Where does Jesus get His Authority? Where do His Followers get Theirs? Part 1

Reader, I welcome you into a small portion of one category in the world of philosophy. You might have the book that initiated this post, and in that case are probably already aware of what I'm talking about. I hope I can present to you a persuasive, Christian critique of arguments against divine command theory. And if we are not coming from the same place, I hope you can find this information fascinating and good for the heart.

What is here for any reader is an intellectual consideration of arguments and points made in The Fundamentals of Ethics, a philosophy textbook. Right now let it be known that what I have to say very well might be provocative, and even disturbing. But I assure you, I won't yell, or rant, or even have prolonged examples or detail. Still though, I identify in the headings what I think the degree of negativity could be (maybe you are already of some stuff and have adapted, or something). Believe me, no non-theistic claim is supported as actual fact. Why I believe what I believe -- specifically pertaining to Jesus -- will be brought up toward the end of this blog project. Again, what is below is facts and logic, which will not be rendered false by avoidance. 

 Does God necessarily have anything to do with true morality at all? (Both points disturbing)

1. Personal autonomy? (Disturbing)

"This would be bad. Really bad." (1)

When I first got my textbook, I learned, quite easily, that the author had thought about problems regarding free will (it was said on the back with a few other things). He claims that if we don't have free will, that's "really bad."

Free will is the ability to make a personal decision, all by oneself. The opposite of free will is determinism, which means our choices aren't actually ours: something made us think and do that. 

The author believes that people do have free will. He explains that what he thinks is we can choose between possible different things we could do at one time. I believe this as well. We can't decide to jump out a window, flap our wings and fly, because we don't have the ability. Also, a lot of people have a mind which is consciences of their school work, thus creating a feeling to need to do it. But within both of these types of ideas, one thing is still clear: it's still possible to choose to do something which can hurt a person, like jump out a window or prepare to fail a big test by failing to prepare.

Or is it? Here I will use some non-theistic beliefs cited long ago in older posts:

William Provine of Cornell University said in a debate: "Let me summarize my views on what modern evolutionary biology tells us loud and clear. ... There are no gods, no purposes. ... There is no life after death. ... There is no ultimate foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning in life, and no free will for humans." (2)

Famous atheist Richard Dawkins main philosophy on life can be summed up with the title of one of his books, The Selfish Gene. He says, "The universe is nothing but a collection of atoms in motion, human beings are simply machines for propagating DNA, and the propagation of DNA is a self-sustaining process. It is every living object's sole reason for living." (3) Elsewhere is this conjecture (emphasis mine):

"In a universe of blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at the bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no other good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is. And we dance to its music." (4)

Atheists realize (or think they realize) their worldview does not allow for free will. Indeed, another famous atheist, the neuroscientist Sam Harris, wrote an entire book called Free Will, which denies it exists!

In Philosophy of Ethics, the author actually does mention a materialist (Dawkins and Harris) philosophy. "If we are just very complex bundles of matter, without any externally imposed aims or purposes to live up to, then it is difficult to see how there can be moral duties at all. ... Only God could possibly qualify." (5) 

How can human beings have free will? Do we know that we have free will, and so should work from there? The fifth, seventh, and eighth paragraphs under "The Problem of Free Will" section appeal to the reader because of how we feel -- that is, what our experience of consciousness feels like. In the seventh paragraph: "In other words, imagine that every choice we make is the only one we could have made in the circumstances. But how could that be? After all, don't you at this very moment have a choice about whether to put this book down or to continue reading? The choice is up to you." (6)

But is this really the case? It was said that people's free decisions have factors which don't completely determine them (otherwise the author would contradict himself on the same page), but are a factor contributing to what we can choose. One belief led to another, and that other belief was influenced by something else, maybe coming from our childhood, and our genetic makeup formed in the womb is a strong factor in creating our nature, "and so on, and so on." (7) Look backwards at time and our capabilities will be proven to come from something beyond our control. 

That totally is important for why I think God must be the cause of free will. Philosophy is foundationally people thinking and trying to get as close to the truth as possible. Philosophers know (obviously) that the cause of something must be reasonable. But the world doesn't have any properties of autonomy. I think of a metaphysical stack of falling dominoes, one thing leading up to another, the mechanisms of nature working, even evolving, giving all they can give -- but they don't have that. Ever since the universe began, to the formation of galaxies, to the formation of our moon, to the formation of life and ultimately us, was created by what the furniture of reality has and can produce. Therefore, no one but God can ever be responsible for free will, because if someone somewhere was shown to have it, they would have gotten it from somewhere, and so on, until you get back to a cause that does have it. An uncaused Cause.

What about our universal experience of free will, though? Atheists like Harris have a profound response: it is an illusion. Free will is a useful fiction. What matters is logic, not feeling. 

2. Indications of determinism (Disturbing)

I think I read in Philosophy of Ethics that the man who founded 9/11, shown to be named al-Qaeda by a quick Google search, was caught, and he went to a confinement center which was not legally watched. There, he was tortured. One thing that happened was (I think it's called) "water-boarding," which is when the victim is tied with his back to a board, laying horizontally, and water is poured on his face into his open mouth. It gives the feeling of drowning, rarely causing death, but more commonly lung problems.

Did al-Qaeda deserve this? Torturing this man can seem immoral. There is a consciousness behind the factors that determined what his body would say and do. al-Qaeda wasn't in control of that, nor was he responsible for the ideas that came into his head. But he faced horrible torment anyway. 

We can't disapprove of whoever watched over that, though. After all, they have the same setup. This shows that if there is no free will, any person who has ever experienced retaliation for what we know as a crime didn't deserve it. Moreover, whoever was originally hurt, was hurt by the forces of nature. And, they very well might want the other person to get punished. But no one here deserves to have negative feelings!

Therefore, no one can reasonably get our understanding of morality from the universe. Everyone is just determined by some of the properties of the furniture of reality. Morally, the universe implodes. 

What about Jesus?

1. What should motivate a Christian? (Not disturbing)

But God said when He created man and women, "You are free" (Genesis 2:16).

I'm having trouble planning how to order this information specific to the Christian worldview, because it would be kind of nice if the ending was a surprise. But so many things are just going to have to overlap anyway so I'll do my best to not shed light on everything right away.

The first assumption dealt with regarding the supposed need of religion for morality is that only religion motivates people. When I read this section, my face fell as soon as I came across "The most popular answer cites our fear of God and our desire for a happy afterlife." Then, one objection was how religious conviction doesn't always convict others to commit peaceful acts. Religious people can and have killed. Unfortunately, it wasn't until the final paragraph that people who believe in God can be "well motivated" because of  "a love of God, or a gratitude for His kindness." (9)

I hope that isn't really the most common answer, or if it is, that it does not come from Christians. The author was using the traditional monotheistic God, that of Islam, Judaism, and Christianity(8). And Christianity is the largest belief system in the world today, unless that changed recently, but even then it still is very well known and popular (especially in America). 

Christians, every real Christian, need not do works to ensure they go to Heaven. Jesus did the single work which could do that. (I'll defend this later.) We should want to live a life pleasing to God in reciprocation, out of love, because of what He did for us. This is the only logical outwork.

Let there be no mistake though, for it is incredibly important that Christians live a moral life. But Jesus's thoughts about that were "Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.'" (Matthew 22:37-39) What Jesus said is His followers are to understand where people get their real value (and one important part of us is our free will). God wants us to go to where love all began, so this can spill over into a personal love for our fellow humans.

(Now I should point out what I have read multiple times in writings by expert Christians: this isn't a claim that atheists can't be moral. On the contrary, they often are, just like everyone in general often is. Yes, everyone in general. Atheists can lead more moral lives than religious people. I just believe that without God it cannot be objectively proven that, say, a gang shouldn't rob a Walmart.)

Citations:

1. Russ Shafer-Landau, The Fundamentals of Ethics, ed. 5 (Oxford University: New York, NY. 2018),  187.

2. William Provine (transcript of a debate with Phillip E. Johnson, Stanford university, Palo Alto, CA, April 30, 1994).

3. Richard Dawkins, "Growing Up in the Universe" (lecture, Royal Institution Christmas lectures, London. 1991). 

4. Richard Dawkins, Out of Eden (Basic Books: New York 1992), 133.

5. Shafer-Landau, Ethics, 68.

6. Ibid., 188.

7. Ibid., 189.

8. Ibid., 66.

9. Ibid., 68