Papers and Other Information from Philosophy Class

This paper, which is less than two full pages, is on Natural Law Theory. It points out the "is-ought" fallacy, which a Christian can use when arguing just because the world is a certain way (for example, people are nice to each other) doesn't mean it's right. It is circular to say, "We do the right things, and we know they are the right things because we know what we are doing is right."

This paper is about multiple different theories which have something to say about whether or not telling others about Jesus is right. It includes my defense and argument for the resurrection (nothing new from the original posts on the subjects), along with a lot of citations from the Bible. It is called, "Is it Right to Tell Others About Jesus?" If transitions between paragraphs, and even sentences, sound a bit rough it is because I cut out some things out.

This is what I said in a discussion on Divine Command Theory (most of it is the same from my blog project "Where Does Jesus Get His Authority?," the first post cited at the bottom)":

Can someone do good things without God?

I have read multiple Christian books which bring up morals and they answer the question if atheists and agnostics can be moral with a definite "yes." They can find other good motivations for being moral just in their feelings -- especially love for friends and family -- and conscience, the things it gets them, or even just doing something because they believe it's right.

One reason divine command theory can look attractive

I believe the appeal of divine command theory can be different, considering the religion. For some, it may just be escaping punishment and instead going to Heaven (the author of our textbook's focus on page 66-67). However, for Christians, following God's commandments is appealing because He first loved us (1 John 4:19), came down to the Earth for us (Ephesians 5:2), and saved our souls once and for all eternity, not to be lost (Romans 8:38-39). Jesus suffered horribly (1 Corinthians 1:23), dying to pay our punishment(15:3), and then rose again(15:5).  Therefore, works done under God's guidance are out of reciprocation of love for Him, which must spill over into loving others (Matthew 22:37-39). A Christian cannot love God without caring for others.

Is that a good argument? First response

As for the argument, it obviously can only be any good if God exists. And I believe it can be a good argument, at least from two perspectives. A Christian believes that God made the Earth to be a moral place, but not that He invented morality. Rather, being a self-sustained, timeless, uncaused Cause, He didn't invent morality but rather it is intrinsically grounded in His nature. The Bible says in 1 John 4:8b, "God is love." He is not only loving, but is love. Christians take this to mean that goodness was always defined by God's nature. For example, since God is a Trinity -- three distinct persons in one Divine essence which is beyond (not against) human logic -- the Father is the Lover, the Son is the Beloved and the Holy Spirit is the Spirit of Love. 

Another reason it might be both a good argument and appealing

Another arguably good reason to hold the argument is if one believes God exists, objective ethics exist, and morality can be demonstrated to not come from anywhere but a mind. 

I first think about "The Problem of Free Will," as Shafer-Landau called it (p. 187). He himself mentions that follow time back enough enough, you will get to influential cause (determining us to an extent) that are beyond a human's control, say genetics or childhood experiences. Also, our choices are determined to the degree that we only have a small, finite amount of options around us (I could stop typing but not start flying). Atheists like Dawkins and Harris argue that we don't have free will because what has caused us determines us. I think of this argument (a bit sloppily written but I wanted to save space): 

1. In order for nature to cause something, it must have the right properties.

2. Nature never had any properties like free decision.

3. Therefore, nature can't cause free will.

4. Only God can author free will because He is a supernatural free Being. If freedom is anywhere in the universe, it must be followed back to the uncaused Cause, since wherever freedom began to exist in one place was caused, and not by no free will, so there must be uncaused Free Will.

How can someone ought to do something if they are determined? The next chapter gets into something like "natural moral law." But whatever anyone does is what nature had them do. 

Also, morality can't be scientifically proven. Science tells you how the world is, not how it ought to be. We can scientifically prove that punching a person gives them a bruise, but we condemn that because we believe people shouldn't hurt others. But where does "ought to" come from in a world where the furniture of reality is that of just being (no original morals)? 

Also, I found it interesting that the chapter on religion began with "Religion has always been the most popular source of morality" (p. 65). Indeed, atheism has always been largely rejected by the world, especially the farther back you go in history. People were amazed by the (for diversity's sake) "proof" of a Creator in nature. Yet atheists can argue there is no reason to invoke Him, for in fact He is rejected by the evidential picture. (Truth is not determined by majority vote.)

Sam Harris has a ready response to our experience of free will: it is an illusion. What matters is logic, not how we feel.  My point is that unjustified human intuition is just that. The idea of God giving morality can be very appealing because of the belief that otherwise, evil cannot exist. So this can be considered a very "good" argument, intellectually and morally! 

Would a theist reject divine command theory?

Lastly, I doubt a theist could have a justified reason for believing that God did not create morality. God could only teach us about morality if it existed, and where but His Mind can it be founded? A God without a nature at least was before the universe and thought up some ideas. But it definitely could be argued that God never decided to get involved in our affairs (deism), so morality never existed. Or perhaps some theist would have a position I have not heard of: that God exists but how people ought to live is taught by something or someone else.  

Thanks for reading! Especially since this was long!

P.S. If anyone is interested in further research outside of class, I will be hyperlinking the word "link (Links to an external site.)" right there with a blog post about this and Jesus. It's almost finished. Comments will be open. Aaaaand I finished part 1 (shorter posts can be easier to read.)

Here is something I said when discussing what faith can mean:

 I am a Christian and so cannot abandon the word "faith" (Hebrews 11:6), yet Paul defined faith as a sure thing (in 1 Cor. 15 they had faith based on the testimony of so many who saw Jesus). There undeniably is reason in saying peer-reviewed, academic arguments aimed at objectivity do not go by faith, for how often is that religious? The word surely comes from religion! (It is from ancient history, where atheism was by far the minority.)

...

...what is evident in Paul's letter of 1 Corinthians. Yes, the appearances were listed. But also he said "we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles" (1:23), spoke of how the early church was poor, persecuted, and specifically the first Apostles were suffering for their faith (4:8-13), and pointed out how they were still around to be put on a witness stand (15:6,11-12). So he acknowledged major points Christian apologists can argue: no one would have invented Jesus because He was anti-cultural and they have everything to lose but nothing to gain, and Paul was writing too early (in the lifetime of eyewitnesses) for legend to have overlapped into accounts about them.

As would be expected, Paul spoke of hope in Jesus as a sure thing. He does have "knowledge" that the resurrection happened. But a Christian's knowledge is still with faith because it is still possible (even if not probable) that it didn't happen and His followers are mistaken. When I consider my faith (as opposed to general academic usage of the word), it is definitely not the same but is still similar to absolute certainty 100%. Christian apologist Gary Habermas tries to prove the resurrection "beyond rational doubt," meaning there is no good reason to doubt and plenty of good reason to believe. So Lara Buckak would consider the argument to not use faith, as so many other academics would. But not me specifically, as a Christian.