I am moving on to Craig's sixth chapter and skipping the fifth. I am doing this because the fifth chapter is on the "fine tuning" argument, which focuses on an accumulation of evidence rather than if/then proofs. While I think the fine tuning argument is important, and it is good for Craig's flow as he steps us closer and closer to the Christian God, I want to save this argument for later. With that being said, I am moving on to Craig's sixth chapter, which zooms us in to the moral argument. |
0 Comments
I wrote a few weeks back about the Syrian refugee issue. Dwelling more on the topic got me to thinking about some of the deeper questions that arise - particularly the issue of how morality and "oughts" are derived. Whereas in the last post I focused mostly on what our response should be, in this post, I want to explore why I think consistent Christians should strongly consider throwing off the stereotyping of refugees (and other groups) and allow the refugees into the U.S. (with strong and reasonable precautions and adequate vetting) - or at the least have a positive attitude towards them and help them abroad. I also want to explore why I think systems without a strong moral grounding - particularly on an atheistic system - can't consistently argue for the same acceptance and love. This is by no means intended to say that atheists aren't altruistic or can't be altruistic. Rather, I am fascinated with the atheistic worldview and what should logically follow from holding that worldview consistently. Since atheism provides such a strong juxtaposition to Christianity at its core, it helps to highlight Christian thought and importance. I want to explore the grounding of acceptance and stereotyping from both worldviews.
Some recognize that objective morality exists, but don’t recognize its grounding in God. And some people deny that God exists altogether. This particular topic, the absurdity of life without God, starts from the very beginning. It is largely geared towards individuals who view meaning, value, and morality as being wholly independent of a divine being. Therefore, it is a particularly powerful argument to use with atheists. However, it is also a great discussion to have with Christians who are doubting their faith, or considering the strengths of atheism. This topic provides us with the motivation to seek out whether or not God exists, and spurs us on to find the deeper answers of how those aspects play out. While it doesn't lay out evidence for the existence of God (Craig will do that in the next chapter), it does paint a vivid picture of what a life lived consistently and without delusion should look like under atheism.
I understand that stereotyping can be bad, in a sense. It is dehumanizing and disrespectful to attribute ills or deficiencies simply because someone is part of a particular group, without getting to know the individual. But in another sense, why should naturalism concern itself with denouncing stereotypes? In fact, naturalism should be encouraging them, as I plan on showing in the following paragraphs.
|
*The views and ideas on this site are in no way affiliated with any organization, business, or individuals we are a part of or work with. They're also not theological certainties. They're simply thinking out loud, on issues and difficulties as I process things.
Categories
All
|