“The Christian Post” recently published an article with a thought provoking title, “Atheist Sam Harris Partly Right That God Not Necessary for Morality, Christian Apologist Says.”1 A naïve reader of this article may think that Christianity endorses the atheistic notion that morality does not require God. Is it so? This is our first question.
While discussing this subject within the confines of Historic Christianity, evangelical apologists argue that God is necessary for objective moral values. Thomists, on the other hand, argue that there is a sense in which God’s existence is not necessary for objective morality but they also contend that there is a sense in which God’s existence is necessary for objective morality. Are these views reconcilable? This is our second question.
While speaking at the 23rd annual SES National Conference on Christian Apologetics, Emeritus Professor of Philosophy and Apologetics at Southern Evangelical Seminary, Dr. Richard Howe, affirmed from within his doctrinal position of Thomism (or Natural Law) that God is not necessary for morality, “Is God necessary for objective morality? There is a sense in which that answer is no, God is not necessary for objective morality…”2 Hence, Dr. Howe’s view [partly or in a particular sense] harmonizes with atheist Sam Harris, who also argues that God is not necessary for morality.
Dr. Howe had also affirmed, in that very speech, that God is not a moral being, “In another sense, Howe suggested that it could be correct to say that God is “not a moral being,” if one is looking to “preserve something greater about God.” The apologist explained that “there is something about morality that by its very nature is finite,” which applies to humans but not God.”3
Quite immediately, Dr. William Lane Craig, who debated atheist Sam Harris on this very subject, took a considerate exception to Dr. Howe’s theological position. (Dr. Craig argues for God’s necessity for human morality.)
Dr. Craig reaffirmed that God is absolutely necessary for objective moral values, “…God is necessary for human morality because without God there would be no goodness in the first place…God is necessary in order for there to be goodness at all. The existence of God provides a deeper explanation for why human beings have moral value, namely, human beings in their nature resemble the nature of God.”4
Furthermore, Dr. Craig asserted that God is indeed a moral being, “…since moral obligations spring from God’s commandments and God doesn’t issue commands to himself, God doesn’t have any moral obligations to obey. He doesn’t have any moral duties to keep. In that sense one could say that there is something about morality (that is to say, doing your duty) that is by its very nature finite. But morality includes more than just doing your duty. It also includes value like goodness, and surely we do want to affirm that God is essentially good. Just as humans by their nature have objective goodness, so God, by his very nature, has objective goodness. No being that is not good would be worthy of worship or is the greatest conceivable being. I find it very odd here when he thinks that we shouldn’t say God is a moral being. I think one would say that God doesn’t have any moral duties to fulfill.”5
Means To Reconcile The Evangelical & The Thomistic Views
In his response to Dr. Howe’s speech, Dr. Craig implies a method to reconcile this apparent contradiction. Both these views, inasmuch as they appear to mutually contradict each other, could be reconciled, if we strive to understand the Thomistic position on this subject, “I suspect that that is not the distinction that Richard has in mind…Southern Evangelical Seminary is committed to Thomism as a philosophical worldview. So they are committed to a view of ethics called “natural law ethics.” I suspect that the differentiation that he is making here is probably appealing to the idea that according to natural law human beings have objective and intrinsic value based upon their very nature – what their nature is – and that you don’t need to refer to God in order to talk about the objectivity of the value of human beings on the basis of their intrinsic nature. That, I suspect, is the distinction that he is getting at.”6
Understanding Thomism (With Respect To Objective Morality)
Understanding Thomism within this specific context mandates a thorough comprehension of Dr. Richard Howe’s paper entitled, “Does Morality Need God in Order to Be Objective? The “Yes and No” Answer of Thomism,”7 wherein Dr. Richard Howe explains the following facets of Thomism:
1. The Thomistic definition of morality should only be understood within the context of Aquinas’ Natural Law Theory.
2. The Natural Law is an aspect of the Eternal Law whereby God governs and guides the actions of humans such that, when obeyed, it leads humans to their proper end. The Natural Law is one of the four aspects of law with which God relates to HIS creation:
Eternal Law (God’s providential working of the universe. It is the plan by which God governs His creation)
Human Law (particular application of natural law to local communities)
Divine Law (revelation of God’s law through Scripture to believers)
3. The Natural Law states that since humans have free will, they have the capacity to either choose towards or choose against moving towards their proper end or goal (their perfection). Thus the freedom of the will is a necessary condition for morality.
4. Aquinas understands “moral good” as a subset of “good.” The term “good” is best defined as that toward all things aim (an x is a good x when it has all the perfections that an x ought to have by virtue of being an x).
5. “Moral good” is a narrower concept. Morality has to do with a human choosing an action that perfects the human towards what a human ought to be by virtue of the kind of thing a human is, i.e., because of his nature.
6. The Thomist [and the standard apologetic view] believes that God is not epistemologically necessary for morality (the atheist could know that it is wrong to murder, even if he does not know God).
7. Thomists would disagree with the standard apologetic view if and when the standard apologetic approach is worded in such a way as to suggest that these objective goods (murder, lying, adultery, dishonoring parents) cannot be regarded as goods by the atheist. A case in point being that Aristotle’s “Nicomachean Ethics” is an ethics without God, for the god of Aristotle bears little resemblance to the God of Christianity. Therefore, if Aristotle, without knowing God, can produce an excellent work on ethics, then it would be incorrect to say that an atheist cannot recognize objective moral values.
8. Thomists argue that God is necessary for objective morality because:
A. Everything needs God in order to have any attribute. Without God, man cannot exist, for God created man.
B. God, who superintends all of HIS creation, directs man to his proper goals.
C. The precepts of morality take on their strongest obligatory aspect when man understands moral precepts as God’s commands.
D. Since humans are fallen beings, God’s special revelation is necessary for man to understand and fulfill his moral obligations.
E. Knowledge of the right thing need not necessarily empower man to be morally upright. Man ought to be led by God’s Holy Spirit to live right.
F. Man’s proper goal is not limited to the natural end within this life, for man also has a supernatural goal of being with God unto all eternity. This ultimate goal can only be achieved by the grace of God.
Thomism [Christianity] Does Not Endorse Atheism
The source of this discussion is an article that displayed a title alluding to a rather unholy doctrinal harmonization between Christianity and Atheism. Dr. Richard Howe was portrayed to be the culprit who endorsed atheist Sam Harris’ view that God is not necessary for morality. However, a proper understanding of Thomism offers the realization that the Thomist does not and cannot, by any means whatsoever, endorse atheism.
Endnotes:
1http://www.christianpost.com/news/atheist-sam-harris-right-about-morality-and-humans-but-god-still-necessary-says-christian-apologist-170897/, accessed 18th January 2017.
2Ibid.
3Ibid.
4http://www.reasonablefaith.org/is-god-necessary-for-morality, accessed 18th January 2017.
5Ibid.
6Ibid.
7http://www.richardghowe.com/index_htm_files/Morality.pdf, accessed 18th January 2017.
With reference to Dr. Richard Howe’s comment that God is not a moral being, read his paper7 for further clarity.
A related discussion at http://randalrauser.com/2017/04/human-rights-based-response-andy-bannister/ is interesting.
____________
SCBrownLHRM
Part 5:
In Closing – Reason and The Golden Thread of Reciprocity:
Non-Theism’s appeals to mutable perfection (….”god”….) seems odd. As does Non-Theism’s eternally open-ended “goal” (…”good”…). Precision is a priority here and so “odd” is not the right word. A better term would be either [1] metaphysical impossibility or perhaps [2] absurdity.
The eternally open ended teleology of Non-Theism is forever just a few steps removed from successfully obligating reason (…in her fact-role of truth-finder…) should she disagree with Goal-X. Non-Theism has not overcome Hume’s (etc.) rational refutation of the morally *un*reasonable. Reason finds no obligation to chase after the illusory and therein “…useful but not true…” is all that “emerges”. Because that is all that *can* emerge. Of course, even there the employment of the term “useful” again begs the question. But that’s all Non-Theism has to work with.
Paradigmatically speaking, such is a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in the Christian’s metaphysic. The Golden Thread of Reciprocity is affirmed by natural theology, is perceived by reason, is seen by Non-Theism, but Non-Theism must foist a metaphysical impossibility as irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory.
Reason is obligated (…in her fact-role as truth-finder…) to chase after *facts*, after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is.
Within the Christian metaphysic it is the aggregation of logically compulsory moves which carries reason (….in her proper roles as truth-finder….) into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic constituting the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum as nothing less than Being Itself presents reason with an irreducible substratum within the contours of love’s indestructible reciprocity. All definitions stream from *that* metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility such that the Imago Dei itself and Reason itself and the Beautiful itself and the Rational itself are – all – in fact ontologically seamless with what is nothing less than the Moral landscape.
____________
scbrownlhrm
Part 4:
That’s enough here as the best and brightest of the Non-Theists have already done the Christian’s work for him.
Hence we need not even introduce the thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic of the Christian nor love’s timeless reciprocity therein which constitutes reality’s irreducible substratum. Nor the fact that we find reason in her proper role as truth-finder factually obligated to chase after the fundamental nature of X (…which is *always* the case…) where X is the only (morally) reasonable option – namely that unique substratum of love’s irreducible nature.
Of course reason is *free* to chase some *other* end, only, then she will have ceased in her (proper) role as truth-finder (….. contra-reason….) and will then have chased after the factually (and morally) *un*-reasonable.
A brief excerpt from Oderberg:
Aristotle’s discovery (not invention) properly orients (aims) reason as truth-finder. We say “discovery, not invention” because chronological epistemological movements never can define ontological (metaphysical) ownership of ultimate truths. Hence morality before Sinai – because *God*. Hence morality after Sinai – because *God*. The force of law (….and that includes Sinai…) just isn’t much according to Scripture’s definitions of Moral Excellence. Of course popularity and the day’s latest fashion are all the Non-Theist’s tools will allow him and so he has got to dance to that melody.
Whereas, [1] Christianity’s metaphysic of course shows how disharmonious that “culturally normative” Non-Theistic melody truly is and [2] history itself is a good demonstration of that disharmonious-ness. Therefore Christianity, history, and reason all track together in one seamless narrative throughout all of Mankind’s painful peaks/nadirs.
We find in the No-God paradigm (…..wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory…) that reason, will, appetites, and reality find no irreducible moral nature to chase after, to fulfill, to reason towards. Non-Theistic maps of all kinds lack any such ontic-terminus and are – painfully – therefore eternally open-ended. Hume rightly observed that, given such tools, it is not and in fact cannot be contrary to reason (….in her proper role as truth-finder….) to prefer the destruction of the whole world over the scratching of one’s finger. Hume was right after all. And Carroll, Ruse, and Rosenberg with him.
Again: It would be helpful if the hold-outs highlight some of the arguments of Rosenberg, Ruse, Hume, and Carroll in charitable form and then demonstrate where they fall down regarding the fundamental nature of reason and reality. We’d enjoy reading the hold-out’s demonstrations of where those rather bright fellas go off the rails.
Continued…..
Part 3:
Whereas, within the Christian metaphysic it is the aggregation of logical compulsory moves which carries reason (….in her proper roles as truth-finder….) into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic constituting the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum as nothing less than Being Itself presents reason with an irreducible substratum within the contours of love’s indestructible reciprocity. All definitions stream from *that* metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility such that the Imago Dei itself and Reason itself and the Beautiful itself and the Rational itself are – all – in fact ontologically seamless with what is nothing less than the Moral landscape.
Reason as truth finder has every (justified) prerogative to chase after reality *as* reality. Given the non-Theistic paradigm, the rational is (therein) perfectly seamless with the (non) moral. Enter the “ontic non-entity” of the Non-Theist’s blind-epistemic which he labels “sociopath”. Whereas: Love’s timeless self-giving in and of Trinitarian processions awaits reason at the ends of all vectors (….given the Triune God…) such that should reason chase after some other constitution amid “one-another”, some other form or procession or contour, she would then be (factually) contra-reason, or factually *un*reasonable. The rational is (therein) perfectly seamless with the moral.
Non-Obligation:
Regarding the pains of Non-Theism’s eternally open ended teleology vis-à-vis “goal” (….that statement reveals the absurd….), see Oderberg’s fundamental test or primary criterion of the moral a few paragraphs down.
The Non-Theist’s explanatory terminus is eternally open ended. And irreducibly indifferent. And reason knows it. She’s got this thing for facts.
Obligation:
Reason is obligated (…in her fact-role as truth-finder…) to chase after *facts*, after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is.
Reason presses forward:
The unavoidable result is that while the facts measured in all of the Non-Theist’s various metrics are real, they do not (cannot) change the fundamental fact which Hume, Carroll, Rosenberg, Ruse, and a growing tide of younger, more honest, gutsier New Non-Theists eager to get to the point affirm with respect to the fundamental nature of objective truth, the rational, and what is and is not contrary to reason. Any notion of supposed ultimate/cosmic worth of any self or any notion of any reach of any justice inside of a universe devoid of (ontic) moral facts, devoid of the triune’s irreducible and fundamental processions constituting love’s timeless self-giving is, simply put, “…nonsense on stilts…“
That a few Non-Theists hold out and try to disagree with Hume, Carroll, Rosenberg, Ruse, and that growing tide of younger, nervier Non-Theists with respect to the nature of reason and reality is interesting, though the premises and arguments of the hold-outs are not nearly as cogent as the crisp intellectual honesty seen in that bolder current.
Therefore it would be helpful if the hold-outs highlight some of the arguments of Rosenberg, Ruse, Hume, and Carroll in charitable form and then demonstrate where they fall down regarding the fundamental nature of reason and reality. We’d enjoy reading the hold-out’s demonstrations of where those rather bright fellas go off the rails.
Continued…..
Part 2:
Whereas the Trinitarian processions of love’s timeless self-outpouring find that the rational with respect to reason as truth-finder is in fact ontologically seamless with the moral. Therein (to borrow a phrase from Feser) “….what reason therein apprehends is (given the convertibility of the transcendentals) as good and beautiful as it is real….”. The triune God presents us with the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum which of course presents reason with reality’s irreducible substratum.
Paradigmatically speaking the Christian metaphysic thereby constitutes a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in any Non-Theism and in fact we find that the attempt to “add” to any Non-Theistic paradigm’s irreducible substratum – ad infinitum – attempts a metaphysical absurdity whereby irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference such that the convertibility of the transcendentals which reason apprehends is finally illusory.
Humanity’s general consensus on several fundamentals is expected given natural theology. The problem with Non-Theism is that it sees The Golden Thread Of Reciprocity but it cannot connect it to reason’s obligation in her (reason’s) role as truth-finder (….see Oderberg’s fundamental test or primary criterion of the moral a few paragraphs down…).
Within any Non-Theistic substratum it is the case that reason, will, appetites, and reality find no irreducible moral nature to chase after, to fulfill, to reason towards. Non-Theistic maps of all kinds lack any such ontic-terminus and are – painfully – therefore eternally open-ended. All Non-Theistic definitions stream – ad infinitum – from a metaphysical bedrock within which reason is found attempting the metaphysical absurdity of irreducible self-giving trading on irreducible indifference and the final sum of that irrationality is nothing less than a kind of ontic-psychosis in that the convertibility of the transcendentals which reason apprehends is finally illusory and ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.
Continued…..
Reason And The Golden Thread of Reciprocity:
Reason in her proper role as truth-finder is obligated to chase after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is. The Non-Theist’s paradigmatic termini have so far failed to bring reason and reality together.
The rational with respect to reason as truth-finder cannot be ontologically seamless with the moral given the No-God paradigm wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory. Given the No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend is (….given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals…) ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.
She (reason) in her proper role as truth-finder is obligated to chase after what *is*, after *facts* and justifiably so. As such the Non-Theists Hume, (physicist) Sean Carroll, Alex Rosenberg, Michael Ruse, and countless others find no obligation on reason’s part to prefer, chase after, the scratching of one’s finger over the destruction of the world. That is to say that the “morally *un*-reasonable” is, simply, impossible given the No-God paradigm wherein irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory.
There again we find that in any No-God paradigm what reason claims to apprehend is (given the non-convertibility of the transcendentals) ultimately unable to traverse the ontic-ocean from the good and the beautiful and to the real.
Continued…….
Regarding the golden thread of Reciprocity:
Reason is obligated (…in her fact-role as truth-finder…) to chase after *facts*, after the fundamental nature of X, whatever X is.
Within the Christian metaphysic it is the aggregation of logically compulsory moves which carries reason (….in her proper roles as truth-finder….) into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic constituting the timeless diffusiveness of self-giving as such relates to the Ontic-Self in totum as nothing less than Being Itself presents reason with an irreducible substratum within the contours of love’s indestructible reciprocity. All definitions stream from *that* metaphysical wellspring of all ontological possibility such that the Imago Dei itself and Reason itself and the Beautiful itself and the Rational itself are – all – in fact ontologically seamless with what is nothing less than the Moral landscape.
Paradigmatically speaking, such is a radically different explanatory terminus than we find in any Non-Theism. THE GOLDEN THREAD OF RECIPROCITY is affirmed by natural theology, is perceived by reason, is seen by Non-Theism, but Non-Theism must foist a metaphysical impossibility as irreducible self-giving trades on irreducible indifference and the convertibility of the transcendentals is finally illusory.
__________
scbrownlhrm
Morality precedes Sinai.
Because God.
Morality outdistances Sinai.
Because God.
Scripture and reality converge.