am inclined to think that your comment on rhetoric more than philosophy. If all you are doing is guarding against hidden premises, then don't worry. I promise to define my terms in painful staking detail, so that you understand exactly what I am referring to.
On definition 2, Sensory data can be distinct from sensory input if we are both willing to accept an additional premise and definition.
Premise 2: There is a world, independent of minds, that is populated by objects.
Definition 3: Objects are things that have attributes.
If you accept these two additional points, then we will use your second premise:
"we are minds that do receive some data that rightly describes the attributes of an object"
On the other hand, we could take the phenomenologist's approach and say that the attributes of objects are entirely mind dependent. I can accept either position.
Good deal. I agree with Premise 2 and Definition 3. I defintitely think that objects and their attributes are not dependent on our minds.
ReplyDeleteArgue on.
Frankly, I don't think anything more needs to be accepted.
ReplyDeletePremise 1 provides our existence, Premise 3 provides the existence of other things, and Premise 2 provides a way for the two to interact. In my eyes, every additional premise can be described in terms of a Subject-Object-Interaction relationship.
Take the claim "Some apples are red" as an example. The claim depends on the existence of apples and for those apples to have the detectable attribute, "redness". The claim also requires somebody to make it. So, the claim amounts to an object, apples, a subject, the claim maker, and a relation between the two, the observation of redness.
What do you think? Does this system lack something? Is there a true statement it can't account for? Would you like to add additional necessary starting premises?