Atheism's Moral Bankruptcy

Of the many points of contention existing between atheists and theists, the topic of morality frequently takes center stage. Theists often insist that without a god to anchor objective moral obligations and duties, humans are free to behave anyway they please. Atheists counter that they too espouse ethical positions, and that to ground morality in a mythical god does nothing to address the problem of ethics in a post-Christian world. The debate ultimately turns upon the origins of morality and whether these origins provide sufficient reason to compel morally responsible behavior. 

No one denies that atheists routinely behave ethically; in many cases their behavior is identical to that of theists, and the Christian community ought to acknowledge their sincere desire to live responsibly. What remains uncertain is the legitimacy of their intellectual justification for privileging any one moral system over another. While we may certainly commend atheists for their eagerness to seek goodness over evil, we must gently remind them that their worldview makes no allowance for the existence of objective moral duties, and if they oppose theism they must also relinquish any claim to a pervading moral reality.

Why Bother Arguing?

This tactic is difficult for even some Christians to understand. Isn't it enough that atheists are trying to do good? Shouldn't we encourage them to behave ethically and stop quibbling over philosophical nuances? All valid points, but I think it absolutely essential that we demonstrate the inability of the prevailing secular models – namely materialism or secular humanism – to provide a cogent account of one of the most fundamental concerns confronting humankind: ethics. When the atheistic paradigm is shown to fall short of satisfying our need to order our interactions with one another, the intellectually honest atheist must chose to either abandon ethics altogether, or to reconsider theism. Driving the debate toward this dichotomy seems to me both compassionate and intellectually responsible.

The Problem of Objective Moral Duties

Are atheists really in such a philosophical predicament? Let us quickly consider their limited options. Given secular naturalism, materialism, physicalism or any similar atheistic worldview which precludes the existence of anything beyond corporeal matter, an atheist must derive his or her moral system from the physical processes and chemical interactions which constitute the material world. The primary mechanism responsible for practically all of these phenomena, claims the materialist, is natural selection. If the atheist wishes to provide a credible argument for the existence of objective moral duties she must not only show how natural selection produces ethical inclinations in human beings, but also demonstrate why we ought to continue abiding by those conditioned behaviors even after we have discovered their contingent, biologically derived origin in a random process of mutation. The problem is that we can easily imagine how the environmental constraints which allegedly shaped the evolution of humankind could have been different, which would have resulted in a different ethical impulse other than the one we experience now. In other words, there is nothing at all necessary about morality if its origins reside in natural selection. Morality, as defined under this naturalistic model, might change with the evolution of the species, and no compelling argument for its universal application is available.

Alternatively, the atheist might argue that the human being's capacity to reason has enabled her to make decisions which benefit the species as a whole, and that each of us is morally obligated to behave rationally in order to secure an orderly, just civilization. Reason is certainly a powerful resource by which to evaluate contending ethical claims, but only when working in the service of an explicit goal. Only when atheists posit a goal, such as securing social harmony, promoting equality or perpetuating the species can they then apply reason to determine how to achieve it. But an end goal, or teleology, is precisely what is missing in any naturalistic account of the universe. Science and natural selection offer no indication of there being any goal to its processes, only random, directionless replication of DNA. Without a goal to focus our ethical behavior, any atheistic preference for one moral system over another reflects an arbitrary whim and cannot be defended philosophically.

Nowhere Left to Turn

What else can the secular naturalist offer in defense of objective moral duties? Unfortunately, nothing else remains but a frighteningly indifferent universe which allows for no distinction between any sorts of behavior, ethical or otherwise. And while it's true that I have simplified the arguments to permit a quick overview, we need only turn to one of atheism's preeminent thinkers to arrive at the same conclusion. In his final book before his death, Richard Rorty wrote, “There is however nothing in existence to which our moral convictions should try to correspond. [...] The answer to the question 'Are some human desires bad?' is: No [...] There is no such thing as intrinsically evil desire.” This refreshingly candid confession by a world-renown atheistic philosopher promotes the only intellectually consistent position atheism has on offer, moral relativism.

The sooner atheists confront the unsettling consequences of their position the sooner they are likely to turn to theism for answers. Christians have a responsibility to exemplify compassion when debating atheists, but we can also leverage the intellectual inconsistencies of their moral prejudices to draw them into a deeper consideration of theism.

Traditional Christmas Songs are Usually About Jesus Being Quiet. Why?

Ever noticed how many Christmas songs focus on Jesus being quiet?  Our most traditional hymns seem to be enamored with describing a silent baby - and little else.  Here's some examples:

Warning: this post might criticize some of your favorite songs.  You may want to turn back, now, if you're terribly nostalgic.


1 - Silent Night

Let's look at the lyrics of this song.

Silent night.  Holy night.

All is calm.  All is bright.

Round yon virgin, mother and child

Holy infant so tender and mild

Sleep in Heavenly peace.

Sleep in Heavenly peace.

So, this song is about Jesus being quiet and calm.  And a strangely bright night that is also very quiet.  (Why is it so bright at night?)  And why does that verse do little more than emphasize that Jesus was not making any noise?

When the song is over, I feel like I'm the only person in church who realizes that we just sang about a how calm He was.  For many people this is the most dramatic part of the service, but the song always leaves me confused and nearly asleep (due to the lullaby-ish melody).


2 - O' Little Town of Bethlehem

O little town of Bethlehem

how still we see the lie

Above they deep and dreamless sleep

the silent stars go by

This song usually follows, or precedes, Silent Night, so I get to spend a good amount of time on Christmas Eve considering that Jesus was apparently born on an oddly quiet evening.  This time we're singing about an entire city being peaceful and never entering REM sleep overnight. 

Of course, that song does move away from the extolling the virtues of quietness and into some theological stuff, but we still have to spend a decent amount of time singing about a lull in the air.

"He's being quiet.  Someone should write a song about that."

3 - Away in a Manger

This song has six verses.  The first two describe Jesus sleeping, quietly.  Then this happens:

The cattle are lowing

the baby awakes

the little Lord Jesus

no crying He makes

Everything was going just fine, until some thoughtless cow made noise near the manger.  But, don't worry - Jesus was still not making noise!  Whew, that was a close one.

Christian theology teaches that Jesus' birth was a miracle by which God became man and, in doing so, was able to offer redemption to the world.  But these songs are more interested in quiet children.  (Is it possible that these songs are just propaganda tunes written by parents of loud children?)

As you can see, it's easy to spend half of a Christmas-themed church service singing about Jesus' introverted behavior as an infant, but I can't figure out why.

How You Can Help Others this Holiday Season (Even Though Money's Tight For All of Us)

Everyone likes charity and giving to others, but it's not always as easy as it sounds.  Which charity should you support, and how much should you give?  A lot of people want to help out, but never come up with a real plan and, as a result, they never really manage to do as much as they would like.

But it can be simple.  Most charities will help you set up a regular donation, and you can usually do this on their website.  My wife and I give a monthly donation to the North Texas Food Bank and we've been doing it for years without really any work on our part.  The money is automatically taken from our bank account and feeds hungry mouths in our town.

How much should you give?  Start with an amount you won't miss.  Sure, it's cool to give half of your salary, or something dramatic like that, but you might not be able to make a gesture of that magnitude.  So, just think of a number that you can live with.  Could you do without $10 a month?  $20?  Would you even notice that amount leaving your account?

$10 might not sound like much, but it can buy enough food to give a few people a meal when you put it in the right hands.  Even a donation of a few dollars a month is helpful.

But how do you choose a charity?  I recommend looking for groups in your area, and then doing research on them.  You can actually check out charities on the Better Business Bureau website.  Not every charity will be there, but it's a good place to start.  If it's a local charity, then it shouldn't be too hard to find out if they actually have a place where they feed the needy or hand out clothing - you can just drive around and see for yourself.  Another tip is to ask if the donation is tax deductible - even if you're not planning on the deduction - because if it's a fake charity they will not be able to do that.

Find a charity you can believe in and consider donating a few dollars (or a lot of dollars) to them, each month.  You'll be making a big difference and you won't even notice.  It's easy, so do it.  Today.  And when you give thanks this Holiday season, you'll know that you've passed along some help to people who need it.

(Some of you might wonder why I've mentioned local charity to the exclusion of international aid, or some other way to help people.  Every method of charity is fine, but I think what I've recommended here is a simple way for people to get involved with just a few moments of their time.)

I forget I'm engaged

Last summer my fiance's band played a show.  He had several tasks beforehand so I decided to met him there.  I got ready at home after not seeing him all day and jumped in the car with my roommate to drive to the venue.  When we arrived he met us outside and escorted us through so we didn't need to pay the cover charge.  For some reason this still surprised me even though it had happened the same way before.

Then, we went to sit in a booth.  My fiance sat down first.  My roommate walked behind me.  I paused, a bit too long, when deciding where to sit.  I felt everything pulling me to sit on the side opposite my fiance, where  my roommate could sit next to me because, as it had been for my whole life previous, I thought my place was to sit with my female friend and not the 'boy.'  My roommate noticed the pause, and I had to say something.  I mentioned it was still weird to sit by 'a boy' after a lifetime of sitting by roommates.

This strikes me as similar to our relationship with God. Often I think analogies like this end with, 'so just rest in God' as the moral.  That's not really my point, all though it is accurate.  Being engaged to a fiance most accurately reflects a Christian's current relationship with God.  The church is described as being the bride of Christ, not yet being married.

Currently still engaged I notice every day the uniqueness of the situation. I don't always feel engaged.  I don't feel like I'm almost married.  In many ways my life hasn't changed yet.  I still have my own place.  I still have my own last name.  I'm not legally tied to him.  Everyone knows we are engaged and everyone knows we aren't married yet.

At the same time I still have privileges I wouldn't otherwise.  I'm signing us up for things together.  I put his name down on a variety accounts (wedding registries) and paperwork.  I have a key to his apartment and took over the decorating.  We have a joint bank account for the wedding but still maintain our old separate accounts.

In a Christian's relationship with God we have access and privileges we wouldn't otherwise also.  I can access the power of God.  I can rest in His peace.  But it is easy to not always feel that way because just like I don't yet live with my fiance Christian's don't live in the fullness of God's kingdom.  We still live in a place marred by sin.

It's easy to forget our position as Christians just as it's easy to forget that I should sit by my fiance. I didn't fault myself for not remembering to sit by my fiance right away.  I realized it's a process and over time it will get easier and more natural. As I type this I even think it sounds a bit silly to forget, but I did, I do and I'm sure that many other people do also.  When still living in an environment that speaks of the old it's easy to forget the new. But the new will come, in my marriage and with God's kingdom and until then we just need to remember privileges we already have.

5 ways introverts can evangelize

A couple of months ago, I wrote an article on this site on the topic of whether or not it is a sin to be an introvert. Unbeknownst to me, I was joining a pretty big discussion, led, in large part, by Adam McHugh, author of Introverts in the Church: Finding Our Place in an Extroverted Culture. Along with his now discontinued blog, www.introvertedchurch.com, (which still has lots of great articles in the archives), you can find a lot of great resources and ideas for how use the gifts associated with introversion in positive ways in the church. I've found these resources helpful, since recently the topic of introverts and evangelism resurfaced for me, and I've found myself trying to come up with some ways that introverts can evangelize within their comfort zones -- that is, using their natural gifts. It is, of course, important for all Christians to do things that are not comfortable when the Holy Spirit leads us to, but, as I wrote before (and as McHugh agrees), the American church largely favors extroverted ways of doing things, especially extroverted ways of evangelizing. So, here are five ways that extroverts may be able to join in the evangelism effort without striking up conversations with total strangers:

1. Give a speech, perform a song, act in a play, etc. that presents some aspect of the Gospel. This one will not be for all introverts, of course, because some introverts dislike public speaking or public performance. However, it is a great misconception that all introverts are afraid of public speaking; indeed, the vast majority of people I've met who are afraid of public speaking are extroverts, but, of course, that's only been my experience. What introverts are often afraid of is spontaneous public speaking (or public praying, etc.) Give an introvert some time to prepare, and a little artistic freedom, and they can often provide a quite moving and effective public speech or performance.

2. Make something beautiful that expresses some aspect of the Gospel and share it. Paint a picture, write a poem, take a beautiful photo -- and share it! Again, not all introverts are artists, but many artists are introverts, due to the introspective nature of artistic creation, and encouraging artistic contributions to church worship and evangelism efforts could be a good way to help introverts get involved.

3. Listen. Not all sharing of the gospel is about talking. Introverts are often skilled listeners, and the gift of non-judging, attentive listening, can speak volumes about the love of Christ. (note: this probably won't happen with a random stranger on a first meeting; it will probably require slow steps over time to get to know the person being listened to)

4. Perform acts of service that show Christ's love. The acts will be as varied as the individuals performing and benefiting from them, and, as with number 3, above, these acts will require time to slowly build relationships and show more explicitly the reason behind the actions.

5. Lead or join a very small group in a discussion of a book, film, album, etc. that expresses spiritual themes. This type of interaction is much more effective for introverts, who value thoughtful, deep discussion of ideas over small talk that requires spontaneous responses. Also, the small size of the group is key, and the subject matter provides direction for the conversation so the introverts aren't stuck not knowing what to talk about.

My list is, of course, biased toward myself -- an artistic type who enjoys performing in front of people. These suggestions wouldn't work for all introverts, but they could be useful for a few who feel that they have no options that work with their natural temperament when it comes to sharing their faith. More importantly, it would be a good idea for church leaders to make options such as these available to people when encouraging their congregation to evangelize or when forming church outreach programs. In the meantime, I've got McHugh's Introverts in the Church queued up on my Kindle so that I can find out more.

"Poll Watching"

It's election week. Let's keep things in perspective.

"The choices we make Tuesday could have MASSIVE and PERMANENT effects on the charts on Nate Silver's blog." http://xkcd.com/1130/

Things You Should Know About Guy Fawkes Day (Before Wearing that Mask)

It's Guy Fawkes Day in England, which means that Fawkes will be burned in effigy throughout his homeland to celebrate the fact that his plot to blow up parliament in 1605 was a failure.  (This is done even though he wasn't ever set on fire.) 

Youths all over the world wear Guy Fawkes masks when they promote anarchy under the impression that they would make him proud with their attempts to undermine their government, but they're wrong.  I don't think he would understand these anarchists, at all.

Guy Fawkes was not trying to blow up Parliament in order to create anarchy.  His goals were actually much more religious than that: he was hoping to set up a Catholic state.

Far from the anarchist he is portrayed as, Fawkes was protesting Protestant leadership and wanted to see his nation impose a Catholic rule on all of England.  Ever heard of an anarchist who wanted religious leadership from the government?  Well, that's what Fawkes was all about.

 "A mask of my face would be...fabulous."

The other thing to remember is that he was not a military prodigy.  Fawkes did not mastermind the Gunpowder plot, he was just the guy who was supposed to guard the explosives, and when he was caught checking on the gunpowder barrels the conspiracy was found out.  Fawkes was tortured until he talked about his comrades, then he managed to kill himself before being sent to a violent death by the authorities.  (Not only is it strange that Guy Fawkes is burned in effigy when he was never set on fire in his life, but the event is also commemorated with large fireworks displays that represent an explosion that didn't happen.)


So, wearing a Guy Fawkes mask while you protest Wall Street or upload computer viruses doesn't add up, and it makes about as much sense a dressing like a medieval Crusader while opening a checking account.

"Follow me to the land of free checking!"