• Home
  • About This Blog
  • Contact Me
  • Subscribe
  • Comment Policy

Attempts at Honesty

Reflections on the interplay of the Bible and Culture

  • Westminster Shorter Catechism Series
  • Sermon on the Mount Series
Home Archives for Philosophy

Getting caught in the blame game – Part 1

Posted on March 3, 2012 Written by Mark McIntyre 1 Comment

Blaming OthersI am neither brilliant nor a philosopher so I make no claims toward brilliant philosophy. Yet I have observed a behavior in humans that I would like to explore. This being a presidential election year, examples of this behavior abound. I am writing about the behavior of blaming others. Where does this need to blame come from?

My question is this: if naturalism, the belief that we are products of natural processes and not the product of divine intervention, is true, they why is there so much effort wasted in finding someone to blame whenever anything goes wrong?

I have a puppy which displays normal puppy behavior. Specifically she likes to chew things and dig. Even when she chews things that are unacceptable (such as human fingers and clothing) I see no sense of remorse in her or the need to blame anyone for the behavior. Another dog of ours felt the need to chase a skunk and displayed no remorse when he came back to the house bearing an odor from the encounter. He ran right into the house as if nothing was wrong or out of the ordinary.

In the case of dogs, one could argue that they act in the way they are wired to act. While humans can change that behavior somewhat, the extent of change is limited. The bulk of their behavior is determined by their DNA.

Humans have the distinction of not only being able to understand and respond to what is, but having a sense of what ought to be. Chance and genetics might explain what is, but they cannot explain why we often think that things should be different than they are.

If we believe that what we are is determined by our DNA, then why bother assessing blame? Why spend so much effort in figuring out who made the mistake, who made the bad choice, who pushed the wrong button?

I will take it one step further. We send future executives to colleges and graduate schools that teach them that they are products of evolution and that there are no absolute standards of right and wrong. They are taught that they make their own rules and no-one can tell them how to live. Then when they live this way in the business world we throw them in jail because they violate insider trading laws or cook the books and bilk millions out of unsuspecting investors. Is this not a double standard?

Why all the angst in the recent “occupy” micro-movement? If Wall Street executives are doing what they are programmed to do, why bother to protest? If naturalism and evolution are true, on what basis are you protesting anyway? On what basis are you claiming unfairness if there are no absolute standards of right and wrong? If strength and cunning are the means of survival, then why protest when the strong and cunning violate the weak and ignorant?

This post will be continued in part two where I will explore how the Bible speaks to these issues and provides a reasonable explanation of what we observe in humanity.

This post is continued in Part 2

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christianity and Culture Tagged With: Bible, DNA, Ethics, Philosophy, Wall Street

Wanted: A Point of Reference

Posted on March 3, 2011 Written by Mark McIntyre 1 Comment

Traffic LightWhen you are sitting at a stop light in your car and see motion out of the corner of your eye, there are two responses. The first is to push harder on the brake pedal and the second is to look at a lamp post, building or some other stationary object to see if your car moving.

To gauge your own movement requires a fixed object as a point of reference.

In the same way, ethics or morality are only valid if there is some point of reference by which behaviors can be compared. There can be no discussion about ethics if there is not a shared moral code by which to judge.

If you start with the premise that there is no God and all that we see is a result of time plus chance, then statements about morality and ethics can only be expressions of preference since there is no basis on which to declare any particular behavior right or wrong.

It appears that a majority of those who espouse the mantra that “there are no absolute values” have not thought through the implications of this belief. If there are no absolute values, then there can be no real discourse to solve conflict. Conflict would then be resolved by the stronger dominating the weak. Do moral relativists really want to live by the evolutionary code of survival of the fittest? If this premise is true, on what basis would the Columbine shooters or the Virginia Tech shooter be condemned? Were they not doing what their DNA told them to do? Were they not pursuing what they thought was the best course of action? On what basis would Hitler or Stalin be condemned? Were they not doing what they thought was best for their respective countries?

Thankfully, these men have been almost universally condemned, but on what basis?

Tim Keller makes the point that if you start with a premise and the results are not in accordance with observed reality, the premise should then be reexamined. We can observe that a majority of people do not live as though there are no absolute values. We collectively value human life. We define some behavior as criminal and punish those who pursue it. Observed reality is that we do define some behavior as wrong, therefore the premise must be wrong.

There is something in humanity that seeks to know where to draw the line between acceptable and unacceptable behavior. Naturalism cannot explain this, nor can it provide a means of drawing that line.

But, if we start with the premise that we are here as a result of a creator God and that He has revealed to us universal principles by which we should live, then we have no problem explaining the desire for standards. In addition, such a God provides the point of reference by which the standards can be established. The premise of a creator God seems to better explain observed human behavior.

Filed Under: Apologetics, Christianity and Culture Tagged With: atheism, DNA, Ethics, God, Philosophy, Ravi Zacharias, Religion and Spirituality

Follow Attempts at Honesty

Honesty in your Inbox

Post Series

  • Westminster Shorter Catechism Series
  • Sermon on the Mount Series
August 2025
SMTWTFS
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31 
« Jul    

Categories

Archives

Blogger Grid
Follow me on Blogarama

Copyright © 2025 · Focus Pro Theme on Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in