Re: Premises and Morality

Michael Sisk (malachi@voy.net)
Tue, 08 Jul 1997 13:48:55 -0400

At 02:38 PM 7/7/97 -0600, Russell Stewart wrote:
>>You are showing what has traditionally been called the fact-value problem.
>>Hume first noted it, and it has been used as a weapon against Christian
>>ethics ever since. I find it to be a very bad weapon for the fact that it
>>simply doesn't call all the facts into question with regards to the issue
>>of Christian Ethics. The fact-value problem is well-stated and does present
>>a very real problem, but not in the arena of proving Christian ethics. It
>>is more useful in the area of proving non-christian ethics
>
>Well, that is what I have been trying to do; not *dis*prove the
>usefulness of Christian ethics, but prove that there are other,
>equally effective, ethical systems out there.
What I wrote above was phrased incorrectly. What I meant to say was that
the fact-value problem is well-stated and does present a very real problem,
but not in the arena of disproving Christian ethics. It is more useful in
the area of disproving non-christian ethics. What was meant was that the
fact-value problem does no damage to the argument for Christian morality,
yet provides an impossible barrier to the one trying to justify any
non-christian moral system. The reason for this is that anyone trying to
posit a non-christian moral system has no invariant, objective, or
universal standard to base the claims on. The Christian presupposes the God
that has revealed Himself in Scripture, making Scripture His Word. In His
Word is contained "everything we need for life and godliness." The
Christian has also presupposed God's inherent goodness, it is part of his
immutable character and testified to by the Scriptures he revealed - "I the
Lord do not change." Malachi 3:6 If it were so that creation had occurred
spontaneouly, without the help or guidance of God, and then He came upon
the scene and gave us His Word and promises, one might have a better case
for not trusting Him to be truthful. But as it is, according to the
Christian theistic position, God has created the universe according to His
good pleasure AND sustains it throughout all history. God is sovereign and
Holy. As it is so elegantly written in the Westminter Confession of Faith -
"God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is
alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any
creatures which he hath made, nor deriving anu glory from them, but only
manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone
foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all
things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for
them, or upon them, whatsover himself pleaseth. In his sight allt hings are
open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent
upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is
most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands.
To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever
worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them."
I cannot imagine that a non-christian will find such a standard to base his
system of morality upon. And if he does not, then the system he posits is
inconsistent with itself, because it take such a invariant, objective, and
universal standard to justify any absolute moral standards of behavior.
>
>OK, then replace "want" in my example with "command". It still leads
>to the same result, unless you wish to argue that we must behave
>that way simply because God commands us to.
That is exactly what the Christian system demands. And any other system is
either arbitrary or inconsistent,t hus making it false.

>>God requires that we behave in certain ways. If
>>we don't behave the way He wishes we will be punished. Why would God punish
>>us for not behaving the way He wants? Because God is the Holy and Just
>>Standard of Morality. How is it that I know God is the Holy and Just
>>Standard of Morality? He has revealed that to me and the rest of the world
>>in the pages of the Bible...His persoanl revelation to the world. Since God
>>is Holy, He knows what is best for us, He knows what behavior patterns will
>>aid us in life more. Since God is Just, He can judge us in righteousness
>>when we fail His standards.
>
>I disagree that the God you believe in knows better than me what behavior
>patterns are best for me. Some of the tenets of Christian morality make
>sense to me, but others don't. I need a logically compelling reason to
>believe in them; something more compelling than "might makes right", or
>"He knows what's right for you -- don't question Him." Blind submission
>to authority has gotten humanity into far too much trouble in the past
>for me to accept it as a rational approach to life.
1) He who trusts in his own heart is a fool,
But he who walks wisely [i.e. in the fear of the Lord], will be delivered.
^cf. Proverbs 1:7
2) However you yourself have a blind submission to an authority that you do
not question. It is obviously logic. You "need a logically compelling
reason" to believe in the God that I speak of and the moral system He has
ordained. Your commitment to logic has no foundation in and of itself. You
have submitted to the authority of logic without questioning the authority
it gives. You see your commitment to logic has not been proven in any way.
You cannot prove logic without yourself using logic, which I'm sure you
would recognize as circular reasoning. What this means is that you have a
precommitment to logic, or that it is a presupposition that has not been
proven but assumed in advance. It is not something you have proven by
logic, but rather that by which you proceed to prove everything else. So
the real question here is how can you have a logically compelling reason to
believe anything without the God that I speak of, and if you base your
claims to logic on my God, how can you deny His other claims about
morality. God's universe is not a salad bar, you can't take logic and
reason and leave the morality. If one is true then the whole thing is true.
You see, proving that morality issues from the eternal decree and character
of God is just a step in proving His existence. Every fact in the universe
is a step in proving God's existence. The reason for this is that facts
could not be facts without God. Proving that a rose is a rose is the same
thing, it proves God's existence just as much as proving Chrisitan ethics.
For ethics to exist in a non-arbitrary, consistent way, it must be God's
ethical system. All others fall short of this goal. They are either
arbitrary (that's the way I want to behave) or inconsistent (morality is
relative, but justice isn't).

"Holy, Holy, Holy, is the Lord of hosts,
The whole earth is full of His glory."
Isaiah 6:3

"Now to our God and Father be the glory forever and ever. Amen"
Philippians 4:20

///////////////////////////////\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\

"...the Christian Theistic position...must be shown to be the position
which alone does not annihilate intelligent human experience." Van Til

"Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of
this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?"
II Corinthians 10:5

Michael A. Sisk "Malachi"
malachi@voy.net
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\//////////////////////////////////////