Worldview Class #2 - Part 2 - Cat Murder and Ethics

While teaching a Sunday morning class at church on the topic of various worldviews, I plan to share some of the more significant findings which our class is learning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

*********************

In the last installment, I mentioned how critical it is that we recognize this fact – there is only one truth. To further emphasize the point, let’s consider a premise given by the New Age community – that truth is different for everyone. In this case, the New Agers will contend that each individual has the ability to “define their own truth”. So for one person, truth might be that cats are inherently ugly. Another person will contend that cats are preferable to any other living being, including humans. The New Age worldview will say that both are right, and that there are two truths in play (I recognize that this may be a tough example for some, considering how opinionated people tend to be about cats!).

Moving up the spectrum a bit, let’s leave the topic of feline physical beauty, and put into play whether it is ethical to kill a cat. This example may elicit a different answer from people, as many in our society are invested in the rights of animals. Others have no qualms about drowning cats. Again, New Age says that both viewpoints can be correct, as truth is different for each individual.

So, it’s time to take the example to the extreme. Consider the topic of premeditated human murder and where people might classify it – as an acceptable practice, or an act that must be punished by law? With very few exceptions, people will say it is the latter. The New Age movement will, in general, say that premeditated murder is inherently wrong and against societal norms. We can draw the following spectrum diagram:

There are two questions that beg to be asked here. Number one – where does an issue go from becoming one of personal preference (cat beauty) to one of ethics? And, number two – along the ethical point of the spectrum, where is the concept of multiple truths supplanted by one single truth for all? That is, can I definitively locate the gray arrows in an absolute place – for all people?

But, to do so requires the admission that somewhere there is an absolute truth. And the next question must be, “Where does that absolute truth come from?” The answer from the Christian worldview is obviously, “It comes from God”. But what is the answer offered by other worldviews?

This clearly causes a dilemma for other worldviews, who must struggle under the weight of a changing or arbitrary definition of right and wrong. It is much easier to believe that God set right and wrong in the hearts of men and that, for matters relating to ethics and not personal preference, there is a defined line of good and evil that pertains to all men. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)

**********************

Next: Worldview #2 - Part 3 - Sacred and Secular
-- or --

Back to the start of this series

-- or --
Back to Worldview Series #1

Worldview Class – Part 11 –Cosmic Humanist (New Age) Ethics

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Ethics are defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc." Specifically, the study of ethics attempts to answer the question “Who makes the rules – God or man?”

In previous posts, we have seen that some supporters of Secular Humanist ethics have defined a set of absolute truths, to exclude acts such as murder and rape from accepted morality. Marxist ethics are well-defined, and are pointed at a specific goal of class elimination. In contrast, New Age ethics are the very definition of personal free-for-all. True New Agers are held to no standard, but live under whatever truth they define for themselves at any given point in time. Added to this is the fact that they are free to change their own ethics at any time, to suit their changing needs. This lifestyle is a form of boundless ethical relativism, and is the foundation of the New Age ethical premise.

While truth cannot be pinpointed in this worldview, even more disturbing is the fact that no individual is ever allowed to judge another’s ethics. Judgment of another person’s beliefs and values would imply that there is an absolute truth to be applied to all individuals. Paradoxically, this belief opens the door for one case in which this rule does not apply: tolerance of all viewpoints is allowed except for the one that insists on an absolute truth. Put another way, anyone who judges the ethics of another person is immediately judged as being intolerant and wrong. This is the only instance where a New Age follower is allowed to judge another individual. The circular logic is a bit mind-boggling. It’s enough to make your head spin.

According to New Age proponents, setting limitations on ethical beliefs is equivalent to denying a person their quest for godhood. The moral implications are limitless under this lack of authority. How does the New Age movement view the Ten Commmandments? They see them as a list of boundaries which hinder the “evolutionary growth” of the individual. Each person’s growth is dependent on the ability to change and adapt in an ever-changing system of design-your-own ethics. For this reason, there are no New Age books which tell a person how to live a moral life – only books which encourage you to break free and follow your heart.

Marianne Williamson says, “Adam and Eve were happy until she ‘ate of the knowledge of good and evil.’ What that means is that everything was perfect until they began to judge – to keep their hearts open sometimes, but closed at others….Closing our hearts destroys our peace. It’s alien to our real nature.” Indeed, she may be right in saying that our nature is to open our hearts to everything. But the Bible tells us that “the heart is deceitful above all things…” (Jeremiah 17:9). It is precisely this realization that separates New Age from Christian ethics. One relies on and actually encourages the reference to a misleading source (the heart); the other denies that fallible internal source and points to a perfect, supernatural source outside of the individual.

Of all New Age positions, the concept of unity of good and evil may be the most disturbing. Because right and wrong are defined differently for each individual, it becomes impossible to distinguish between good and evil. David Spangler takes this premise to the extreme when he says, “Christ is the same force as Lucifer…..Lucifer prepares man for the experience of Christhood…..Lucifer works within each of us to bring us to wholeness as we move into the New Age.” This idea is the acute result of the progression of a philosophy that starts with desirable and simple ideas such as “unity”, “harmony”, and “world peace”. When held forth as a final goal, these ideas appear to be virtuous and are embraced by impressionable people seeking a higher purpose in life. But they get twisted when seen through the New Age lens, and end up in ridiculous statements such as Spangler’s.

One of the best ways to approach a New Age believer is to appeal to the innate sense of right and wrong that God instilled in each of us (Romans 1:18-20). Ask them, “Do you believe that murder of a child is wrong?” When they hesitate or even agree, follow up by asking them “Where does this internal sense of wrong come from?” While they may get creative in their answer, the fact is that God placed the idea in the hearts of men. If the New Ager does not recognize the act of murder as having absolute moral implications, it could be that they are too far removed from truth to be brought back easily, if at all. God promised that men would be misled and would “exchange the truth of God for a lie”. It is not an easy thing for a person to admit this possibility in their own life. The Christian should continue to boldly point it out, in the hopes of making the New Age believer meditate on it the next time they have a flash of internal moral truth. God may be speaking to them in that moment.

To Worldview - Part 12 - Christian Ethics

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 10 –Marxist/Leninist Ethics

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Ethics are defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc." Specifically, the study of ethics attempts to answer the question “Who makes the rules – God or man?”

It is a frequent accusation by many that Marxists have no ethics. This is likely an extension of the premise that Marxists do not believe in God. But make no mistake – Marxist ethics are well-defined, far more than those of the Secular Humanist and New Age camps. They are rooted in two principles. The first is dialectical materialism, the theory that the universe is ever-changing, and everything changes with it, including society and the ethics that govern it. The second is class struggle, the idea that the working man’s class (the proletariat) must eventually overthrow the oppressive ruling class (the bourgeoisie). Marxists believe that the next phase of societal evolution is for this overthrow to occur, thus moving the world from a capitalist society to a socialist one (Hmmm….I think I’ve heard something about this recently…).

The current goal of the Marxist is to create a classless society. To do this, they propose a system where equality trumps individuality. The Communist Manifesto calls for the abolition of individual freedoms such as ownership of property, child-rearing by parents, and home education. Under a Marxist rule, it is assumed that the state knows best, and so they dictate the rules of society, even to the point of encroaching on parent-child interactions and who owns property. Marxists hate the Bible and its commands such as “Thou shall not steal” precisely because it implies that someone owns property and someone does not. Their aim is to eliminate this inequity and return to a world where no one has more possessions than any other. This equality will eliminate jealousy and envy and the crimes that go along with these feelings. Nikita Krushchev summed it up when he said, “So long as classes exist on the earth, there will be no such thing in life as something good in the absolute sense. What is good for the bourgeoisie, for the imperialists, is disastrous for the working class, and, on the contrary, what is good for the working people is not admitted by the imperialists.”

Under a Marxist plan, the world will move toward such a society, but this move will necessitate a shift in morality, that is, the line between right and wrong will change. Karl Marx wrote these words in The Communist Manifesto – “Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man’s ideas, views and conceptions, in one word, man’s consciousness, changes with every change in the conditions of his material existence, in his social relations and in his social life?” This is the very nature of dialectical materialism – the world, society, and ethics are in constant flux. There is no possibility of a single truth for all time.

An excellent question to ask an average Marxist is this – “If we achieve a classless society in our lifetime, what is the next step in the Marxist plan?” I have done much research to ascertain this answer, but cannot find the next step in their plan. Were Marxism to take root globally, there would surely be a new initiative, and the ends and means would change with it. Curiously, it is a worldview without a clear final goal, other than world domination by Marxism.

Finally, it should be understood that the ethical code of Marxism includes hatred as an acceptable expression of the individual. If hatred, or an act of hate furthers the cause of Marxism, then it is perfectly fine. It is, in fact, demanded by their code. Krushchev said it best when he stated, “Our cause is sacred. He whose hand will tremble, who will stop midway, whose knees will shake before he destroys tens and hundreds of enemies, he will lead the revolution into danger. Whoever will spare a few lives of enemies will pay for it with hundreds and thousands of lives of the better sons of our fathers.” The rule of Marxism has left a trail of death, imprisonment, and slavery – all in the name of furthering the Marxist cause. It is estimated that 20 million Soviet citizens died at the hands of Stalin and his Marxist rule between 1924 and 1953. Rather than deny that these murders occurred, a good Marxist would admit to them and claim that they were necessary to win the fight for a classless society. Thus, murder is an acceptable ethic under Marxist rule.

As with other non-Christian worldviews, the Marxist ethic is disturbing in that it does not claim that there is a single moral truth on which we can depend. Living in such a world has disturbing and unpredictable consequences. It is this fact that we should reference to appeal to the Marxist. It is far better to live in a world where the rules are stable, known, fair and created not by man, but by the God of the universe.

To Worldview - Part 11 - Cosmic Humanist (New Age) Ethics

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 9 –Secular Humanist Ethics

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

Ethics are defined as “the rules of conduct recognized in respect to a particular class of human actions or a particular group, culture, etc." Specifically, the study of ethics attempts to answer the question “Who makes the rules – God or man?”

The fundamental foundation of ethics for Secular Humanists rests on their theology – that is, that there is no God. As ethical and moral standards must originate from somewhere, the humanist is left with no choice but to assign the authorship to man. This would end their argument if each of them agreed on the same definition of “right” and “wrong”. However, since there is much disagreement over what is morally acceptable and what is not, the humanist community is saddled with a divisive issue which makes their ethical stance difficult to defend. One of these dilemmas is stated as the “ought problem”, and summed up by Mihailo Markovic – “It remains quite unclear where this ‘ought’ comes from. It is one thing to describe a variety of actual historical patterns of conduct and moral habits. It is a completely different thing to make a choice among them and say that we ‘ought’ to observe some of them. Why some and not others?”

Indeed, even their foremost proponent Paul Kurtz admits, “I can find no ultimate basis for ‘ought’.” Are Secular Humanists living in a worldwide “free-for-all”, much like the New Age philosophers who proclaim that truth is whatever is defined by each individual? While there are some in the community who hold this position, most cannot accept such a vagary and so they claim that reason is the thing that more closely defines right and wrong. The British Humanist Association says, “Humanists believe that man’s conduct should be based on humanity, insight, and reason. He must face his problems with his own moral and intellectual resources, without looking for supernatural aid.” Corliss Lamont is quoted thus, “As long as man pursues activities that are healthy, socially useful, and in accordance with reason, pleasure will generally accompany them; and happiness, the supreme good, will be the eventual result.”

The process of reasoning figures prominently in the humanist’s belief in the theory of evolution. As man evolves, so does his power for reasoning, and thus to determine right from wrong. Unfortunately for them, the purpose of evolution flies in the face of this logical, pragmatic way of thinking. The ultimate goal of evolution is for the species to survive. And if survival is the final instinct, then bloodshed, war, and even murder have some justification under the humanist ethic. Most humanists will have no counter-argument for this flaw. In order for the species to survive, some must perish, and few modern-day humanists want to admit that killing or capital punishment is sometimes necessary.

Under the Secular Humanist system, ethics may change over time as man becomes wiser and more evolved. Experimentation is the best way to achieve this ethics basis, and the practice of this is called ethical relativism. Joseph Fletcher says, “Rights and wrongs are determined by objective facts or circumstances, that is, by the situations in which moral agents have to decide for the most beneficial course open to choice.” And Herbert W. Schneider has stated that morality is “an experimental art...the basic art of living well together. Moral right and wrong must therefore be conceived in terms of moral standards generated in a particular society.” But who determines the results of the experiment, and who defines what is correct? Again, the dilemma hinges on full agreement and there can be none of that in this broken world. Lamont has been quoted as saying, “For the Humanist, stupidity is just as great a sin as selfishness; and ‘the moral obligation to be intelligent’ ranks always among the highest of duties.” Thus, he would leave the arbitration to the smartest people in the race, though this fights with one of the basic humanist tenets of equality for all (see the Humanist Manifesto I, point fourteen or Humanist Manifesto II, point eleven). In addition, history shows that the smartest people are not always victorious, especially if the less intelligent are more determined, braver, or simply possess a bigger weapon.

Finally, one must ask what the true goal is for a Secular Humanist, since peace and agreement seem out of reach. There are clues all around, but one major hint would be the words of Paul Kurtz, when he states that “traditional supernaturalistic moral commandments are especially repressive of our human needs. They are immoral insofar as they foster illusions about human destiny (heaven) and suppress vital inclinations.” It is the use of the term “vital inclinations” that intrigues me. Lamont was earlier quoted about man’s search for “pleasure” and seeking it to fulfill the “supreme good”. It is clear that unrestricted sex is a clear goal of many humanist institutions. The Humanist Manifesto II, item six states that, “short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire.” Humanists are responsible for funding the studies that “prove” that men can be born as homosexuals. They seek the same ruling on the topics of pedophilia and incest. “Sex without guilt” is one of their mantras. One Planned Parenthood representative was quoted as saying that their goal is to help “young people obtain sex satisfaction before marriage…By sanctioning sex before marriage, we will prevent fear and guilt.” The goal of pleasure without the burden of sin becomes evident.

Secular Humanists endure a problematic viewpoint on ethics. Without agreement from all, it is hard to know what is really right and wrong. Isn’t it easier to accept a moral code given by a God who loves us and wants the best for us? Most of us – humanists included – have an innate sense that certain acts are wrong. Murder is an example of this – most of us know inside that premeditated killing of another human being is immoral. Where does this innate sense of ethics come from? It cannot come from man, because mankind is not always in agreement on the subject. It must, and does come from God.

To Worldview - Part 10 - Marxist/Leninist Ethics

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***

Worldview Class – Part 2 – Cat Murder – Ethics and Truth

This is a continuation of highlighted topics discussed in a worldview class I am teaching on Sunday morning. The main text for the study is The Battle for Truth by David Noebel. A good deal of this class is also based on personal research.

In the last installment, I mentioned how critical it is that we recognize this fact – there is only one truth. To further emphasize the point, let’s consider a premise given by the New Age community – that truth is different for everyone. In this case, the New Agers will contend that each individual has the ability to “define their own truth”. So for one person, truth might be that cats are inherently ugly. Another person will contend that cats are preferable to any other living being, including humans. The New Age worldview will say that both are right, and that there are two truths in play (I recognize that this may be a tough example for some, considering how opinionated people tend to be about cats).

Moving up the spectrum a bit, let’s leave the topic of feline physical beauty, and put into play whether it is ethical to murder a cat. This example gets a clearly different answer from people, as many in our society are invested in the rights of animals. Others have no qualms about drowning cats. Again, New Age says that both viewpoints can be correct, as truth is different for each individual.

So, it’s time to take the example to the extreme. Consider the topic of premeditated human murder and where people might classify it – as an acceptable practice, or an act that must be punished by law? With very few exceptions, people will say it is the latter. The New Age movement will, in general, say that premeditated murder is inherently wrong and against societal norms. And, thus, we can draw the following spectrum diagram:





There are two questions that beg to be asked here. Number one – where does an issue go from becoming one of personal preference (cat beauty) to one of ethics? And, number two – along the ethical point of the spectrum, where is the concept of multiple truths supplanted by one single truth for all? That is, can I definitively locate the gray arrows in an absolute place – for all people?

To do so requires the admission that somewhere there is an absolute truth. And the next question must be, “Where does that absolute truth come from?” The answer from the Christian worldview is obviously, “It comes from God”. But what is the answer offered by other worldviews?

This clearly causes a dilemma for other worldviews, who must struggle under the weight of a changing or arbitrary definition of right and wrong. It is much easier to believe that God set right and wrong in the hearts of men and that, for matters relating to ethics and not personal preference, there is a defined line of good and evil that pertains to all men. “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities – his eternal power and divine nature – have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.” (Romans 1:18-20)

To Worldview - Part 3 - Sacred and Secular

Or go back to the main index for all twelve Parts.

***
If you are interested in portions, or all of this twelve part series taught in an engaging, educational fashion, please contact Alan at Banyan Concepts.
***