Today’s New Reason To Believe

Kenneth Richard Samples

What are the five fundamental philosophical questions concerning ethics?

In part three of this series I began exploring “the five problems of ethics.” These questions raise critical philosophical issues relating to the overall study of ethics. The first two questions were addressed in the previous installment:

1. What characterizes human nature?

2. What is the greatest good?

This article will address a third philosophical question that helps illumine the subject of ethics.

3. How is the greatest good known?

Philosophers refer to the greatest good (Latin: summum bonum) as the highest value of life. This supreme good should be humankind’s ultimate concern in life. People typically identify the greatest good and then orient their life around it. The ancient Greek philosophers identified ethics as the pursuit of the good.

Different philosophical and religious schools of thought identify the greatest good variously (pleasure, power, virtue, enlightenment, God, etc.).

The question considered here, however, relates to how the ultimate good is known. Questions about knowledge claims involve the field of philosophy known as epistemology. This area of philosophy examines the origin, nature, limits, and validity of knowledge. It is important to appreciate that questions about what is good (ethics) cannot be separated from questions about knowledge (epistemology) and questions about reality (metaphysics).

Some philosophical systems insist that the greatest good is known through human experience. Others assert that it is derived through the deliverances of reason. Still others suggest that the greatest good is known through a form of human intuition.

Biblical religious traditions (Judaism and Christianity) proclaim that the greatest good, God, is known through revelation (God unveiling himself). That revelation includes the created order (such as conscience and reason) as well as the special form of revelation known as sacred Scripture (the Bible).

From a Christian perspective, God, the greatest good, is revealed to human beings both externally and internally. God has revealed his existence through the externally created cosmos (Romans 1:18-21) as well as through the internally created conscience (Romans 2:14-15). Being created in the image of God (Genesis 1:26-27) ensures that human beings are both capable of knowing God and of forming beliefs about what is authentically good.

Historic Christianity has always affirmed that God is the greatest good and that ethics flow from the eternal moral character of God. Many Christian philosophers have embraced what is known as Divine Command Theory. This ethical theory affirms that moral duty is defined in terms of God’s commands.

The last article in the series discusses the two remaining questions of “the five problems of ethics.”

For more on the study of ethics, see chapters 16 and 18 of my book Without a Doubt: Answering the 20 Toughest Faith Questions and chapters 1 and 11 of my book A World of Difference: Putting Christian Truth-Claims to the Worldview Test.

Previously Posted on February 4th, 2008 by Hugh Ross, Ph.D.

The public debate about teaching intelligent design has exposed widespread confusion both inside and outside the church about how the scientific enterprise operates. One of the most frequent complaints scientists make about the Intelligent Design movement is that their brand of intelligent design is not testable, falsifiable, or predictive. This brand lacks these features, scientists explain, because there is no model explaining the nature of the intelligent design. The problem with these complaints is that the general public has little comprehension of what really makes up a scientific model or why it is so important for a model to be testable, falsifiable, and predictive.

One illustration of the public’s confusion is a question I got after one of our outreach events. A man heard me use the term model in my response to another question. He wanted to know who was the model and whether or not I had a picture of her!

In the interest of clarifying the intelligent design debate, let me offer a bare bones description of what makes up a scientific model:

In science, the term “model” refers to the schematic description of a system (or set of phenomena) that accounts for its observed and inferred features as well as its origin and complete history. A model is much more than a mere idea, inference, method, hypothesis, or rudimentary theory. It’s a scenario that offers reasonable explanations for the entire scope or history (origin to ending) of a particular system in nature, as well as for its relationship to other phenomena.

Using a model approach supplies researchers with enough detail to assist in further study. It offers explanations for how, when, where, why, and in what order a phenomenon takes place. It anticipates or predicts discoveries that could either verify or falsify the model’s explanations. The best models also yield specific suggestions for how near-future research may help improve understanding of the systems or phenomena they attempt to explain.

Since no scientist knows everything about any particular system, no scientific model can offer a perfect explanation. Scientific understanding advances, however, as different scientific models compete with one another. The model that offers the best explanation for a particular set of phenomena and that is most successful in predicting future scientific discoveries is judged to be closest to offering a truthful description. The scientific community retains such a model for further development and refinement. Models that fail to provide a satisfactory explanation and especially fail to predict future scientific discoveries are rejected.

Scientists will retain a failed model, however, if there is no superior model to take its place. This is why it’s typically fruitless for Christians to point out all the flaws and failures in the evolutionists’ explanation for the origin and history of life. Most evolutionists are already aware of the shortcomings in their model. Nevertheless, they will not abandon the model until they first see a superior model to take its place. It’s for this reason that the Reasons To Believe scholar team refrains from “evolution bashing” and instead focuses its efforts on developing a positive case for biblical creation through a detailed, comprehensive, and predictive scientific model. My new book, Creation as Science, summarizes our testable creation model and includes an appendix (F) where I make 90 predictions of what scientists will discover in their future research and contrast our predictions with those arising from three other creation/evolution models.

Previously Posted on September 7th, 2007 by David H. Rogstad, Ph.D.

Last week I ended by stating that Paul does not use arguments that appeal to human wisdom. Let me say again, however, that I do not think Paul is claiming he never makes intellectual arguments when trying to convince the unbeliever. There are many times when someone will have an issue that blocks their thinking, and if they are to consider anything else we say, we must first remove the obstacle. This is largely what Christian apologetics is all about. We have a responsibility to give reasonable arguments for the faith that we have (1 Peter 3:15).

However, we should always combine the best rational arguments with the most penetrating assessment of the human moral condition. If the “issue” becomes more of a point of pride with that person rather than something they honestly need answering, then we do him no good by prolonging the argument. We must recognize that, at least when it comes to some areas of knowledge, he cannot have understanding until he opens himself up to God’s Spirit. This is Paul’s contention in the final verses (14-16) of chapter 2 in 1 Corinthians:

¹⁴But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. ¹⁵But he who is spiritual appraises all things, yet he himself is appraised by no one. ¹⁶For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, THAT HE WILL INSTRUCT HIM? But we have the mind of Christ.

In verse 15, we find a very remarkable statement. For those who are Christians, I am sure you can identify with the experience of meeting someone who you immediately know is different, and later discover is also Christian. I have had this experience even with people that I could not communicate with because of a language barrier.

On the other hand, there are other people I have known for many years, who know me as well as anyone could, and yet have no clue as to what really motivates me regarding the issues of life, other than that it is a “faith thing.” It is, at times, frustrating, because I am unable to share the most exciting things of my life with a person I care so much about. I wish I could let them see me on the inside so they could comprehend the words I am using.

Of course, what they really need is the Spirit of God, and that is the whole point Paul is making. To really know the things of God, we must have the mind of God. Receiving this mind of God is tantamount to receiving His grace. It is called grace because it is a free gift, not based on any merit in ourselves. He will give it to anyone who asks.

While we cannot earn it, there is one requirement that we must meet. First Peter 5:5 tells us that “God is opposed to the proud, but gives grace to the humble.” We must come to Him in a spirit of humility. That is why the essential core of any kind of repentance is humility. We are acknowledging our dependence on Him. When we are willing to come to Him on that basis, He will give us His Spirit, and open up to us things that we have never conceived of on our own.

At least some of the Corinthians were willing to take that step of repentance. Will you take that step?