Let's argue about morality

"When a wealthy Beverly Hills couple was murdered in cold blood while watching TV in their living room, America was shocked... but it was only the beginning of the tragic story. When it was revealed that the culprits were their two beloved sons, a media circus and national obsession were born. This eight-episode drama series explores the dark secrets and untold revelations about the family, the murder and the real-life trial that captured the country's imagination for nearly a decade. After all, everyone knows who did it, but one question still remains... why."

Above is the TV series teaser for one of the most popular shows on today.  The story of Lyle and Erik Menendez, who brutally killed their parents. The evidence is plain, they committed the murders; no one denies it. So, why does their guilt produce so much debate? Edie Falco, who plays defense attorney Leslie Abramson, in commenting on the case said

“She took the unpopular position that these people that she is representing — on some level, regardless of what they are accused of — are human ... People don’t like to live in that grey area. There are good people and bad people, and I think she was trying to let people imagine that maybe you don’t always know which is which all the time.”

Defense Attorney Abramson argued passionately that these young men endured a horrific childhood of abuse, and because of that, the murder was done from a kind of insanity that excuses them from first-degree murder charges. What has my interest in this post though, is that BOTH sides argued the same basic premise: evil was committed. 

The prosecution, using a common sense approach, said the brutal murder committed was evil, the defense appealing to the empathy of a society [and jury] that detests child abuse, said basically [my paraphrase] yes, it was evil, but what was done

to them was evil to the degree that it drove them to commit their evil.

This was not a matter of arbitrary human laws, "he didn't have a current insurance card with him" type of thing, it was much deeper than that. It was a clear matter of “right and wrong” [or I might even say "wrong and wrong"] — a sense that is universal and distinctive to humanity.

In every culture, on every continent and island, people recognize that some things are wrong.  And although they may differ on what they prohibit, every society condemns something as wrong/evil.  This point has been well understood and written about by others, for instance C.S. Lewis wrote:

"Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to—whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired". 

This is not just an academic matter either.  Everyone, including you and me, believe something is wrong.  We are imprinted with this moral sense that we did not create, it just is, and it is in all of us. Interestingly to our thought, there very fact that we would/could argue over morality proves that morality exists, that it isn't just some theoretical construct, because everyone, and I mean EVERYONE believes something is immoral.  An adulterer doesn't want you committing adultery with his wife, even a head-hunter doesn't want his head hunted.

There is no satisfactory materialistic, or biological explanation for it — Morality just doesn't come from random chemical reactions. But it comes from somewhere...so, where does it come from?  If nothing exists but energy and matter, how do you explain this moral sense that we all have?  Animals don't have it, plants don't have it, chemicals don't have it, rocks and water don't have it, only humans... Once again, I am struck with the sense that the most reasonable explanation is that of a personal God who created humans in His own image, giving us moral sensitivity.  Do you believe what the Menendez boys did to their parents was evil?  Do you believe what their parents allegedly did to them was evil?  You do?  Why?

Pride and Faith

For you see your calling, brethren, that not many wise according to the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called. But God has chosen the foolish things of the world to put to shame the wise, and God has chosen the weak things of the world to put to shame the things which are mighty; and the base things of the world and the things which are despised God has chosen, and the things which are not, to bring to nothing the things that are, that no flesh should glory in His presence. [1 Corinthians 1:26-29]

 I have met some people who reject Christianity because they assert that it is 'anti-intellectual'; that it diminishes the value of intelligent thought and appeals to emotion.  These charges are, regardless of how sincerely held, false charges.  It is true that there are cults [some of which claim to be Christian] which are intolerant of independent, intelligent thought, however serious students of the Bible recognize that this is not Christianity in a biblical sense.

 Actually, quite the opposite. Christianity as presented in the

Bible calls on us to think, to examine evidence, to weigh that evidence and come to a reasoned and reasonable conclusion about Jesus and His claims.  If we find them to be true [and I have], we are called and expected to respond appropriately, by wholeheartedly accepting Christ, or if we find them to be false, by as equally wholeheartedly rejecting him.  But the requirement to use your mind does not stop there, for after you become a Christian, you are obligated by scripture to "Prove all things and hold fast to that which is good" [1 Thessalonians 5:21].

Christianity challenges us to carefully consider the most serious and far reaching questions which can confront us. Questions such as: What is man? What is God? What is the origin and destiny of man? What is the true way of life? What is morality?  Christ calls us

to think about the meaning of life, a question to which atheism has no answer.  What greater challenge is there to the intellect of man than to think on the meaning of life? How insignificant are all other questions as long as this question remains answered.  You can go through your life as a balloon, bouncing thoughtlessly and aimlessly from air current to impact, or as an arrow with direction, purpose and destination, and I tell you that one way to live is infinitely better than the other.. 

 

No one who has thought carefully can believe that it is equally good to live as a balloon as to live as an arrow, and yet, many unbelievers are afraid to think seriously about these most important of all subjects. It may be because serious thought in the matter would lead them to abandon cherished views or practices. It may be because they are afraid of the tidal wave of disillusionment and futility which would sweep over their lives if they really faced their own doctrine that life is utterly and completely meaningless and purposeless.  But is that really superior to a system, Christianity, which is always encouraging you to examine, to think on and decide about these great challenging questions of life?  Does that seem anti-intellectual to you?  Me either.

In fact, I would argue that it is the Christian who has the greatest freedom in thought [and consequently intellectual integrity].  I can think deeply and rationally on Biology, Mathematics, Prayer, Morality, Death, or any of a million other topics. 

Yet if I was restrained by the presuppositions of materialism, that only the material world, discernible by our senses exists, my mind would be shackled, bound, and not free to intellectually consider why a mother loves her baby.  Yet as a Christian, I am free to ask if there is a soul, or why people have a personality and I am free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, even if that is to something more than a random set of biochemical reactions.

These critics of Christianity maintain that Christians are the ones who are afraid to think, when they themselves are often afraid to think long and seriously on the most vital of all questions, those that relate to meaning and purpose in life.

There is one area where Christianity does fetter thought, that is in the area of evil.  According to Christianity, we should not use our minds to think thoughts of lust, greed, hate or wickedness.  Yet if thought is merely a random set of biochemical reactions, there is no point to trying not to think about committing heinous acts of cruelty.  Actually, those things would not stand the test of intellectual greatness anyway would they?  I mean, would anyone argue that because Christianity tells us not to think on evil that it is chaining our minds and as such is anti-intellectual?  Surely not.  This is not to say that unbelievers always think on evil, nor to deny that Christians sometimes do think on evil, but it is to say that Christianity, as a system, encourages fair, thoughtful examination of all matters that are good and beneficial while at the same time, forbidding us to focus our minds on evil that harms.

Reason is a divine reality: and God who purposed, disposed and ordered nothing without reason, wills that all things should be treated and considered with reason [Tertullian, de poenitentia, pg. 1

 Secular research [science] is very much like fire, a useful and valuable servant, but a

harsh and destructive master. As a servant, it has been called upon to cure disease, increase comfort, and explain mysteries, but as a master, it allows for no other pursuit.  It's servants are not free to examine for themselves matters that cannot be settled by the scientific method, no other option is allowed a place at the table, even for consideration.  That, is anti-intellectual.

The attitude that Christianity is anti-intellectual is often simply a reaction of pride to the blow which is dealt to it by Christianity.  The majority of us feel, at most times, thoroughly capable of directing our own steps.  To acknowledge that I am not only morally weak, but also intellectually weak so as to need revelation from God to make good choices and attain the true purpose of life is abhorrent to this feeling of self-sufficiency.  In retaliation against this great insult, pride seeks to classify Christianity as 'anti-intellectual' and thereby dismiss it's claims.

Pride is insidious because it hides in plain sight by passing as confidence, commitment

to excellence, and drive.  We all want to be competent, to be loved, recognized and appreciated, yet when we receive those things, it not only encourages us, it also feeds our pride, our sense that we are recognized and appreciated because we are in some way superior to those around us.  

Pride is at its worst when we feel intellectually superior to those around us, and it is exactly here that it derails us.  If we look at those around us who accept Christianity, and we feel intellectually superior to them, we may dismiss what they believe as being less intelligent and therefore unworthy of serious consideration.  When we do that, it is a small step to feel justified in dismissing it altogether as unintelligible babble from the uneducated masses.  That tendency is greatly exacerbated if, when looking at those around us, we conclude that the more intelligent reject Christianity.  That has the effect of both the carrot and the stick.  We consider ourselves above the uneducated Christians, and on an intellectual par with the educated infidels.  This error is common enough to be referenced in Max Ehrmann's 1927 poem Desiderata:

Speak your truth quietly and clearly;
and listen to others,
even the dull and the ignorant;
they too have their story.

Christianity, however, is not anti-intellectual.  It actually gives to our intellect the answers to those vital questions that cannot be answered with a test-tube.  It is a motivation, not an obstruction, to real thought.  Pride is not an easily conquered foe, and when faced with the very real possibility that serious, unbiased investigation will, in the end, require submission and humility, it will often settle for a middle ground between faith and unbelief.  It will take an uneasy truce, a non-inquiring acquiescence to doubt, one that says "We cannot know for certainty, because both sides have made points, therefore we shall remain in doubt".  This diversion allows pride to escape unscathed by the demands of the gospel, while feeling 'above the fray' so the speak.

So, do you consider yourself the smartest guy/gal in the room?  Watch out!