With the election behind us now, and as we look forward to--at the very least--four years of something different than we're used to... I thought it would be good to realign our thoughts and hearts a little bit.
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Christianity. Show all posts
Thursday, November 24, 2016
Monday, November 21, 2016
What's Your Platform?
I believe in
honesty. I believe we, as brothers and sisters in Christ, should be open
about our struggles, our fears, our doubts...about things that trouble
us. We're all in this life - this Faith - together, and we in the
universal Church of Christ are our own support system. So, I'm just going
to share some thoughts and emotions that got shaken loose over the past couple
days, in hopes that you all can take something I'm tossing out there and learn
or grow from it.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
A Lighthearted Discussion on the Necessity of a Divine Creator - Part Two
This
is part two in our lighthearted discussion on the necessity of a divine creator.
For part one, click here.
So,
we’re going with ‘nothing exploded, which brought everything (the sum total of
mass and energy within our universe) into existence.’ Alright, if you say so.
Monday, January 11, 2016
A Lighthearted Discussion on the Necessity of a Divine Creator - Part One
Why
do intelligent people believe in God?
Tuesday, April 15, 2014
Fortean Phenomena and Faith: 4 Ways Christians Respond to the Paranormal
In my experience the Christian community generally responds in one of four ways when faced with news or evidence of paranormal phenomena that wasn't ever covered in Sunday School.
Thursday, April 3, 2014
What is Worship Anyway? - Intro
Do you know how many Christian churches
are active in America today?
A reliable estimate is that there are roughly 350,000
religious congregations in America right now. Only about 12,000 of those are
what are considered non-Christian.
That 12,000 includes your Hindus, your Muslims,
Buddhists and Satanists, Wicca, Scientology, and UFO cults, and anything else you can think of, all
in just less than 5% of the total.
Of course, Catholic and Orthodox also take
about 24,000 away from the total. That leaves around 314,000 congregations that
are considered Protestant or Christian (other).
Within the walls of those 314,000
congregations can be found, should one look, endless programs and activities which
churchgoers busy themselves with, from the expected small group Bible studies,
worship music concerts, and choir practices, to the not-so-expected, naïve, and
somewhat misguided “holy yoga,” to the downright bat-guano-crazy dirt-bike-ramp-jumping-over-pastor-while-he-teaches
gimmicks, poorly designed to lure the unchurched, all of whom likely laugh at the downright embarrassing
lengths to which pastors will go to attract more tithing members. All that to say
this: lots of churches are busy providing lots of programs and activities to
lots of congregants, seekers, and reluctant husbands of churchgoing wives.
In light of these statistics one might
come to the conclusion that American churches and churchgoers are pretty darn
good at worship. Well, one would be wrong if one held the facts concerning how Americans classify engaging in religious activity up against worship as defined and
practiced in the Bible. Fact is, good reader, we are failing, both miserably
and dismally. I just couldn’t decide on an adverb. They’re both so descriptive
and appropriate...
In this series of blog entries I will painstakingly,
but humorously, attempt to run a virus scan and perform a cleaning on brains which
have inadvertently downloaded a common form of Churchianity malware. I will predict the following three scenarios concerning how this series is received:
- Some of you will read through the series with your super-smart melon-heads nodding furiously in agreement, shouting “amen!” from time to time, causing your family to once again question your sanity. I applaud you, for you are astute far beyond your peers and perhaps should be writing this series.
- Others among you will flatly reject what I present in favor of your preconceived beliefs, which have been, like I said, accidentally “downloaded.” I pray for your souls! But seriously, please know I care deeply for you and would gladly buy you a triple grande caramel macchiato if you wanted to hang out with me. I am that desperate for friends.
- But a few of you – you know who you are… don’t be shy – you will read this series with open eyes and hearts and you will rejoice at the Scriptural truth wave flowing through and washing away the grime of that wishy-washy worship mindset.
For this first entry I just wanted to
give you some solid statistics and make you aware of the series, in hopes that
you will return in two weeks to begin this journey with me. I will, during the
series, present you with some more statistics that will likely sadden you and
even cause outrage. Some of you with especially tender hearts will weep. I did when I
discovered this truth. But for now, let me leave you with an encouraging
message from Someone very special...
“All that the Father gives Me will come
to Me, and whoever comes to Me I will never cast out.”
To continue reading this series, What is Worship Anyway? Part One, click the link.
Wednesday, November 13, 2013
Sacred or Secular?
As I was driving my son to school this morning we started discussing the subject of, for lack of a better term, spiritual time management. The idea is that the more religious (or spiritual, for you progressive Christians out there) activities one takes part in throughout the day the more godly that person is. So, the idea is that if you fill your day with Bible reading and praying and building orphanages (only Christian orphanages!) then you are more holy than the poor schmuck who has to work at a secular job 10 hours a day, and then go home to take care of his family and their needs before squeezing in a few Bible chapters at the end of the day and drifts off to sleep saying his nightly prayers.
The message I was trying to send to my son was that this is wrong. We shouldn't think like this. We shouldn't be dividing our day into two categories; one for religious activities and the other for everything else. There is no biblical precedent for this mindset - at least none I can think of.
Someone who truly loves Christ brings Him along. I know this sounds flippant, but hear me out. I'm not talking about taking Him along like a child would smuggle a stuffed animal on a trip, by cramming it into a backpack or lunchbox. Rather, I envision calling up a close friend to go on a long drive or to take care of some unpleasant business. You do this for company, for help. These kind of friends are the ones you are so close to that you know a 3 hour car ride will feel like minutes, that you won't feel embarrassed when you have to do some menial task in their presence. The Bible says that there's a Friend who sticks closer than a brother. That Friend, for us, is Jesus.
Jesus died on a Roman cross in your place, so what makes you think He stops at the door when you go to work at a retail store, or that He doesn't accompany you when you're plunging a toilet, or that He ever leaves you... EVER?
With this knowledge we should make every effort to erase these lines we draw between the sacred and the secular. For the Christian who really loves his or her Lord there don't need to be any such categories. So, my challenge to you, reader, is this: instead of toiling to make sure the sacred activities outweigh the secular, realize that every activity is sacred and treat them as such. Sacred, sanctified, holy... these words all mean the same thing - set apart for a special reason or purpose. Our lives, our entire lives as followers of Christ, are set apart for a special reason and purpose.
The Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, accompanied by Christ, and observed by the Father every second of every day. For these reasons all that we do, everywhere we go, is in His presence and sight, and therefore should be treated with the same awe and reverence as Moses had at the burning bush.
This knowledge should do two things: First, it should cause us to cut some things out because they just don't fit with a holy life. I'll use myself as an example - Jesus is with me on the I-15. 'Nuff said. Second, it should help us to stop striving to tip the scale of daily activities on the holy side.
Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31
The message I was trying to send to my son was that this is wrong. We shouldn't think like this. We shouldn't be dividing our day into two categories; one for religious activities and the other for everything else. There is no biblical precedent for this mindset - at least none I can think of.
Someone who truly loves Christ brings Him along. I know this sounds flippant, but hear me out. I'm not talking about taking Him along like a child would smuggle a stuffed animal on a trip, by cramming it into a backpack or lunchbox. Rather, I envision calling up a close friend to go on a long drive or to take care of some unpleasant business. You do this for company, for help. These kind of friends are the ones you are so close to that you know a 3 hour car ride will feel like minutes, that you won't feel embarrassed when you have to do some menial task in their presence. The Bible says that there's a Friend who sticks closer than a brother. That Friend, for us, is Jesus.
Jesus died on a Roman cross in your place, so what makes you think He stops at the door when you go to work at a retail store, or that He doesn't accompany you when you're plunging a toilet, or that He ever leaves you... EVER?
With this knowledge we should make every effort to erase these lines we draw between the sacred and the secular. For the Christian who really loves his or her Lord there don't need to be any such categories. So, my challenge to you, reader, is this: instead of toiling to make sure the sacred activities outweigh the secular, realize that every activity is sacred and treat them as such. Sacred, sanctified, holy... these words all mean the same thing - set apart for a special reason or purpose. Our lives, our entire lives as followers of Christ, are set apart for a special reason and purpose.
The Christian is indwelt by the Holy Spirit, accompanied by Christ, and observed by the Father every second of every day. For these reasons all that we do, everywhere we go, is in His presence and sight, and therefore should be treated with the same awe and reverence as Moses had at the burning bush.
This knowledge should do two things: First, it should cause us to cut some things out because they just don't fit with a holy life. I'll use myself as an example - Jesus is with me on the I-15. 'Nuff said. Second, it should help us to stop striving to tip the scale of daily activities on the holy side.
Whether therefore you eat, or drink, or whatever you do, do all to the glory of God. 1 Corinthians 10:31
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
P&W
As a worship leader, I have come to separate all church music into two very broad categories. Understanding that there are many subcategories, I am confident that every song we use in church will fall somewhere in the spectrum beneath one of these two categories.
My purpose for writing this is to bring to attention an issue which I have run across various times in my decade or so leading worship through music, and an issue which I have confirmed to be present for others in my field. So, I'll quickly share these two categories, and then talk a little about the issue I mentioned.
Before I reveal them, please understand that I am not speaking theologically with these categories. They have nothing to do with lyric content, but rather the overall feel and tempo of the song. So, with that in mind, here they are:
Cross Songs and Tomb Songs
What do I mean by Cross Songs and Tomb Songs. It's really simple. It's just a fresh way of saying praise and worship. But since the term "praise & worship" has been used for so long in conjunction with church music in general the two separate words have become fused and are used together to describe all music used in church, regardless of tempo or theme.
So, I chose these two category titles based on the fact that there are two major points in Christ's primary ministry to us, and those are the crucifixion and the empty tomb. The Crucifixion is the quintessential sad moment, while the empty tomb is possibly the happiest moment in history. The Cross Songs are those which are more mid to down-tempo, reflective, somber, worshipful. The Tomb Songs are those which tend to be more up-tempo, celebratory praise songs. All church music can be placed under one of these categories. Sure, there are songs which seem to be near the middle, but all of them can fit into one of these two groups.
A few examples might be, Heart of Worship - Cross Song, Forever - Tomb Song, Mighty to Save - Cross Song, Everlasting God - Tomb Song.
Now that I have explained the categories, here is the issue I run into. I think we can all agree that both of these categories are equally important. Without the cross the empty tomb would have just been any empty tomb, never having been occupied. Without the empty tomb then the story of Christ ends on a cruel Roman cross. In the same way, the Church of Christ needs both types of songs. We need to praise, and we need to worship. We need to celebrate but we also need to reflect. Many worship leaders run into an issue where the pastor only wants Tomb Songs. They just want the church happy, happy, happy, singing loud, clapping hands, smiling wide. And to them those Cross Songs are something they see as a necessary but unsavory condition to appease worship leaders who tend towards the mid or down-tempo songs. Of course, it goes both ways, but most gifted and experienced worship leaders understand that, while they may not prefer one category, both are necessary, because... well, that's our job.
We need to learn to communicate with our pastors these truths, and we need to be patient and loving in the process. And that goes for every area in which we might differ from the pastor, like maybe when that super reflective, somber, serious song ends and you purposefully leave some silence for reflection, and suddenly, within a nano-second, there's a pastor on a microphone with his ever cheery tone moving the service along. That's who they are, and it's every bit as appropriate as the way we are. It's just poorly timed, sometimes...
There is a great need for loving dialogue between worship leaders and their pastors and I am the first person I know who needs to take this advice to heart! What are your thoughts on the issue?
Before I reveal them, please understand that I am not speaking theologically with these categories. They have nothing to do with lyric content, but rather the overall feel and tempo of the song. So, with that in mind, here they are:
Cross Songs and Tomb Songs
What do I mean by Cross Songs and Tomb Songs. It's really simple. It's just a fresh way of saying praise and worship. But since the term "praise & worship" has been used for so long in conjunction with church music in general the two separate words have become fused and are used together to describe all music used in church, regardless of tempo or theme.
So, I chose these two category titles based on the fact that there are two major points in Christ's primary ministry to us, and those are the crucifixion and the empty tomb. The Crucifixion is the quintessential sad moment, while the empty tomb is possibly the happiest moment in history. The Cross Songs are those which are more mid to down-tempo, reflective, somber, worshipful. The Tomb Songs are those which tend to be more up-tempo, celebratory praise songs. All church music can be placed under one of these categories. Sure, there are songs which seem to be near the middle, but all of them can fit into one of these two groups.
A few examples might be, Heart of Worship - Cross Song, Forever - Tomb Song, Mighty to Save - Cross Song, Everlasting God - Tomb Song.
Now that I have explained the categories, here is the issue I run into. I think we can all agree that both of these categories are equally important. Without the cross the empty tomb would have just been any empty tomb, never having been occupied. Without the empty tomb then the story of Christ ends on a cruel Roman cross. In the same way, the Church of Christ needs both types of songs. We need to praise, and we need to worship. We need to celebrate but we also need to reflect. Many worship leaders run into an issue where the pastor only wants Tomb Songs. They just want the church happy, happy, happy, singing loud, clapping hands, smiling wide. And to them those Cross Songs are something they see as a necessary but unsavory condition to appease worship leaders who tend towards the mid or down-tempo songs. Of course, it goes both ways, but most gifted and experienced worship leaders understand that, while they may not prefer one category, both are necessary, because... well, that's our job.
We need to learn to communicate with our pastors these truths, and we need to be patient and loving in the process. And that goes for every area in which we might differ from the pastor, like maybe when that super reflective, somber, serious song ends and you purposefully leave some silence for reflection, and suddenly, within a nano-second, there's a pastor on a microphone with his ever cheery tone moving the service along. That's who they are, and it's every bit as appropriate as the way we are. It's just poorly timed, sometimes...
There is a great need for loving dialogue between worship leaders and their pastors and I am the first person I know who needs to take this advice to heart! What are your thoughts on the issue?
Tuesday, January 22, 2013
5 Tips For the Timid Evangelist
The Lord Jesus bookended His earthly ministry with admonitions for His followers to be evangelists. If you were to cram those two instances into one statement and then paraphrase it, it might read something like this:
With such a crystal clear commission it's hard to believe that somewhere around 80% of professing Christians are not consistently involved in evangelizing the lost. Even more shocking is that 95% of Christians have never won a soul to Christ.
Obviously something is amiss. Many a fired-up evangelistically-minded preacher might simply chalk it up to indifference to the lost condition of the unbeliever and their lack of compassion for their impending eternal punishment. While there may be truth in that outlook, and indeed there is, I choose to give the bulk of my brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt and assume that our roadblocks to evangelism are the same.
With that in mind I offer a handful of meager tips and strategies for sharing with our unbelieving friends and pagan coworkers.
Follow Me and I will make you into fishers of men who will go into all the world and preach the Gospel to everyone, making disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the Name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you.
With such a crystal clear commission it's hard to believe that somewhere around 80% of professing Christians are not consistently involved in evangelizing the lost. Even more shocking is that 95% of Christians have never won a soul to Christ.
Obviously something is amiss. Many a fired-up evangelistically-minded preacher might simply chalk it up to indifference to the lost condition of the unbeliever and their lack of compassion for their impending eternal punishment. While there may be truth in that outlook, and indeed there is, I choose to give the bulk of my brothers and sisters the benefit of the doubt and assume that our roadblocks to evangelism are the same.
With that in mind I offer a handful of meager tips and strategies for sharing with our unbelieving friends and pagan coworkers.
- Ask questions - This should be a no-brainer, but let's face it... usually we would rather talk than listen, but this strategy will do two very important things to aid your evangelistic efforts. First, it will make your friend feel comfortable because she, like you, most likely would rather talk than listen. Second, it will gather information for you about what your friend actually believes. Christians will oftentimes hear that the person they are witnessing to is a member of a certain religion and begin to "auto-spout" all the information they think they know about said religion, while in reality the person may not even believe all (or any) of that! Find out what she actually believes.
- Listen! - This obviously accompanies tip number one, but believe it or not many people need to see this tip or they will simply ask a question and try and think of what to say next when they should be listening! Admit it, you have done this. I know I have, and I sense when someone else is, so chances are your prospective convert will sense it too, and nothing hurts an evangelistic encounter more than letting the person know you aren't really interested in their thoughts and opinions. Remember, religion is a sensitive topic for many and gaining some rapport will go a long way toward getting someone to open up enough to actually consider your case.
- Ask more questions - Seriously. Once your friend has answered your first question, don't feel like you have fulfilled your listening-to-a-person-talk quota and immediately launch into a lengthy monologue about why your friend is wrong and you are right. Ask another question. As an example, you could open with, "Do you have any spiritual beliefs?" Let's say your friend answers with, "No, I am an atheist." WARNING! Don't feel it your obligation to explain exactly why atheism is, in fact, a religion in itself. Ask something like, "Oh, really? How did you come to that belief?" Be sincere and humble. Then repeat tip number two.
- Smell the stink: Learn to spot internal inconsistencies and logical fallacies - This practice takes a little bit more experience to get right, but the best way to hone this skill is by doing a lot of the first three steps. Ask, listen, THINK. Much of the time a person's beliefs are not consistent. For instance, one of your more rabid and hateful atheists may mention how he believes religion is evil. This simply cannot be the case if atheism is true, because without a moral lawgiver there can be no absolute moral laws, and without absolute morals there can be no true good or evil. To call something good or bad is akin to stating the flavors of ice cream you like or dislike. So, as you listen learn to spot those inconsistencies and formulate new questions that aim to expose the person to the faulty nature of their beliefs. Trust me, getting someone to realize on their own, through asking well-timed questions, that their beliefs don't make sense is far more impacting than simply telling that person why he is wrong.
- Sow that seed: Be content planting a seed, or just tilling the soil - Sometimes you will be able to plant the Gospel seed, pulling off a beautiful, eloquent Gospel presentation. Other times you may simply plant a seed of doubt. What I mean is, you may only get a couple of questions out which will cause your friend to question their faulty beliefs. That's fine. I call this tilling the soil. Some people are so hardened to the Gospel that, just like in the Parable of the Sower, the seed is immediately snatched away by the enemy. It is these people who need the kind of discussion I'm talking about. Casting doubt on false beliefs can go a long way to getting the soil of the hardened heart tilled. Some people have emotional barriers which can't be helped too much by this approach, but many unbelievers have honest intellectual issues which, once dispelled, will pave the way for the Gospel.
In summary, I really pray that this will be even marginally helpful to some of you who have a sincere desire to reach your lost friends, family, coworkers, and fellow humans with the glorious Gospel of Jesus Christ. So, the next time you find yourself in a position to get a discussion going, just remember ALASS! (not the best mnemonic device, but it works)
Friday, December 14, 2012
Sam Harris: a Compassionate Buffoon
Today, in response to the tragic shootings in Connecticut, a Facebook friend posted a quote from card-carrying new atheist, Sam Harris. I noticed many of the comments in response to Harris' thoughts were positive. Many were praising Harris for what they thought to be insightful wisdom. I wanted to take this opportunity to expose some of the self-defeating views coming from today's most vocal atheists. In this case, God-hater Sam Harris.
"The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.
Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.”
― Sam Harris
First of all, I would like to say that I agree with Harris that this is a horrific tragedy, and that we, as humans, should get broken hearts over these things. That is where our agreement stops.
Now, Harris says quite a lot of things in this short two-paragraph statement. My intention is not to unpack and demolish every logical fallacy or mistake in thinking. I just want to draw attention, in particular, to the outrageously self-defeating intellectual stance the new atheists take on certain issues.
That said, I feel it necessary to call Harris out on a particularly heinous false generalization. Harris states that "religious faith . . . erodes compassion." I am assuming Harris actually means "Christian faith" rather than simply "religious faith," as he said. These guys don't usually bother to go after the actually harmful religious faiths, such as Islam. So, speaking about Christian faith, Harris' assumption is not always the case, and it is oftentimes quite the opposite. I will say that Calvinistic soteriology, brought to its logical end, can serve as a means to escape the obligation to feel compassion, and I have no doubt that many, many Calvinists do just that. However, if one simply observes the Lord Jesus; His actions and words in the New Testament, then it becomes crystal clear that true Christianity is a religion built upon the foundation of selfless love and altruistic compassion. Enough said on that point.
I'm not going to assail Harris' assessment of certain cliche Christian phrases, because their truth or falsehood is not important to my main point here. What I would like to point out, for those who care, is that Harris is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He must borrow from religious morality to even make the statements he is pushing here. Because his argument presupposes that there is a transcendent moral law he defeats his own argument. In other words, if he's right he's wrong. He can't be right that there is no moral law and also be right that it's wrong to act or think in any way. If there's no moral law then there's no right and no wrong. Evil and good are words akin to yellow and blue, vanilla and chocolate.
I'll phrase it in the form of a question so that the reader can come to the correct conclusion by using his or her brain.
If there is no God, and thus no moral law, then why is it wrong to kill people, whether adult or child? Why is it wrong to lack compassion?
In order for the word "wrong" to carry any weight there must be some sort of ethical framework that is universal. A localized morality - a system of rights and wrongs based upon the consensus of the inhabitants of the land - doesn't work. We saw that in Nazi Germany. We see it today in many nations at which we Westerners scoff because of their barbaric beliefs (i.e., the stoning of a woman for adultery, the steam-rolling of children for being part of a family that illegally practices a religion not approved by the government). Right and wrong are clearly not determined by the consensus. The law of the land can punish or praise for actions deemed unlawful or lawful, but it doesn't have the power to actually make something morally right or wrong - only legally right or wrong.
To put it into perspective, if our own government made it mandatory for every man or woman to "euthanize" their parents once they reach an age at which they are unsafe behind the wheel of an automobile, would that mean that it's right to do it? A better question is, "would it be wrong to not do it?" You would be breaking the law by not murdering your mom!
I hope you can see how fault cultural ethics prove to be in the real world.
The only non-religious option at this point is an egocentric morality, a.k.a. situational ethics. This would mean that each person chooses what is right or wrong depending on each individual situation. Well, this is clearly not an option because I'm sure Harris, like me, would agree that just because a guy finds it acceptable to murder children for this or that reason doesn't mean that it is.
This brings us back to the question of why.
Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to do anything? Why is any option better than another, morally-speaking?
Harris is trying to play the white knight riding in on his shining horse, trampling under foot all of the mean people of faith who try to find meaning in situations which may not have any, other than to serve as a painful illustration of the depths to which our nation has fallen in the realm of ethics, but in reality he makes himself out to be more of a village idiot who doesn't even understand the basic foundation of ethics, of the morality he feels so free to espouse without having any right to hold within his chosen worldview.
"The only sense to make of tragedies like this is that terrible things can happen to perfectly innocent people. This understanding inspires compassion.
Religious faith, on the other hand, erodes compassion. Thoughts like, 'this might be all part of God’s plan,' or 'there are no accidents in life,' or 'everyone on some level gets what he or she deserves' - these ideas are not only stupid, they are extraordinarily callous. They are nothing more than a childish refusal to connect with the suffering of other human beings. It is time to grow up and let our hearts break at moments like this.”
― Sam Harris
First of all, I would like to say that I agree with Harris that this is a horrific tragedy, and that we, as humans, should get broken hearts over these things. That is where our agreement stops.
Now, Harris says quite a lot of things in this short two-paragraph statement. My intention is not to unpack and demolish every logical fallacy or mistake in thinking. I just want to draw attention, in particular, to the outrageously self-defeating intellectual stance the new atheists take on certain issues.
That said, I feel it necessary to call Harris out on a particularly heinous false generalization. Harris states that "religious faith . . . erodes compassion." I am assuming Harris actually means "Christian faith" rather than simply "religious faith," as he said. These guys don't usually bother to go after the actually harmful religious faiths, such as Islam. So, speaking about Christian faith, Harris' assumption is not always the case, and it is oftentimes quite the opposite. I will say that Calvinistic soteriology, brought to its logical end, can serve as a means to escape the obligation to feel compassion, and I have no doubt that many, many Calvinists do just that. However, if one simply observes the Lord Jesus; His actions and words in the New Testament, then it becomes crystal clear that true Christianity is a religion built upon the foundation of selfless love and altruistic compassion. Enough said on that point.
I'm not going to assail Harris' assessment of certain cliche Christian phrases, because their truth or falsehood is not important to my main point here. What I would like to point out, for those who care, is that Harris is trying to have his cake and eat it too. He must borrow from religious morality to even make the statements he is pushing here. Because his argument presupposes that there is a transcendent moral law he defeats his own argument. In other words, if he's right he's wrong. He can't be right that there is no moral law and also be right that it's wrong to act or think in any way. If there's no moral law then there's no right and no wrong. Evil and good are words akin to yellow and blue, vanilla and chocolate.
I'll phrase it in the form of a question so that the reader can come to the correct conclusion by using his or her brain.
If there is no God, and thus no moral law, then why is it wrong to kill people, whether adult or child? Why is it wrong to lack compassion?
In order for the word "wrong" to carry any weight there must be some sort of ethical framework that is universal. A localized morality - a system of rights and wrongs based upon the consensus of the inhabitants of the land - doesn't work. We saw that in Nazi Germany. We see it today in many nations at which we Westerners scoff because of their barbaric beliefs (i.e., the stoning of a woman for adultery, the steam-rolling of children for being part of a family that illegally practices a religion not approved by the government). Right and wrong are clearly not determined by the consensus. The law of the land can punish or praise for actions deemed unlawful or lawful, but it doesn't have the power to actually make something morally right or wrong - only legally right or wrong.
To put it into perspective, if our own government made it mandatory for every man or woman to "euthanize" their parents once they reach an age at which they are unsafe behind the wheel of an automobile, would that mean that it's right to do it? A better question is, "would it be wrong to not do it?" You would be breaking the law by not murdering your mom!
I hope you can see how fault cultural ethics prove to be in the real world.
The only non-religious option at this point is an egocentric morality, a.k.a. situational ethics. This would mean that each person chooses what is right or wrong depending on each individual situation. Well, this is clearly not an option because I'm sure Harris, like me, would agree that just because a guy finds it acceptable to murder children for this or that reason doesn't mean that it is.
This brings us back to the question of why.
Why is it wrong to murder? Why is it wrong to do anything? Why is any option better than another, morally-speaking?
Harris is trying to play the white knight riding in on his shining horse, trampling under foot all of the mean people of faith who try to find meaning in situations which may not have any, other than to serve as a painful illustration of the depths to which our nation has fallen in the realm of ethics, but in reality he makes himself out to be more of a village idiot who doesn't even understand the basic foundation of ethics, of the morality he feels so free to espouse without having any right to hold within his chosen worldview.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)