I don't know. Here I've been studying apologetics for a few years now and finally it was time for the rubber to meet the road. I've been anticipating this class since last September and today was THE DAY where the class topic was God, religion, and ethics.
The teacher couldn't have given me a better opening. He started with Euthyphro's dilemma which I know how to refute inside and out, upside-down, and backwards. For those of you who don't know, Euthyphro's dilemma tries to show that depending on God for our morals/ethics makes you choose between two bad choices. It is said that if you can understand the difference between the two answers to the dilemma then you have the makings of a philosopher. I won't be giving this a complete treatment, but bear with me.
The setup goes like this: Is something good because God says it? Or does God say it because it is good? Simple enough, eh? If you answer yes to the first question then imagine if God said that rape is good. Would you be okay with that? Probably not, so then the other question must be the correct view, God says it is because it is good. But if this was the case then 'goodness' is outside of God and therefore we don't need God anymore! Then you end up stuck on the horns of a dilemma. Neither choice is preferable. My teacher did a masterful job of describing it.
The problem with the Euthyphro dilemma is that it's a false dichotomy, that is, it sets up the question assuming there are only two possible answers. But for a dichotomy to be a true dichotomy there can only be TWO choices. The choices in a true dichotomy must be actual opposites: A and not-A. The Euthyphro dilemma gives us the choices A and B. If the choices are A and B, well then what's wrong with adding a C? Or a D? Heck, even an E? Even the mere possibility of there being a third choice makes the dilemma not a true dilemma anymore.
And this was my chance. The whole time I had been waiting and waiting for this moment. I was nervous, my heart was pounding, I'll even admit I was pitting out a little bit (but not too bad, thanks to this fine product). Finally, here was my chance to stand up for what I believe. And in front of +20 people who (presumably) don't believe as I do. Although I'm no David and my teacher is certainly no Goliath, I was ready to stand up and fight, slay the Philistines, and anyone else. I was Daniel-san ready to take on the whole Cobra-kai. I was ready to 'Bring It On' with or without jazz hands.
Foreshadowing, anyone?
It seemed that the teacher was finishing his presentation. I raised my hand and said, "While Socrates' question is a sharp one, it presents a false dilemma."
Teacher: "So what's the third choice?"
Me: "I would say that morality and ethics are grounded in God's character." See, this choice neatly avoids the problem with Euthyphro's dilemma. Now it's not preferable BECAUSE it avoids the dilemma, it's preferable because it's true. The morality we experience is a reflection of God's character. His holiness is the standard by which all actions are judged. We know when we are acting correctly when our thoughts/attitudes/actions match God's.
I'm not exactly sure what happened next, but my teacher took my answer to mean that I was in favor of something called "Natural Law Theory". Simply stated, natural law theory means that moral laws do exist and that we are able to understand and know them. Sounds good so far, but the teacher went on to say that if we can understand and know them without knowing God, why should God come into play in an ethical discussion? Therefore an ethical discussion can still be independent and free of God!
Wait, huh? So although I knew my Euthyphro dilemma very well, all of a sudden I became in favor of natural law theory? How did that happen? So during the discussion that ensued I was trying to figure out exactly how to answer natural law theory and figure out how that related to everything else I had reading and studying in apologetics.
See, I've practiced a lot on answering the questions to which I already know the answers. I spend hours thinking about it, sometimes I even wake up at night and find myself wrestling with these topics trying to figure out how I would answer such-and-such a question and how I would defend this argument and that argument. This is how much I love apologetics and finally it was my turn to bat it seems like I... I don't know, hit a single?
The teacher ended the class about an hour early and so I stuck around and another student and I spent more time talking about it with the teacher. I even brought up the whole "assigning ourselves extra credit" idea from a previous post. He (the teacher) seemed genuinely surprised at some of my views (like all of science depending on God's existence, or people assuming that there are objective moral laws are really standing on Christian ground), but he was still thinking that I was a proponent of natural law theory and it was tough for me to defend my position and work my way out of that. I just didn't seem to make any head way.
YOU KNOW, MAYBE THAT WAS THE PROBLEM. I wanted to make headway, when in hindsight that's not MY job. My only job is to present the truth, and point out the errors. What happens after that is not up to me, thankfully it's up to God.
Meanwhile, I need to get more prepared.
Thanks for reading.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment