Board index ‹ Morality

[Scape211]

Thanks Jim. I generally try to get people to understand the difference in the ontological and epistemological angle. Most people usually understand or have the epistemological thought already since we discover morality through society, interactions, family, experiences, etc. But the concern is always how we know it truly exists.

I would assume a good approach is to get people to think of this reality like other known concepts that are metaphysical like math or logic right? Thats usually what I try to do since no one tries to say 2+2=5 subjectively. We all know math is real and that they are objectively wrong.

To me it seems that if morality is real in the objective sense it must be grounded. We typically ground that in God. However, morality as a concept (not real) can just be derived from our values especially if it's subjective. I would assume when an atheist goes into 'hard atheism' they are talking about morality as a real thing; not a concept. Eeven a hard atheist has values. They just likely don't use the term moral values

[jimwalton]

Atheists don't even mind the idea of morals, but they insist two things: (1) It just comes from within ourselves; it's individually based and individually set (what's right and wrong is up to us); and (2) society can work just fine this way.

But when I bring up examples like Hitler, Stalin, or Pol Pot, they brush it off or don't respond. The real problem is that there is no definition of right, let alone any kind of standard, if it just comes from within ourselves. It opens the door for any horror that someone considers to be "right" and "good," like Eugenics, the Holocaust, or any genocide. By this definition, roaming gangs of looters and shooters can deface what they want, shoot whom they want, burn what they want and steal what they want because in their mind it's "good" and "right." Society can't work this way.

[Scape211]

1. There is no notion that the imago dei (the image of God) has any relationship with morality. First, is the image in us, or is it us? Second, many feel that the image of God is expressly stated in Genesis 1: to rule and subdue, i.e., that we are God's co-regents. Third, other perspectives on what that imago dei is range all over the map, with speculations touching just about every area of humanity. That the imago dei has anything to do with morality is simply not a position we can take any kind of firm stance on.

Hey Jim. I was reading Romans 2 this morning and thought about this comment you made a couple weeks ago (sorry to necro the thread). In v.14&15 we see:

14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

I know this may not be addressing morality directly, but the idea of something being 'written on our hearts' is difficult phrasing to pin down and one I was curious about. I've heard Christians use this often when addressing morality. For instance, Frank Turek will use this phrase to talk about how we inherently know right from wrong. Is there a difference between this being written on our hearts vs being made in His image? Does/should either have a bearing on morality?

[jimwalton]

There is no connection either implicit or explicit in the text between what is "written on the hearts" and the image of God. The thrust of the text is that everyone stands guilty before God (Rom. 1-3). Even though the Gentiles have some knowledge of God through various natural means (the natural world and their conscience), the text declares that humanity has frustrated this purpose of God by its resistance and rejection. In so doing, it has not merely forfeited the knowledge of God accessible to it, but God has traditionally withdrawn this knowledge. God has "given them over" to a dark mind. His revelation is now that of a broken line. But they are potential he remains a relic of the direct knowledge of God through natural means, but it poses both a benefit and an indictment. The knowledge that people have does help them, but it also condemns them if they don't follow it. In other words, God has nowhere left himself without a witness, and decisions in his direction are always possible outside of special revelation, but God is now obscure to humanity.

Therefore, Paul is not specifically talking about morality, because being good is not the path to God, and Paul doesn't want to get close to suggesting anything that could be interpreted that way. On the other hand and by the same token, there any knowledge of right and wrong shows that God has put some notion of himself out there to be perceived. That they could know enough to do right some of the time render some without excuse for never doing wrong. Only when God’s law is fully written on the heart in Christ (Rom. 8.2; Jer. 31.33) will it be internalized enough for people to live out God’s righteousness.

John Aloisi explains: As Paul is intending and will later explain more fully, the conscience operates in a purely mechanical manner. It does not involve a distinct ministry of the Holy Spirit. A conscience may be educated by special revelation or weekend by faulty information. It may be pragmatically molded by social custom and civil law, and it can be seared as a result of habitual disregard (1 Tim. 4.2; Titus 1.15). People may feel guilty when they are rebuked by their conscience, but such guilt is a response somewhat like that of the tactile nerves when they cause a body to recoil from pain. The human conscience keeps people from progressing in sin as readily as they would if they never experienced guilt, but it should not be confused with the Holy Spirit’s work of conviction. Conviction is a special work of the Holy Spirit which is always performed in connection with special revelation. Conviction involved convincing sinners of things which could not be known apart from special revelation. Therefore during the current age conviction may only be experienced by those who have some contact with the Word of God.

So, yes, this phrase about "written on the hearts" does pertain to some inherent knowledge of right and wrong, but Paul's point is not morality. It's salvation. There is no connection here, however, with the image of God.

[Scape211]

That makes sense. It was just something that didnt quite make sense to me when people connected them or considered them connected. Almost felt like a leap to get there.