How Christians ought to understand faith and history

I was speaking with a friend on the way back from church and we started talking about the history of the Bible and how it relates to our faith as Christians. She commented that she didn't feel like studying other parts of history from the Bible because there were some commentators that said that it was a possibility that the story of Jonah wasn't historical. She said that if it wasn't historical then it would be troubling to find other things that would make historical inquiry more difficult. Thankfully, from the leading of the Holy Spirit, I was able to make some comments that not only helped her but also gave encouragement to me as well.

There are two extreme assumptions that Christians will sometimes and oftentimes make when approaching the Bible as history. First, one extreme is to say that just because the Bible says it I believe it and that settles it for me. While it is true that God did inspire the words of Scripture, it is never warranted to make an assumption like that and then behave as if we are relieved from investigating and studying the Bible we hold in our hands. In fact, this assumption doesn't hold any weight in how we live life. Do we assume that something is trustworthy and reliable and refuse to put it to the test? Should one automatically believe that someone is worthy to be trusted with money if they never loan money to see where it goes? So Christians ought not to use the truth that God inspired the Bible as an excuse to not study or engage with it in matters of history.

Second, many Christians approach the Bible with the assumption that they must prove or show that everything in the Bible is historically true or else they can't believe it's the divine word of God.

Now why do some Christians do this? One, they believe that in order for an event to be historical as mentioned in the Bible, it must be corroborated by other direct means of history. Like for example, take the account of the Hebrews crossing the Red Sea. Now there isn't any corroboration from outside sources that mention this occurrence. Now does that mean it's not historical? No of course not because tests of historicity can only be applied in a positive sense. Not in a way that would disprove something as being historical. Now there appears to be a problem here. If we could show that every account of history in the Bible was supported by archaeology and outside sources then it would almost seem that we wouldn't need faith to have trust that its reliable. Now someone might say, " Did you not say that for something to be trustworthy it must be tested?" Of course I did. But there's a distinction needed to be made. Not every particularity needs to be shown to be accurate in order to legitimately believe that the entirety or the whole is trustworthy. Are we to tell someone that unless they can prove themselves in all areas they are unworthy of our trust? I thought that trust was needed in the face of some difficulty or mystery.

I believe that in order to resolve this misunderstanding we need to change the way we think about how our faith in God relates to the Bible, history, and how God works in our lives. First, we need to realize that faith in God is primarily necessary in the most important facets of who He is and His nature. Let me explain what this means. We can have good solid reasons to have faith in God because of the crucial things He has shown to be true about Himself and what He has done. Those things are up to shown to either reveal God's credibility or to show that He fails. This amazingly done in the case with Jesus being raised from the dead. You might think that if Jesus was really God as he said, then he would need to prove it there's only one thing God can do that man has never done: Resurrect from the dead. If God can do that, then he has proven enough about Himself and who He is. Even if we have doubts about other issues that are frankly minute compared to his resurrection, we can have confidence that those issues will be better understood and resolved in the future in light of the most important thing He has proven for himself.

We also need to realize that the Bible's trustworthiness as a historical compilations of records is not demonstrated on the grounds of every account being proven to be historically true. In fact take the Gospels for example. These writers were obviously not straightforward writers of history. They had a point to make and prove and to get us to learn a lesson from the account. Now they did use history as a mechanism to show their point about peripheral things and about things that mattered the most to them. They wanted to to tell us what happened, from a certain point of view, in a way that was essentially historically true. We should not demand the Gospel writers to get every point right before declaring them to be accurate writers. Are we to expect everyone we know to never be wrong about a single point before believing them to be trustworthy? Now, someone might say that the Bible is more than just a historical recollections. IT'S THE INSPIRED WORD OF GOD! While this is true and I'm a firm believer in inspiration and inerrancy, I think it creates or puts an unrealistic burden on God to try to show that all is true and supported by other sources because it supposedly or possibly misses the reason or purpose behind why God inspired it to begin with.

Lastly from a logical and experiential perspective, I think that God calls us to walk by faith and trust Him in areas of difficulty and uncertainty in light of what we are certain about. In fact, if there was no mystery or difficulty about God or someone you love, then what need would there be for trust?! One doesn't need faith to know whether someone is standing in front of him or not (assuming he isn't blind). One does need faith to trust him whether he's going to betray that person's trust or hold sacredly to it. So in light of all of this, I think we need to understand that God doesn't operate under the assumption that in order for us to believe in Him, He has to prove every point about Himself to us to meet our radical expectations. Such requirements are highly presumptuous and extremely inconsistent in how we wish to be treated.

In wrapping this up, I think we are to understand what in terms of history, the Bible has proven itself many times and in the most compelling way (Jesus' resurrection from the dead). In light of that, our salvation in Christ does not depend or hinge on a single place in scripture waiting to be proven. Trust and faith only needed to be founded on the essential issues that surround Christianity and not every particular that might linger in the background unresolved. Christians need to distinguish between a discrepancy and a difficulty. Both are quite different. Discrepancy is either a mistake or a difference that is in danger of revealing the inadequacy of the text. A difficulty is an issue that involves something that appears to be a contradiction or something that is yet to be shown accurate. Once both distinctions are made, one can have great confidence in the Bible. I hope this note was encouraging to you and will influence your thinking as a Christian when approaching the Bible in matters of history and faith!

The Issue of Objective Morality

The debate about the subjective nature of moral values versus their objective reality continues to rage between atheists and theists from a broad spectrum. What is the most common approach in the debate that is taken by theists in defending their position? By far one of the most influential proponents of traditional theism and Christianity is Dr. William Lane Craig who is a research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology. Dr. Craig has a particular format in which he constructs an argument for the objective nature of moral values in the universe. The argument goes as follows: If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist. Objective moral values exist. Therefore, God exists. Though this argument is quite convincing and powerful, it was difficult to put it in a way that would be easily explainable and defendable. I certainly had trouble understanding two issues. First, how are we able to recognize that an objective moral command or value is not based on society but independent of it? Second, are there any clues within the uniform experience of humanity that can give rise to the conclusion that objective moral values really do exist and have a transcendent foundation for all people? This essay is going to attempt explaining and answering both questions in a clear and concise way as possible.

First, what about the first question? Well philosophers have two terms that can be very helpful in understanding this core issue. The terms are epistemology and ontology. The former is about how we come to know something over time or through some kind of mechanism. The latter is about the nature of the subject or the foundation and grounding that justifies its truth. These terms are very important not to confuse as many oftentimes do. Let us tackle the first question: “How are we able to recognize that an objective moral command or value is not based on society but independent of it?” Sometimes I will hear people say that the reason why we have certain moral laws or commands is because it has been set in stone or sanctioned by the government or society. So, according to this understanding, rape, child abuse, and murder are morally wrong because that is what society has said and if we disobey these laws we will suffer the consequences. Now what are some of the problems with this way of thinking? One problem is that it suggests that whether something is true is dependent on how we come to know it or how we come to affirm it over time. A second problem is that it suggests that what is legal is moral and what is illegal is immoral. What the problem with this is because there have been cases where society has commanded certain things that I think anyone (including myself) would believe is immoral. Things like the Holocaust, and the tyranny of Stalin and Mao and Hitler were legal in the sense that the government sanctioned them. But what about the Jews in the Holocaust? If someone were to save the Jews and keep them from being captured and killed, then according to the government he was acting immorally. Are we to say that whatever the government dictates automatically justifies whether it’s true or not? What if the United States government were to create a law that commanded that the elderly be killed or “put to sleep”? Would we be immoral if we were to think it was an immoral command and therefore go against what the society has dictated? I certainly think not. So clearly there are no reasons why we should think that just because society has defined something as morally right or wrong, we should automatically conclude that it is moral or immoral.

A second problem is that it commits the genetic fallacy. The genetic fallacy in this sense is saying that how a belief originates or developed automatically shows it to be false or true. This can show that even if it were a good judgment on society to illegalize murder and prostitution, this wouldn’t prove by itself that murder is really wrong because whether a statement or a belief is true or not is an ontology/foundation issue and not about how we came to know it. All this would prove is that society has come to recognize that people as a whole should be treated right and they have affirmed people’s rights about morality and just treatment. But then again, going back to the first paragraph, we would be inconsistent in this way of thinking if we insisted that society has acted immorally when they legalize extermination of the elderly. So if we’re to be consistent with this way of thinking, then we must allow for both ways. In fact, we have to allow for almost all scenarios where government would command clearly immoral actions. It ultimately eliminates objectivity of right and wrong. So whether a belief or moral value is true or false is completely independent of how people or society comes to affirm them or recognize them over time because it results in inconsistencies of the reasoning and it commits the genetic fallacy. So if someone tells you that it is right for us to treat other kindly and to respect each other and to not commit murder, rape, or abuse children, challenge him to show how something is true simply because people come to affirm it over time. By the way, people do have finite knowledge and we certainly don’t always recognize what is moral or immoral so we can’t be the standard of why something is right and why another is wrong.

The second question goes like this:” Are there any clues within the uniform experience of humanity that can give rise to the conclusion that objective moral values really do exist and have a transcendent foundation for all people?” Someone, like you and I, might be thinking, “Since we already know that society can’t be the standard for objective morality, and then is there any hope of establishing that?” My answer is yes there is an answer to this dilemma. How do we know that objective moral values exist in the world among humanity? Well I think there are some reasons that can help establish the truth of this statement. First, people’s expectations of moral treatment from across all cultures presuppose objective moral values. What do I mean by this? Let’s suppose you have a guy named Fred. He likes to travel the world and go different places and visit different cultures. Now when he is back in the states, he would like to be treated as a human being with moral rights as anyone would. Now what happens when he steps into other cultures? Does his understanding change? Not at all. In fact he still expects to be treated with dignity and respect regardless of what airport he steps into or what country he visits; it ultimately doesn’t matter where he goes. So, how he thinks, he thinks that moral values and duties are required to be exercised regardless of where he is located. So he believes, through his beliefs and actions, that culture doesn’t decide what is morally right or wrong! Whether he is in China, India, Bulgaria, Russia, Ukraine, Great Britain, or his hometown, he expects to be treated morally and fairly. Now does this doesn’t just apply to one person but to all human beings because all human beings (at least within the realm of our knowledge) believe that they should be treated right, regardless of the situation. Notice I didn’t say that they believe they should treat others right regardless of the situation. I only applied this truth to themselves and not to the other person. Second, how people react in situations also strongly suggests that objective moral values exist. This relates to the fact that whenever a person is the victim of a certain act that he/she thinks is immoral, her/his reaction suggests that there is a way to treat others regardless of where one is from. This reveals the fallacious thinking in that moral values aren’t more than mere opinions and go no higher than society because what happens when that person is treated as if morality is really subjective? He is outraged. Even a criminal believes he has been wronged when someone harms him or someone he loves (i.e. his family or friends) because his reactions confirm that there are moral and immoral actions that aren’t dependent on what the majority say or what government legalizes.

Now the illustrations of what I gave above don’t by themselves prove that objective moral values exist but they do prove that a world without objective human rights and values is ultimately unlivable and extremely inconsistent in its thinking. In fact, based off society, if one says society is the authority for moral values then that means he has to switch his mindset on moral values in certain cultures that don’t affirm what his culture does! Like if a man living ,in the states, believes raping a child is immoral, then he will have to give up that right if he lives or visits another country where raping children is authorized or allowed. What this shows that if moral values are dependent on society, then it becomes arbitrary. It is arbitrary because just because someone comes to believe something therefore justifies the truth of that statement or belief. This can go both ways with immoral and moral commands of society and people must be willing to consider these implications.

But are there any positive evidences that objective moral values exist? I believe there are. This is where I will address the ontology or nature of these values and explain why they matter. If something is true, then it is true in its own nature or otherwise it’s not objectively true. Let’s take murder for example. Is murdering people really immoral? Well, if we’re going to say it is true that murder is immoral then we need to give reasons or justifications completely independent of our knowledge and ability to detect their validity. First, murder is immoral because it is a violation of human value. Can we say legitimately that we are valuable creatures simply because we have come to recognize our own value? No we can’t because we didn’t always know we were valuable and neither did the first person who existed. Whether that person is really someone valuable or not has to be established on a foundation that is independent of his knowledge and ability to discover his own identity. If that is established, then he is in perfect right to affirm his own value because he didn’t’ come with it. So whether something is true or not has to be established on the grounds of its own nature. Where do we get our value from? From our parents? Where did they get theirs? And the questions go on and on and we reach a dead end because you have to ask the first person where he got it from. So if this is a necessary truth – a truth that exists by its own nature and independent of our knowledge – then it means that we have reasons to justify that anything is morally right or wrong. Instead of appealing to government which is made up of people (who make intellectual mistakes all the time) we can appeal to a Higher Law (Every law requires a law maker) who out of his own nature gave us the foundation for apprehending our moral values. Now this does not mean that something is moral because God calls it moral or immoral which would make it arbitrary. This means that something is moral because it comes from His own nature who exists not contingently – dependent on our knowledge or ability to detect it – but necessarily. Unless we can accept this as the truth for all morality, then we ultimately don’t have any basis for calling something immoral because authority is needed to justify why something is wrong and it has to be established on the grounds of necessity and nature and not “a means to know” or “the ability to affirm or detect”. In fact, any truth statement has to be justified on those grounds and appealing to human knowledge and detection ability is simply not enough to establish the objective nature of moral values because we have seen that it removes the objective basis for our rights. It also can become unlivable.

Conclusion

I hope this essay has helped clarify the issues of objective morality and why we need something in nature and necessity to justify the truth of a statement regarding morality. Anyone wishing to argue contrary to what I have written must provide an adequate answer that will provide a basis for all humanity and not just some. These issues have enormous implications and I say that he who thinks this matter is simple and rejects an open investigation is clearly misled and intellectually dishonest. May this essay help you in defending your faith as a Christian when it comes to matters of morality and whether they are objective or not. You decide.

Where do we get our moral values from?

Interestingly I had a discussion with a married lady tonight about the topic of moral values as to whether they had objective meaning or were merely dependent on our ability to detect them, understand them, or even believe and affirm in our daily lives. She repeatedly said that our moral values come merely from ourselves and our needs in society on how we ought to do things. In other words, God isn't necessary for justifying of something being right or wrong because we are the standard because we need to help each other to survive. I replied that objective moral values (Values that are independent of ourselves and society and exist whether we believe them or not) are real because of how people react to situations whenever their moral values/rights are violated. I went further in saying that if human beings are the standard (making it subjective) then ultimately one is justified in his/her mind for making certain claims about the world and whether one is right or wrong in doing something. In other words, if I think that murder is right in a certain situation and someone else doesn't, we both have given up our basis for human rights or treatment. Essentially that other person could do something to me and even if I complain that was a wrong deed, my rights have no objective basis or meaning because they're dependent on myself. That leaves humanity in a pretty dark picture if you ask me. So I thought I'd think of a different approach in arguing for the objective basis of moral values in a different format than what I am used to hearing in debates by Dr. William Lane Craig. His format of the argument for objective moral values goes like this:

If God does not exist then objective moral values do not exist.

Objective moral values exist.

Therefore, God exists.

Although I have listened to this argument for some time now, it became clear to me that another alternative approach to this argument was needed because of different objections and counter examples that surfaced. So here is the format for my argument for objective moral values. Before I begin, I will be making a deductive argument in favor of objective moral values. A deductive argument means that if the premises are true and more plausible then their negations or opposites, then it follows logically, necessarily, and inescapably that the conclusion is true. Also the premises I will be formulating are necessary in advance to develop the argument so that the argument won't be misunderstood. So here it goes:

The physical universe along with human beings has not always existed.

Almost any scientist who has studied the origin of the universe (whether atheist or theist) has concluded that the universe together with human beings did begin to exist in the finite past. Quentin Smith, an atheist philosopher of physics, said the following about the Big Bang:“It belongs analytically to the concept of the cosmological singularity that it is not the effect of prior physical events. The definition of a singularity entails that it is impossible to extend the space-time manifold beyond the singularity. This rules out the idea that the singularity is an effect of some prior natural process.” That statement means that when the universe existed it did not have any physical prior conditions meant to bring about some kind of springing into existence type of scenario. There was no matter, space, or time prior to the origin of the universe because the singularity is contingent on space, matter, and time in order to exist; not the other way around. Some have tried to say that virtual particles are examples of something coming into being out of nothing. Virtual particles are particles that have no definite amounts of energy because they fluctuate in and out of a "web" of energy that is referred to as a vacuum. The output of energy from the vacuum is the cause for the particles to fluctuate and to appear and disappear. Therefore, this does not mean that the universe didn't begin to exist when it really did.

Although this is not part of my argument, I think that given our uniform experience it would be valid and more plausible to say that given that we are born and came into being shows that human beings have not always existed.

Human beings have certain traits or characteristics that do not come from the physical world (reason, logic, reflection, love, ethical judgments, etc)

This premise means that there are certain aspects about who we are, how we formulate beliefs, and how we come to make judgments about the world we live in and that itself means it did not come from the physical world. But why is that? First, because the physical world only produces effects or objects that are physical in nature. In fact, to follow the rules of logic it would have to be said that something that exists in of itself owes its origin or makeup to a preceding reality that corresponds to that very same object we are describing right now. Let me give an example. What is a computer made of? It consists of a keyboard, monitor, mouse pad, computer chip, hardrive, etc. Now those components which are physical themselves make up the computer. The computer would not be a computer without these basic and essential components. So a physical object or reality is made of physical things and comes from another physical reality preceding it. The same is true also with non-physical or immaterial realities such as love, truth, reason, logic, truth, and etc. All these traits or features themselves do not come from the physical universe because they are not physical things in of themselves. The logic is really simple. Whatever is comes from something that portrays what we are trying to explain. We do not say a rod made of metal displays love to another rod because love is a virtue or element that is exemplified through the free will of a personal agent (i.e. human beings). So we can say justifiably that these virtues or qualities do not come from the physical world.

The origin for these traits in human beings must itself not be physical and must come from a Person (non-persons do not possess these traits)

This statement is somewhat repeating the previous statement so I'll make a second point that somewhat extends from the other statement. These traits come from a Person. Why do I say that? Because the traits, given our background knowledge and experience, point to a reality that has to contain them in order for them to exist at all. In other words, in order to show or demonstrate love and truth to another person, one must be able to contain the attribute of love and truth before being able to exemplify it. Before something is demonstrated it has to exist prior to its demonstration. Do trees or the grass show love to each other? Does the mud in the marsh display truth or does a molecule show mercy to another atom? No of course not. Because those things are physical in nature and have no free will because they are governed by the laws of nature and cannot make free choices. Free choices can only be made by free moral agents who possess certain traits and can exemplify them through their actions. This is acknowledged through our uniform or overall experience in nearly every area of life and I don't know of a single example to the contrary that love, truth, the laws of logic, reason, rationality, and moral judgments come from something or somewhere other than a being or person who possesses these traits and can act freely on them. So I think have good grounds for saying that where these traits come from cannot be from the physical universe or world where we live in because they are physical in their own reality and whose effects can only be seen or witnessed by means of volition. It appears absurd to say that the contrary is true.

Therefore, the origin or basis for these moral values is from God

The reason why I say it is God is because God Himself is seen and identified as a Person who has traits about Himself that are within His very own nature. Now we have seen that (1) the universe has not always existed (along with human beings), (2) that the traits we contain and affirm in our daily actions do not entail a physical origin because the physical world doesn't possess these traits and because something immaterial cannot come from something physical, (3) these traits owe their existence and origin from a Person who Himself transcends time and space and matter (immaterial entities come from immaterial realities), and that Person is God. One could argue that the basis for our affirmations of love come from the chemical reactions in the brain. Well, if that were true, then it would be ultimately meaningless to make ethical judgments because brain (which is physical in its own nature and subject to the laws of chemistry) states aren't about anything, do not contain content, and only react based on their predispositions. Whether something is true or not cannot be justified on mere reactions in the brain because truth is a non-physical reality (it can't be verified by the five physical senses) while can be expressed with a physical mechanism (i.e. the lips or hands) do not and cannot come from something physical. Science cannot prove whether something is wrong or right because moral judgments come from a person who is not physical in their own nature and therefore owe their own existence to a transcendent Person.

In conclusion, we can confidently say that the basis or origin for our affirming objective moral values do not come from ourselves ( we didn't always exist) and neither from the physical world (it didn't always exist and doesn't give off non-physical realities nor contains them) and therefore come from a Person (outside the universe) who himself bears those traits and gave us those traits based off his own nature. A few closing thoughts might be necessary. If one is to say that the physical world is all that there is, then what justifies one to say that something is morally right or wrong or even to affirm the truth or the validity of a certain statement? Since the physical universe doesn't possess the laws of logic, reason, and rationality, then our judgments are merely predetermined and cannot be justified via the laws of logic and reason. Therefore, on that statement alone, nothing is true and there is no love in this world. However, one uses his/her intelligence and the laws of logic and reason to argue that the physical universe is all there is which affirms an immaterial reality for these laws and traits of human beings or persons! So we have good reasons for thinking that our moral values that are within ourselves and are exemplified through our daily actions do come from a transcendent Person who created us with our traits and is not physical. That person is God.