If Morality Arose from Humanity
Then Humanity Defines Morality
This is an example of circular reasoning, an informal logical fallacy. The conclusion arises from the cause and the cause defines the conclusion; the problem, one has not made a case for the conclusion based on provable premises. Unfortunately, this logical error occurs all too frequently in discussions, especially in the media where time is of the essence so various stereotypical images or types are substituted as proof for one’s forced dilemma conclusion (yes, another logical fallacy).
Notice my title and you will discover that it directs you to the content of this post but also to its conclusion. if I provide no other proof or supporting arguments then this would be an example of a false dilemma; however, I propose to support the conclusion of the title with various points that you may or may not agree. By way of side note, most debates are not over facts but over presuppositions or the context that best explains such facts. Thus, most discussion will be rejected if the reader does not accept the basis of the discussion, just so you know.
The source that prompt this series of posts came from, “how to be an (a)theist” by Mitch Stokes (Crossway. 2016.). I stumbled across this work attending the G3 Conference (Atlanta, GA. 2017.). I had discussed evolution from a biblical perspective but had not read a compelling philosophical argument until I read this work. Mr. Stokes uses evolution’s own scientific theories against itself proving that science cannot live up to its hype. By this Mr. Stokes does not deny that scientific achievements in the empirical realm have been impressive, nor do I. But people have tried to make science relate to issues for which it was not designed; i.e., the non-empirical realm (that which lies beyond the five physical senses).
Evolution postulates that life began without a god, spontaneously, and has developed randomly in an upward spiral ever since. Though Mr. Darwin did not originate the concept of evolution, he was the first to attempt to put evolution into a coherent “scientific” framework (what I call pseudo-science). I will not address the validity of physical evolution as it is not pertinent to our current discussion of morality.
Philosophy defines morality as a “code of ethics” from some agreed upon source. I define morality as that body of “something” from which each person receives life direction of good and wrong. As a biblicist I believe that God has endowed man with His image that gives each person a sense of self-realization and moral direction of right and wrong (Ro 1:18-32). The rejection of God as the source of this internal, built-in, morality requires the evolutionist to posit another theory to explain morality. And, evolutionists have risen to the task but they are crippled by their very science. Notice that I could not define morality beyond using the word “something”. The Bible says each person has a soul but does not define the soul. Man for millennia has used soul to mean the “inner man” or that essence of man which cannot be seen, touched, felt or observed with any of the five senses. And, that is the problem for evolutionists.
The internal caption makes a claim
but does not prove the claim
Science can only deal with observations using the five physical senses. David Hume (Scottish Enlightenment philosopher) believed that “knowledge of the world must be grounded in experience” (p. 37). Up to this time physical philosophers (science was not coined until early 19th century when search for “truth” separated from search for how to use what was observable) were truly searching to discover the truth or essence of the physical. It was finally conceded that this was not possible. Henceforth, science would be a utilization of what was observable. But, the temptation was too great and in the 20th century philosophers sought to use science to explain truth again. Now herein is the rub, “How can the observable describe the unobservable?” Science cannot explain the fundamental basis of energy such as heat, light, gravity, or electricity. Science can describe its effects and in some aspect use energies but always incompletely and with certain undesirable repercussions. However, evolutionists were compelled to explain the universality of morality or bow to the Bible’s explanation of morality; and they wound not bow. So, as all good modernists, they made it up and made the rule that a theory is valid until it is disproven. Thus, I can say the moon is made of styrofoam and until you go there and obtain a measurable sample, my theory remains valid. Then, they confabulate the Bible with pagan mythos and demand empirical proof from biblicists that they themselves cannot supply to support their own theories!
Evolution Posits a Journey
From Nothingness to Godhood
Thus, evolutionists rely on circular reasoning to make their case. Science argues for reason’s reliability but any argument put forward to trust reason, requires the use of reason (circular reasoning-premise is not proved but assumed) (ibid. p.41). Therefore, evolutionists rely on faith, the very element that they claim invalidates the Christian argument for God as the source of morality. They use equivocation so the follower will not realize they are walking by faith while they reject the Christian view because it relies on faith. Plus, they beg the question – source of morality.
If evolution is random (which it is not because they posit that it always moves up the chain so it is not random) how does morality develop? No one has demonstrated, let alone explained, how chemical-electro physical reactions (your nervous system) can store information such as memories or even produce thoughts! They cannot adequately explain how new knowledge is introduced into an organism (you) that then becomes morality. They skip these points with glowing eloquence that passes for reason and promote a morality that suits their philosophy. Thus, since man is the same as an animal, man’s morality is on par with animals which legitimizes sexual immorality, pedophilia, and LGBT behaviors. The pseudo-science, psychology, claims that these behaviors are not morality but symptoms of illnesses which over time then become the norm for everyone which shows the original deception in calling them illnesses. Rather than protect the weak and helpless of society these false philosophies legitimize the preying upon these elements for their own pleasure, excuse me, self-actualization.
The Bible is very clear that this is not new thinking but very old and springs from the sinful heart of man. Christianity used to stand against these elements but today many who fly the banner of Christendom have incorporated these very elements and perpetuate the rape of society for the pleasure of sinners for a season (Jude). These malcontents follow their own sinful desires becoming loud-mouth boasters; that is, they substitute volume and aggression for logic. Though they claim to rely on logic they in fact also walk in faith but a faith that is not of God but springs from the sinful heart of man. While they claim to search for truth they obfuscate truth to promote destruction. They have had the ascendency for over a century, “Do you feel safer?” This is why I call evolutionary morality an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Evolutionists give the impression that man is evolving ever upward as demonstrated by freedom of expression (lusts) when in fact their “morality” turns evil into good and good into evil promoting the violence and confusion prevalent in all societies today. Man is unified today not by faith in God but by faith in sin and the false hope that a unified global society of man will resist the Son of Man when He comes to find faith on earth (Lk 18:8).
But their deceit goes even deeper. In our next post I will attempt to show that everything you think is concrete in science is an illusion; that at its heart, science stands on nothingness.