A talking donkey? That's nothing
“So you think there actually was a talking donkey?” so ended a recent conversation with an atheist friend. It was more an accusation than question, but he was reminding me that what I believe has consequences. Belief in God as a reality and the Bible as His word, means I accept the reality of a talking donkey. I enjoy these kind of discussions, because if Christianity can’t stand up intellectually and historically, I don’t want anything to do with it. But as I drove home I started thinking, ‘a talking donkey’ that’s nothing. 1
Compared to the other things I believe and their consequences, a talking donkey is pretty inconsequential. For I believe that the Creator God:
- Made the universe. And the universe in question is so big that we don’t actually know how big it really is. But what we do know is that light from the furthest point away took 14 billion years to reach us!2
- Filled this universe with more galaxies than I can comprehend.3
- And in one galaxy, formed a planet in one solar system to meet the incredibly “goldilocks” criteria for flourishing plant, animal and human life.
- Created humans on this planet made up of cells that have more complicated components than most super factories.4 And created these humans to flourish in his world.
You get the idea, right.
But this belief in a creator God has some incredible consequences. It means I have an intellectual basis for why rationality can actually be true and real part of this universe and not something humans have imposed on it. i.e. equations in science accurately describe reality.
It means that there is a basis for human morality. For without a creator God who sets a standard, morality is reduced to a grand ‘Sez who?’ in which we could impose any moral / immoral system we liked. But there isn’t even a necessity to have a moral system. For if there is no Creator, there is no need for morality at all since the universe arose out of chaos with no moral purpose or moral basis. And, so any moral code is actually being imposed on reality.
It means that I believe people are of infinite value because they are made in the image of God rather than a result of a long, infinitely complicated but ultimately random set of events. For if the latter is true, people really are just randoms, nice randoms maybe, but ultimately meaningless randoms.
It means I believe that there is a spiritual dimension and need to our lives that cannot be answered with just more and more material or experiential goods.
And this is just for a start. I haven’t yet discussed then the possibility that this God might act to make himself known and reveal himself through Jesus, the second person of the Trinity.
So, in light of my belief in the reality of God and the consequences of this belief, a talking donkey uttering just a couple of sentences is nothing at all really. If the Creator God could create a universe of such incredible complexity and wonder and human beings with equal complexity and wonder then God enabling a donkey to speak couple of sentences is not so incredible.
However, I now have a question for my atheist friend. How do you account for rationality or morality or the value of people given that what you believe has consequence?
For without a Creator God there is no true basis for why the universe or our thinking about the universe ought to be rational. And if there is no God who created the people and the universe with moral purpose, there is no basis for morality. Yes, we might try to live with moral principles and some of us might do some good occasionally, but there is no real reason to. And finally, if there is no God then people are the unintended result of an unintended universe.
So, then if we put aside for the moment the historical evidence for Jesus and any other consideration and reduce the issue to choosing between Christianity and atheism, based on the reality that beliefs have consequences, what would you choose? Given the loss of a basis for morality, the value of humanity and the reality of rationality, if you choose atheism, I’d prefer to go with a talking donkey every day of the week.
1 The two other weird bits of the Bible atheists love to reference is the 500 ex dead people appearing after the resurrection of Jesus and Satan in the garden of Eden as a talking snake. Incidentally, it is an interesting argument in itself. Let’s find the handful of really, really strange texts in order to reject the other 99.5%.
2 http://www.nasa.gov/audience/foreducators/5-8/features/F_How_Big_is_Our_Universe.html
3 ‘Hubble observed a tiny patch of sky (one-tenth the diameter of the moon) for one million seconds (11.6 days) and found approximately 10,000 galaxies, of all sizes, shapes, and colors.’ Our single galaxy the Milky Way has billions of stars in it. Reference http://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-are-galaxies/
4 Check out this animation representing what is happening in one cell. http://www.xvivo.net/animation/harvard-protein-packing/
Image courtesy: Clubhouse Junior blog
Glen said: "Belief in God as a reality and the Bible as His word, means I accept the reality of a talking donkey."
I rest my case. Have a good one, Glen.
I suppose I should address your question:
Glen said: "I now have a question for my atheist friend. How do you account for rationality or morality or the value of people given that what you believe has consequence?"
What are you saying "rationality" and "morality" are for me to account for? I suspect we will have different understandings of these terms and that is where we will end up talking over each other if we don't clarify. Here are my understandings of those terms - how I think they are typically used and understood:
"Rationality" is a principle of thought regarding how best to determine between multiple competing hypotheses to explain a phenomena. A rational determination would be one preferring the hypothesis that is most evident and requiring of the least amount of new assumptions. Hope that makes sense.
"Morality" is the term we use to describe relationship between actions and their consequences of the well-being of conscious creatures. A "moral action" is one that contributes to the well-being of conscious creatures, and an "immoral action" is one that is detrimental.
The sooner we can clarify these terms, the sooner I can get to "accounting" for them.
A few other points: Glen said: "For without a Creator God there is no true basis for why the universe or our thinking about the universe ought to be rational"
I don't see how the assumption of a 'Creator God' guarantees you a true basis for why the universe or our thinking about the universe ought to be rational. Also, my understanding of your beliefs about God is that you also believe God can, has, and will, send 'deceiving spirits' and hardened people's hearts etc. Your worldview also has you believing in other supernatural beings (Satan and his crew) who also have the ability to deceive. So not only do I not see that the unnecessary assumption 'Creator God' guarantees you a basis for why the universe or our thinking about the universe ought to be rational, but that things are even less certain under the Christian worldview with its full list of supernatural beings who can, have, and will, mess with people's understanding of reality.
Thanks for your comments. Some atheists have drawn out very clearly why we need God for a basis for morality. In short, if there is no fundamental, objective good in the universe how can anything be good or bad. I haven't tackled the rational issue yet, I'll come to that soon.
• Jean-Paul Sartre: "when we speak of 'abandonment' – a favourite word of Heidegger – we only mean to say that God does not exist, and that it is necessary to draw the consequences of his absence right to the end. The existentialist is strongly opposed to a certain type of secular moralism which seeks to suppress God at the least possible expense. Towards 1880, when the French professors endeavoured to formulate a secular morality, they said … nothing will be changed if God does not exist; we shall rediscover the same norms of honesty, progress and humanity, and we shall have disposed of God as an out-of-date hypothesis which will die away quietly of itself. The existentialist, on the contrary, finds it extremely embarrassing that God does not exist, for there disappears with Him all possibility of finding values in an intelligible heaven. There can no longer be any good a priori, since there is no infinite and perfect consciousness to think it. It is nowhere written that 'the good' exists, that one must be honest or must not lie, since we are now upon the plane where there are only men. Dostoevsky once wrote: 'If God did not exist, everything would be permitted'; and that, for existentialism, is the starting point. Everything is indeed permitted if God does not exist, and man is in consequence forlorn, for he cannot find anything to depend upon either within or outside himself."
• Paul Kurtz: "The central question about moral and ethical principles concerns their ontological foundation. If they are neither derived from God nor anchored in some transcendent ground, they are purely ephemeral."
• Julian Baggini: "If there is no single moral authority [i.e. no God] we have to in some sense 'create' values for ourselves ... [and] that means that moral claims are not true or false… you may disagree with me but you cannot say I have made a factual error."
• Richard Dawkins: "The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose [i.e. no God], no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference."[6] Dawkins concedes: "It is pretty hard to defend absolutist morals on grounds other than religious ones."
These quotes are from this article by Peter Williams. He has a long and sustained piece on moral questions and God.
http://www.bethinking.org/morality/can-moral-objectivism-do-without-god
Sorry, still haven't gotten onto the rationality issue. But sticking with the moral aspect, I'd like to critique the definition offered (respectfully). Here is the definition of morality
This definition of morality has two problems, First, It is consequentialist understanding. The right action is determined by its consequences. Did it achieve 'well-being' or was it 'detrimental'? But how can we truly know? For something might seem detrimental initially but is actually a thing of well-being. Take for instance, helping an addict come off a damaging drug. Going into withdrawal is detrimental but long term should lead to well-being. My point here is that this is the problem with a consequential definition. Which consequences should we evaluate and when? We can't know absolutely.
And this brings me to the second issue and the more important one. The definition assumes good exists and we can somehow know it. You can see this in the very words 'Well-being' and 'detrimental'. They assume something is good or bad. But can there even be good or bad in a universe without God or transcendent values anchored in it in some way. This takes us back to the blog's main point.
Glen said: "if there is no fundamental, objective good in the universe how can anything be good or bad"
You need to clarify what YOU’RE saying "morality", "good" and "bad" are. Otherwise I’m lost. As far as I understand “good” is the word we use to describe actions that are beneficial to individual and communal well-being.
Under my supplied understanding of the term "morality", these relationships between actions and their effect on well-being can be measured in the same way we measure 'health' objectively via the methodologies of science. If you are having problems with my definition, I'd ask what word YOU would use instead of "morality" as your umbrella term to describe the relationship between actions and their consequences for the well-being of conscious creatures? That is what morality is as far as I can see. That is the way the word is typically used and understood.
Glen: “But how can we truly know [whether an action is beneficial or detrimental to well-being]? ... We can't know absolutely."
That's right. Don’t see that we can know absolutely, in the hardcore 'absolute knowledge' philosophical sense. And I don’t believe for a second that you ‘absolutely know’ everything there is regarding these relationships either (and I’m sure you don’t claim to). Yes, Glen, we all have times in our life when we think we're doing the right thing to help someone/s, only to realise later that we were wrong – that what we were doing was actually detrimental to their well-being - and vice-versa. Nothing surprising there. I am always quick to acknowledge that morality is HARD. In particular, it’s often very hard to predict the long-term effects of actions we see positive short-term effects. Nothing new there. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But neither do I see that you absolutely know either. All that said, I still think we can "know" many things about morality (the effect of actions on well-being) in the way the word "know" is typically used and understood. You and I both know that drinking battery acid will be detrimental to your well-being, for example. Well-being (like "health") can be slippery to pin down sometimes, sure, but this doesn't mean we can't know anything.
"The definition assumes good exists and we can somehow know it"
Not quite. I am using the word "good" as a label for those actions that are beneficial to well-being. It's not that I'm defining it that way, per say - but that I think this is the way the word "good" is typically understood in the context of discussion on "morality". “Goodness” refers to actions that are beneficial to well-being. “Bad” actions are detrimental to it.
Your objection here is like saying "The definition of 'speed', that is, the relationship between the time and distance traveled assumes '70 km/hr' exists and we can somehow know it". Yes, we can demonstrate that something can take one hour to travel 70km, therefore fulfilling our definition of what '70km/hr' "is". In that sense '70km/hr' "exists" (at least as a useful concept). Same for morality. We can demonstrate that doing action x will have positive effects on someone's well-being and thus fulfilling our definition of a "good" action.
But like I said, I can't really continue this conversation until I understand what it is YOU’RE saying "morality" (and its related terms "good", "bad", etc.) are. Give me a definition of how you use these terms.
Glen, I'd much rather continue this conversation in person (and anyone else who is reading). See you on Sunday hopefully.