Please wait while my tweets load 
The “Problem of Goodness”
Dec 10 | Pastor J.D. | 11 Comments |
Thought this was a great piece by Chuck Colson in Christianity Today on why naturalism (i.e. the belief that nature is all that there is, there is no God and evolution explains everything) has failed to provide a convincing rationale for our innate sense of goodness. Simply, if there is no God, there is no such thing as good and evil. Certain naturalists have attempted to explain why altruistic actions can be better for the species as a whole and thus have "survived" in the fittest (though that in itself turns the whole process of natural selection on its head), but they have failed to explain why those altruistic actions are "good." In other words, we might be kind to someone else because somewhere deep down we know it's good for the species, but doing something solely because you delight in the happiness of another has no place in evolutionary scheme.
"But the evolutionary explanation for altruism is really just selfishness in disguise. According to this reasoning, when a volunteer offers to give his time to a help a child… it’s not goodness – it’s a kind of enlightened self-interest. We do what we perceive as good for others so that they, in turn, might do the same for us, thus increasing both of our chances for survival. But that, of course, isn’t altruism at all.Recent advances in neurobiology show that the impulse toward altruism may even be hardwired. For instance, practically from birth a baby who hears the cry of another baby will cry also. However, when scientists play a recording of the sound of that child’s own cry, rarely will the baby respond. By about 14 months, not only will that infant cry when he hears another infant crying, he will also try to soothe the other child in some way…. Of course, we’ve learned many ways to shut down this response, but it appears that our brains have been hardwired for compassionate action – the opposite of the kind of wiring natural selection would have produced." (emphasis mine)
In other words, naturalistic evolution can’t explain why justice is good, just that it is an adaptive trait. But so is cheating, lying, and killing. Why should certain adaptive traits be shunned but morality embraced? Dawkins gives no reasoning.
A couple of books that I've been reading that have really helped develop this thought are John Haught's God and the New Atheism and David Bentley Hart's Atheist Delusions. Here's my favorite quote by the latter, regarding Dawkins' book God Delusions: "It probably says something about our culture that we have lost the ability to produce profound unbelief.” (220)
11 Responses to “The “Problem of Goodness””
Leave a Reply
Subscribe via Email
Pages
Summit Links
J.D.’s Resources
Facebook
Vimeo
I think the evolutionary argument makes perfect sense. I think it is wrong, but that it makes sense.
They are proposing that evolution, not the divine, has caused the human understanding that what is good for the species as a whole is good for individual members of the species. Certainly some animal species display that same sort of behavior in ways, and I’m not sure it is from some sort of divinely inspired sense of good and evil. If you see the human as just another animal, but more advanced in evolution, the argument makes absolute perfect sense.
I don’t think recent advances in neurobiology are ever going to prove God even in the slightest. He is Spirit. Don’t get me wrong though, they won’t prove Him false either, and there is nothing wrong with using these sorts of arguments to battle those who try to use science against us.
But most importantly, God is proved when our gospel goes out to the lost not simply with words, but also with power, with the Holy Spirit and with deep conviction. The gospel is proved when we live among the lost, full of obedience and the Holy Spirit, for their sake. They not only hear of the power of God, they see it, they feel it… then they will believe it.
See 1 Timothy 5:17
God bless,
Thanks, Jason. I guess the question that you (and they) assume is a) why the human species needs to be protected; b) how we adjudicated between which adaptations are moral and which are immoral. They define good as “good for the species.” It is a utilitarian “goodness,” assumes the value of the thing that is good for, and provides no basis for evaluating which biological adaptation are truly good. If rape is genetic and promotes survival, how possibly can it be called “evil?” If killing down syndrome children is good for the genetic future of the species, how can it be called evil? Some might try to postulate that keeping down syndrome children alive is good for the species… but don’t miss that when they don that they are saying that compassion for the ds child is not good in itself, only useful.
Or take the question of truth itself. Dawkins wants us to believe him because what he says is true. But why is truth good? Who cares what is true? The amount of religious people in the world alone should lead us to assume religion is a helpful adaptive trait, even if it is false. Why care at all about truth? Dawkins’ whole argumentation approach (i.e. we should strive to believe what is true) belies the very conclusions he is trying to lead us to (all that functionally matters to us is the propagation of our species.)
Furthermore, he assumes his mind has the cognitive capacity to perceive “truth,” even though his mind is simply conditioned to perceive what is helpful to itself. Why trust the mind at all?
Darwin himself noted this in one of his letters, a quote i find fascinating:
“With me the horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man’s mind, which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would anyone trust in the convictions of a monkey’s mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?” (Letter to W. Graham, July 3, 1881)
J.D. – I think you make excellent points and very logical arguments. I just think the naturalists have excellent responses, logically speaking. I *believe* they are wrong, but they are perfectly logical.
For instance, we could ask them, “If rape is genetic and promotes survival, how possibly can it be called evil?” They could respond (and many do), “Why would the nonexistence of God adversely affect the goodness of mercy, compassion, and justice?” They might *believe* those traits can exist in and of themselves, just like you *believe* God exists in and of Himself.
So all of this logical argumentation really begs the question of whether or not God even exists. We each make our assumption, and our logic cannot prove that God exists.
“We do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, our weapons have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments…we take captive every thought…” – 2 Corinthians 10:3
Paul wasn’t demolishing arguments with logic, but with “divine power”, the power of God that fills those who obey, the power he speaks of in 1 Timothy 5:17, and the same power that healed my disease and instantaneously had me believing in God. I was a complete naturalist at the time, and this power of God broke my chains as I listened to a man do nothing but read Scripture in public (a passage I wasn’t even paying attention at all and which I don’t even remember anything about).
This the same power that healed many in Luke 6:18,19. They came to “hear” Jesus, but ended up being healed because “power was coming from him and healing them all.”
The reason people don’t believe has very little to do with logic, they just think it does. The real reason they don’t believe is because we haven’t shown them the power of God. Our churches false doctrines have not produced enough people who are *living* the truth while they publicly speak and read the Scripture.
When we do that, hearts and lives change. Wholly by the power of God in our lives, and not by any logical argument, we show the lost that their underlying assumption is wrong. God does exist.
J.D. – I think you make excellent points and very logical arguments. I just think the naturalists have excellent responses, logically speaking. I *believe* they are wrong, but they are perfectly logical.
For instance, we could ask them, “If rape is genetic and promotes survival, how possibly can it be called evil?” They could respond (and many do), “Why would the nonexistence of God adversely affect the goodness of mercy, compassion, and justice?” They might *believe* those traits can exist in and of themselves, just like you *believe* God exists in and of Himself.
So all of this logical argumentation really begs the question of whether or not God even exists. We each make our assumption, and our logic cannot prove that God exists.
“We do not wage war as the world does. The weapons we fight with are not the weapons of the world. On the contrary, our weapons have divine power to demolish strongholds. We demolish arguments…we take captive every thought…” – 2 Corinthians 10:3
Paul wasn’t demolishing arguments with logic, but with “divine power”, the power of God that fills those who obey, the power he speaks of in 1 Timothy 5:17, and the same power that healed my disease and instantaneously had me believing in God. I was a complete naturalist at the time, and this power of God broke my chains as I listened to a man do nothing but read Scripture in public (a passage I wasn’t even paying attention at all and which I don’t even remember anything about).
This the same power that healed many in Luke 6:18,19. They came to “hear” Jesus, but ended up being healed because “power was coming from him and healing them all.”
The reason people don’t believe has very little to do with logic, they just think it does. The real reason they don’t believe is because we haven’t shown them the power of God. Our churches false doctrines concerning works have not produced enough people who are *living* the truth while they publicly speak and read the Scripture.
When we do that, hearts and lives change. Wholly by the power of God in our lives, and not by any logical argument, we show the lost that their underlying assumption is wrong. God does exist.
Jason, I do not dispute your “power of God” necessity in evangelism at all. But that does not speak to the logical fallacies of dawkins’ argument or of the helpfulness of our pointing out those things. For example, when Bart Ehrman says that history clearly demonstrates that Jesus was not raised from the dead or that Jesus never claimed to be God, we don’t simply retreat to our prayer closet and beseech the power of God. We certainly should do that, but not that only. Paul certainly did not. His sermons contain, logic, historical evidentialism, and any number of apologetic tools. While the power of God is, by far, the greatest catalyst in conversion, logic, evidential reasoning… these all have their place. As CS Lewis said, “Good philosophy (insert here science or history) must exist in order that bad philosophy must be answered.”
In the case at hand, it is a logical contradiction to say that “goodness” “truth” and “beauty” can “just exist”, because the naturalist credo is that matter is all there is. Goodness, truth and beauty are immaterial, and thus excluded from “just existing” in an exclusively material universe. To say “they just exist” would contradict the very premise of naturalism.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying logical argumentation is bad. I’m just saying that the argument your blog post is fighting makes perfect sense to me. Something can be wrong, but still make perfect logical sense. For instance, I might believe I’m about to be terribly hurt as you swing a bat at my head. My theory makes perfect logical sense. Once I’m hit and find the bat was made of play foam… my logical theory is wrong.
“Is it a logical contradiction to say that goodness truth and beauty can just exist if matter is all there is?” A naturalist could say matter exists that we don’t know about yet. We discover new sub-atomic matter constantly. We discover new chemical reactions in the brain, and still have no idea how the brain works. If I posit that undiscovered matter has long been causing the existence of these realities in the universe, not your eternal God… I could be right. You could not prove me wrong.
As far as Bart Ehrman, show me I am wrong if I am, but I highly doubt he would argue that history proves that Christ is not raised from the dead. Rather, Bart argues that history cannot prove that Christ was raised from the dead. There is a huge difference. The first is wrong. History cannot prove anything, it can only give us estimates of probability. Bart is a historian. Bart knows this. Bart says that Christ didn’t raise from the dead because he *believes* Christ didn’t raise from the dead, not because history has 100% “proven” it to him.
All of Bart’s evidence, as great and talented a historian he is, goes out the door once his life is healed by the power of God.
History can give us evidence toward one result or the other, and I think we are wise to look at that evidence. I’m not saying we shouldn’t stand up to Bart and point to the contrary evidence of the resurrection. However, Bart has a very reasonable and perfectly logical response. Logic will not win that man to Christ. Only the power of God can prove to someone’s heart that Christ is raised from the dead.
Besides, Ehrman sometimes has more truth then some of us. “Christianity has never been about the Bible being the inerrant word of God,” Bart Ehrman says. “Christianity is about the belief in Christ.” http://personalmoneystore.com/moneyblog/2009/05/15/bart-ehrman-jesus-interrupted/
Right on Bart. “For the people of this world are more shrewd in dealing with their own kind than are the people of the light.” (Jesus, Luke 16:8)
http://www.unc.edu/home/jasondm/inerrancy.html
Well, Jason, you’re consistent, in the broken-record sense. Somehow this winds around again about inerrancy… Perhaps you could start a blog on errancy?
Bart was just an example; the point being that bad history and bad logic can, and ought to, be corrected, and we are not betraying our confidence in God’s power when we do.
For whatever it is worth, I did not say that Bart claimed history “proves” anything, but that he has been very clear that historical evidence (he believes) points against, not toward, the resurrection of Jesus or His claims to divinity. He is wrong, and we are right to note as much.
Bart does recognize the Bible claims inerrancy for itself, and that most Christiant through history have believed it, a point he makes in a number of his books.
As far as goodness and beauty being “sub-atomic particles”… I’ll leave that for the reader to decide.
Sorry to come back to inerrancy.
I only meant to point out that the doctrine not only divides churches, but it divides souls from Christ. The unbelieving world is not attracted to strife and discord, but to peace and love.
Bart is right when he says history clearly demonstrates that Jesus was not raised from the dead. That is what it demonstrates to him. To someone else who looks at the evidence under a different assumption, like me, history demonstrates the opposite. History cannot prove anything about the resurrection. That is by Design.
I’ll leave it at that. God’s peace to you,
PS… just as you said did not say that Bart claimed history “proves” anything, I did not say goodness and beauty are sub-atomic particles. I said they are caused by them (one could argue). Someone could theorize that we sense goodness in our physical minds because of… oh… nevermind.
This argument is pointless. Which I guess was my entire point in the first place.
If they are caused by a sub-atomic particle, that still provides no rationale for why good is “good” and thus to be embraced or why “evil” is “evil” and thus to be avoided. Good and evil are still just as arbitrary as brown hair or blonde.
that was really my point in the beginning. there’s no goodness to good or reason, other than arbitrary preference, as to why it should be pursued.
If you really truly put yourself in their shoes and assume what they assume (assume there is no God, in other words), then you will be able to come up with a perfectly logical response to the very argument you are making.
So I’ll respond to you, instead, with a Scriptural argument. Good and evil can be just as arbitrary as brown hair or blonde to believers too. Even demons believe in God, and shudder (James 2).
“Unless you repent, you will all perish.” (Luke 13). This applies to both believers and non-believers, my friend. See John chapter 8 where some who heard Christ “placed faith in Him” and “believed Him”. Then, literally just a few breaths later, they attempted to kill their God. To them, good and evil were still just as arbitrary as brown hair or blonde. Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. (James 2:17)