07 The Wisdom of Absolutes

Grand Canyon University's One Foundation presents the beginning of wisdom and introduction to Christian thought and life, fourth edition by the faculty of GCU's College of Theology, read by Eric Johnson. Chapter 7 The Wisdom of Absolutes by Rich Holland and Jeff Gibbon Lead me in your truth and teach me, for you are the God of my salvation, for you I wait all the day long. Psalm 25-5 Introduction The previous chapters have focused on describing world view in general and the Christian world view in particular. The previous four chapters focused on the four main acts of the biblical story, creation, fall, redemption, and restoration. This chapter begins applying the various concepts already discussed by considering two ideas that are central to every world view, truth and morality. This chapter will focus on the nature of truth and the nature of moral values and how these concepts are related to one's world view. As the title of the chapter indicates, the chapter suggests that there is wisdom in absolute truth and moral absolutes. 2000 years ago, a significant conversation took place revealing one of the biggest questions of life. Recorded in the Gospel of John, Jesus was before Pontius Pilate, the Roman official over Judea. When Jesus asserted, "For this purpose I was born and for this purpose I have come into the world to bear witness to the truth. Everyone who is of the truth listens to my voice." John 1837 Pilate cynically replied to him, "What is truth?" found in John 1838. Elsewhere in the Gospel of John, Jesus replied to one of his disciples' questions with a rather bold statement, quote, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me." John 146 In that conversation, Jesus claimed not only to know the truth, but to be the very embodiment of truth. Ironically, when Pontius Pilate asks the provocative question, "What is truth?" The essence of truth was standing before him. This story seems to suggest something about Pilate's willingness to embrace the truth that was available to him in spite of his attempt to raise questions about the nature of truth. This chapter discusses Pilate's question, "What is truth?" and will apply the answers to the concept of morality. So, what is truth? Is truth merely in the eye of the beholder? Are moral values determined by individuals themselves? Do absolute and objective standards exist? The answers to these questions have a profound impact on personal worldview and how an individual sees, approaches, and lives life. As the various views regarding these questions unfold, it will become clear that there is wisdom in absolutes. Not only do absolute truth and moral absolutes make good rational sense and correspond to the reality that people see, but they also make good practical sense in how people live their lives personally and in society. The correspondence, coherence, and practical tests discussed in chapter 2 that help evaluate one's worldview can also guide the evaluation of the approaches to truth and ethics. The first section of this chapter will explore and analyze various understandings of the nature of truth. It will then describe what truth is and explain how to apply various tests for truth. From there, the first section will discuss how someone can discover truth and gain knowledge about the world, including the roles that reason, experience, and testimony play in this process. All of this will lead to a better understanding of how beliefs about truth are related to worldview. Because people are always searching for answers and always discovering, the idea of truth must be approached with humility. At the same time, the very nature of research and discovery suggests that truth must exist and must be objective. Finally, the first section will suggest that there is wisdom in aligning one's life with absolute truth. The second section of this chapter will offer a similar analysis of moral values. It will examine the fundamental nature of moral right and wrong, including an analysis of assumptions about moral values and defense of the idea that moral values are objective and universal. Importantly, this section will describe some ways that beliefs about morality are related to one's worldview. Finally, the section will examine how these ideas can help individuals to lead moral lives and make moral decisions. Absolute Truth 19th-century philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche said, "Facts is precisely what there is not, only interpretations," end quote. This statement is not entirely different from what some people say about truth today. It expresses a denial of anything of substance beneath or beyond individual interpretation. In this way of looking at things, the search for truth is an internal exercise restricted to an individual's own interpretation of what he or she observes in the world. This perspective on truth is called subjectivism, or sometimes relativism, because it holds that truth is relative to individual persons. In contrast to the subjective view, the objective view of truth holds that truth is independent of one's mind. One way to show the issues with the subjective view of truth is to consider, again, Nietzsche's previously mentioned claim about truth. Now, imagine someone today agrees with Nietzsche and makes the same statement. All someone else needs to do is ask that person the simple question, "Is that statement true?" This question exposes the problem. If the subjectivist responds to that question by admitting that his or her original statement is false, then the problem has been solved, and subjectivism can be rejected. But if the subjectivist instead insists that the statement about truth is true, then this individual has just contradicted himself or herself by saying that it is true that there is no truth. Statements such as, "There is no such thing as truth." All truth is just a matter of opinion, and there are no absolutes. Are what philosophers call self-referentially incoherent or self-refuting statements? A self-refuting statement seeks to establish a standard of meaning or acceptability, but then the statement violates its own standard. For example, "There are no absolutes" and "is an absolute statement." Nietzsche's statement is self-refuting because it asserts that it is true that there is no truth. Because it is self-refuting, subjectivism cannot be the correct view of truth. Logic demands that truth is objective. That it is independent of our mental activities, interpretations, preferences, and opinions. Related to the subjective view of truth is the view that truth is relative to some particular culture or group or relative to a particular period of time in history. For example, some people might point to a time in which almost everyone in a particular culture believed that God exists. A relativist would conclude that for that culture, at that time, it was true that God exists. However, now that most people in that same culture no longer believe in God, it is now false for that culture that God exists. In contrast to this view, the absolute view of truth says that truth does not depend on a particular historical or cultural context. For example, God's existence has nothing to do with the number of people in a particular culture at a particular time who believe that God exists. The objective, absolute view of truth holds that truth does not depend on either personal preference or cultural or historical context. Ultimately, relative views of truth lead to a nihilistic view of knowledge, which comes from a Latin word meaning nothing. Essentially, nihilism suggests that there is no truth or meaning in the world to discover only individual interpretations of situations, events, and emotions based on personal motives for self-benefit. Real problems for this view arise when personal interpretations and self-interest collide or worse when they harm another person. In these situations, it becomes difficult to decide which interpretation or self-interest is right, because nothing can be absolutely right or wrong when there is no such thing as objective or absolute truth. What is truth? With a proper understanding of objective, universal truth in view, it is easier to analyze different theories about what truth is. There are three competing understandings of what truth is. Coherence theory, pragmatic theory, and correspondence theory. Each theory explains what makes something true. The coherence theory of truth says that something is true and should be accepted if it coheres well with an established set of beliefs. In other words, if a particular statement fits well within a set of established beliefs consistently and without causing any contradictions, then that statement is true. The most significant weakness of this view is that any statement can be shown to fit with any set of statements or beliefs. So, according to the coherence view, anything and everything can be said to be true. To illustrate this problem, think of the popular movie franchise Star Wars. Using coherence theory, the statement, quote, "Luke Skywalker is a Jedi" and, quote, "is true because it fits with the other established elements in that franchise." But, of course, Star Wars is complete fiction. None of it is true, therefore coherence theory ultimately fails as a theory of what makes something true. The pragmatic theory of truth states that what makes something true is its usefulness in accomplishing desired goals in life. In other words, a statement ought to be accepted if it is useful to believe. The major weakness in this view is that any statement can be useful to different people in different contexts. For example, for some people, in a particular context, it might be useful to believe that God exists and for other people in a different context, it might be useful to believe that God does not exist. Just as with coherence theory, anything and everything can be said to be true, therefore pragmatic theory also fails. The coerence theory of truth is the most straightforward view, and it is the view that most people intuitively embrace. This theory states that what makes something true is its coerence with reality. The ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle, circa 350 BC, described it well when he said that making a true statement is, quote, "to say of what is that it is, and to say what is not that it is not." For example, consider the statement, quote, "There is a pineapple on the table," end quote. According to the correspondence view, that statement is true if and only if there is a pineapple on the table. The statement, quote, "The latter is 12 feet long," end quote, "is true if and only if the latter is 12 feet long." By comparison, the coerence theory of truth holds that the statement, "The latter is 12 feet long," has nothing to do with the actual length of the latter. Rather, it says that the statement is true if it fits with one's pre-existing system of beliefs, even if the latter is not actually 12 feet long. Likewise, with pragmatic theory, the statement, "The latter is 12 feet long," has nothing to do with the length of the latter. Rather, pragmatic theory says that it is true if believing it is useful to accomplish some life goal. Only the correspondence view of truth is concerned about matching the meaningful content of the statement with the real, objective length of the latter. The correspondence view holds that there is a mind-independent reality, a real world external to our minds that has things in it like pineapples and ladders, and this view holds that our beliefs and statements are true when they match that external reality. Thus, the correspondence view of truth makes the most sense, which is why it is accepted and used by every academic field of study, including science, history, and theology. It is important to note that just because pragmatic and coherence theories are not well used theories about what makes something true, they are still helpful to consider when trying to see whether a statement is true. Just as the practical and coherence tests are important in analyzing world views, they are also important tests for analyzing individual truth claims. If truth is that which corresponds to reality, then it is natural to expect that true beliefs will also be useful. For example, if God really does exist, then it will be useful to believe that God exists. Also, if truth is that which corresponds to reality, then it is natural to expect that true statements will coher with other true statements. From this, a practical test for truth in which true beliefs will tend to have pragmatic value and a coherence test for truth in which true statements will tend to be consistent and coher with one another can be derived. Both pragmatic value and coherence, therefore, are important considerations to make along with the idea of correspondence when observing the world and trying to determine what is true and what is not. How do we discover truth? In 1509, Renaissance artist Raphael painted the fresco school of Athens. This painting depicts one of the great debates of philosophy featuring the Great Greek philosophers Plato and Aristotle. In the center of the painting, admits the great philosophers of history, Plato is pointing up and Aristotle is gesturing horizontally, indicating two very different ways of understanding the concept of truth. While both Plato and Aristotle held to a correspondence view of truth, they advocated two different ways of approaching the search for truth. Similar to Plato's gesture in the painting, some people believe that truth is grounded in universal principles established by God and that those principles govern reality. Similar to Aristotle's gesture in the painting, others believe that truth is discerned primarily through sensory experience of particular examples found in the world. In this view, sensory experience is used to analyze observable tendencies in particular examples of the world. While these are two different ways of understanding how to search for truth, it is important to note that these two perspectives need not compete with one another. Both views agree that truth is an accurate description of reality. The most fundamental test for truth then is whether or not a statement conforms to reality. Various fields of human inquiry attempt to describe reality accurately using different tools and processes. Philosophy has basic rules of logic and reasoning that it uses to help discover truth. Mathematics has rational proofs to support the truths it espouses. Many of the sciences point to empirical data based on observations and experimentation for its claims. History, as an academic discipline, analyzes recorded experience tested for reliability. The tools used in these formal areas of study are not substantially different from the ways people ordinarily gain knowledge of truth in everyday life. One of the most common ways people gain knowledge is by making simple observations of the world. Using sense experience, what is seen, heard, touched, measured, quantified, tells a lot about what is true and what is false. Knowledge of the truth can also be discovered through logical analysis and the careful use of reason. These two sources of knowledge, sense experience and reason, are perhaps the most obvious and uncontroversial sources of knowledge. But in addition to experience and reason, truth can also be learned from the testimony of others. Indeed, the vast majority of things that are known, even so-called scientific matters, are known on the basis of testimony. Stop for a moment and consider your own knowledge. Do you know the chemical composition of water or the speed of light? Because you personally have done the physical experiments necessary to determine these things? Or do you know them because you read about them in a book? Do you know the date of your own birth because you remember it? Or do you know because someone else told you? Every time you read a sign or a note posted on a bulletin board, every time you listen to a news program or read an email from a friend, every time you hear a classroom teacher or a podcast, you are learning truth through the evidence of testimony. If you stop and reflect carefully on your own knowledge of the world, it will become apparent that most of what you know, you know because someone else told you. This is not at all unusual. Everyone accepts this kind of knowledge routinely, because of a basic belief about the reliability of testimony. If someone who is in a position to know something tells you about it, then it is perfectly reasonable for you to believe it. Indeed, the cumulative nature of scientific inquiry depends on the reliability of testimony and would collapse without it. If it were not for the fact that everyone trusts testimony from others, we would know very little about reality. From a Christian worldview perspective, there is a special kind of testimony that is also central, revelation from God. Because Christians believe that God is personal and that God communicates, Christians also believe that God can provide knowledge about reality, just as the testimony from other people provides knowledge of reality. The difference is that God is the creator of reality, so testimony from God would be considered the most reliable. Sidebar - Natural Theology Because those with an atheistic worldview typically dismiss spiritual evidence but accept natural evidence, one approach that Christians often use to challenge these beliefs is the use of what Thomas Aquinas called natural theology. This approach relies on natural evidence which Christians call "general revelation" to assert that there is a God and to discern some characteristics of his nature. The Christian worldview sees all truth as ultimately coming from God. Though Christians also accept reason, experience, and testimony from others, because God is the creator of reality, knowledge from God is paramount. The Christian worldview believes that God reveals Himself in two ways, through general revelation and special revelation. General revelation refers to the ways that God reveals Himself generally to all through what He has created, throughout the course of history, and in the natural laws that are commonly discerned through scientific analysis. Special revelation refers to the ways that God reveals Himself to individuals and communities who can then share what He has made known with others. The prime example of special revelation is the Bible, which is made up of 66 books that reveal God's nature and will. Another example which is reported in the Bible is the person of Jesus Christ. God also reveals Himself personally to individuals as they seek Him. If there is ever a conflict between what someone believes God is revealing to them personally and what the Bible says, the Christian recognizes the authority of the Bible. Christians can point to various types of evidence that validate the truth and authority of special revelation. For example, Christians point to historical accuracy, manuscript accuracy, and consistency of the Bible as evidence of its reliability. The Bible itself passes the three worldview tests. Most beliefs are internally coherent in the sense that it does not make contradictory claims. It also passes the correspondence test in all that it affirms. Finally, it passes the practical test in that the wisdom of the Bible provides a cogent explanation of reality, and the practical wisdom it offers brings personal fulfillment and serves the public good. Christians recognize these evidences and counter Jesus Christ through the Bible, experience the power of the gospel, and therefore believe that the Bible is true. World view and the search for truth. What a person believes affects how he or she sees life, self, others, the world, and God. What a person believes about the nature of truth and how truth is discovered affects those perceptions as well. If a person believes that absolute truth does not exist, only interpretations, then subjective desires become his or her authority and guide. In this view, the concept of self is affected, as personal interpretations become very important. The concept of others is affected, as no one is bound to a universal truth or the individual's understanding of truth. The concept of life and the world is affected because it would mean that ultimate understanding is only found in aligning a person's interpretation of the world with his or her personal desires. If a person believes that this life and sense of self is an illusion and truth can be attained only by moving beyond them, his or her view of the world, life, self, and God is also affected. Pantheistic worldviews tend to see life, self, and the world as enemies of ultimate understanding. The goal becomes to escape life, self, and the world. In this view, ultimate understanding is attained only through becoming one with an impersonal force without a will, the pantheistic view of God. One of the common ways the relationship between worldview and fundamental beliefs about truth is seen is in naturalistic philosophy. Naturalistic philosophy can be traced back to at least the 17th century in the work of philosopher Baruch Spinoza. Naturalistic philosophy has exerted a strong influence on what is often called scientific naturalism or simply naturalism today. The naturalistic approach to knowledge dismisses religious or spiritual evidence without serious consideration. While naturalists tend to gravitate towards science, their reasons for rejecting religious and spiritual evidence are philosophical, not scientific. In other words, they approach scientific disciplines from the context of a worldview that is resistant to the possibility that anything exists beyond the physical world. Naturalists rely exclusively on empirical data and experience as evidence in their search for the truth and dismiss everything else. Because of the influence of this philosophy, many people today assume that modern science is hostile to theism but favorable to atheism. In reality, science as a discipline is neutral, but those who practice the discipline bring their worldview with them as they investigate the natural world. An extreme form of naturalistic philosophy that is influential today is called "scientism." In the words of philosopher J.P. Moryland in 2018, "scientism is the view that the hard sciences, like chemistry, biology, physics, astronomy, provide the only genuine knowledge of reality," end quote. As it is commonly expressed, this view holds that all matters pertaining to science and the natural world are matters of fact. According to this view, religion and ethics are matters of personal, private opinion, and preference, so there cannot be any truth about them. To many people who have been strongly influenced by varieties of naturalistic philosophy, "scientism can seem quite appealing at first." But upon further consideration, "scientism can be seen to be self-refuting." One claims that the only way to know something is through the hard sciences, but consider that statement itself. Is that statement known from the hard sciences? Clearly not. So, "scientism" sets up a standard of acceptability, and then it violates its own standard. This is what it means for a viewpoint to be self-refuting. To those unfamiliar with "scientism," it can seem like a scientific view of truth and reality, but it is not. "scientism" is actually a fundamental philosophical assumption about reality, and not only is this assumption not supported through science, it also fails when exposed to ordinary rational analysis. Sidebar Faith Science and World View Chapter 1 discussed how a world view is a foundational set of assumptions to which a person commits. This serves as a framework for understanding and interpreting reality and deeply shapes one's behaviors. One of the best goals of life is to test one's assumptions. World View strongly interacts with how people view their academic discipline. A Christian and an atheist will perform science differently. A Christian and a pantheist will do theology differently. The facts may be the same, the role or reason may be the same, however, the underlying assumptions about the big questions of life will guide how people view reality, how they weigh the importance of different facts, and how they reason from those facts. Because of this, it is important to recognize that science does not inherently favor any particular world view. Similarly, one world view is not more scientific than another. Science is merely a discipline in which people with various world views engage. Faith and science are not opposed. Rather, people of different world views engage in the discipline of science differently at some points and come to differing understanding. about what scientific data suggests. Seeking Truth The Christian worldview calls people to lead an examined life and encourages them to take into account the various types of evidence available in a search for truth. Christians believe that God exists and that He created all of reality, the world and everything in it, including human beings, natural laws, stars and planets. Because God created everything, He is the ultimate foundation for truth and reality. Because God created humans in His image, they have rational functions that allow them to examine the world. Christianity places a high value on seeking truth and using the tools that God has provided in order to find it, including empirical observation and experience, rational and logical analysis, testimony and revelation. Indeed, seeking truth in this way leads to wisdom. Other worldviews see things differently. A naturalistic worldview such as atheism, for example, holds that the only kinds of evidence admissible in the search for truth are empirical data. Atheists dismiss all arguments and evidence for God's existence, not because those arguments fail or because the evidence is lacking, but because naturalists have made a fundamental assumption that only empirical evidence helps in discovering truth. Pantheistic worldviews tend to stress that all knowledge of the universe is known before birth, but that it is forgotten as people enter what is considered the illusion of the identity of self and the illusion of suffering. For them, one can regain this enlightenment through "transcending self and body" and the awareness of thoughts, feelings and goals. Cosgrove 2006. As such, those who hold to a pantheistic worldview generally wish to escape evidence in order to become one with the universe. Christianity also has its debates about the role, weight and validity of different types of evidence, but throughout history, Christians have invested tremendous amounts of research to discovering truths about reality. These truths have been discovered by Christians in genetics, for example, Gregor Mendel and Francis Collins, mathematics, for example, Leonard Euler and Blaise Peskel, and physics, for example, Isaac Newton, and many others. Research leading to spiritual or theological universal truths often is distilled into creeds, such as the Nicene Creed or other doctrinal statements. People who embraced Christianity founded the university system because of this view of truth. The basic concept behind the university is the effort to bring unity to a diversity of fields of study in order to advance knowledge of the whole of reality. Academia seeks to discover universal truths through different kinds of research methods, universal truths that researchers believe exist. Christianity welcomes, embraces, and gives a clarion call to investigate truth and live a life focused on discovering truth. That is the wisdom of absolute truth. While there are certainly examples of Christians who have not embraced this, Christianity itself has. In a very real way, then, university students, studies, and investigations have been influenced directly by the Christian view of truth. Christianity strongly advocates for seeking truth in all areas of life because truth leads to wisdom. Moral Absolutes Just as there are different views of truth and knowledge, there are different views of ethics and, therefore, different understandings about the morality of various behaviors. Well before one looks at the specific lists of right and wrong, ethical understandings affect how one views the world. In the same way that the existence of absolute truth should guide the pursuit of knowledge, the existence of moral absolutes should guide the pursuit of ethical understandings. There is wisdom in thinking of morality as objective and universal. Ethics is the systematic study of moral principles that is concerned mainly with beliefs and judgments regarding right and wrong. Careful ethical reasoning and reflection can help an individual understand the difference between right and wrong in principle and in particular situations. Over time, choosing to do what is right rather than what is wrong facilitates the development of moral character. Thus, the term ethics relates chiefly to thought about right and wrong, whereas morality relates more directly to a person's choices, behavior, and character, although the two terms overlap to some degree. Foundational assumptions about moral values. Earlier in this chapter, a distinction between objective and subjective truth claims was made. A similar distinction can be made in order to understand the most important fundamental assumption about moral values. Are moral values a matter of opinion and personal preference, or do moral values exist independently of what people believe about them? Are moral values objective and universal, or are they relative? Ethical subjectivism, a variety of moral relativism, holds that moral values are relative to the opinions and preferences of individual people. Cultural relativism, another variety of moral relativism, holds that moral right and wrong are determined by the moral standards that are accepted by a majority of people in a particular cultural context. Both of these views state that moral values do not exist independently of preference and opinion. Moreover, proponents of moral relativism assert that because moral values are relative in this way, it is wrong for one person to interfere in the moral lives and decisions of other people. At first glance, moral relativism is quite attractive for two primary reasons. First, most people have a strong desire to avoid judging other people and the moral decisions that they make. It is widely recognized that many moral decisions are complex and difficult to make, and in general, people do not want to say that they are a better judge of moral problems than other people face. Most people also recognize that moral decisions are deeply personal. Because it is impossible for one person to really understand what it is like for another person to live through personal situations, it can be quite natural to think, "Who am I to judge whether that person's decision is right or wrong?" When the same reasoning is expanded and applied to entire cultures, this desire to avoid being judgmental is even more pronounced. How can we judge the practices of people who live far away with an entirely different cultural context? Another important reason that motivates people to embrace some variety of moral relativism is the desire for moral autonomy. Just as most people do not want to judge the moral decisions that other people make, they also do not want to be judged by others. Each person has the desire to live independent moral lives, making one's own decisions based on one's own moral sense of what is right and what is wrong, without other people imposing their sense of morality. A person motivated by the desire for autonomy might say something like this, "I get to make my own decisions and you have no right to tell me how to live." As attractive as moral relativism is, it is not rational or livable. To see why it is not rational, consider again what the ethical subjectivist is saying, "Moral values are a matter of opinion, so you have no right to tell me how to live my life." Think about this statement carefully, it is self-refuting. If moral values are really a matter of personal opinion, then the claim, "You have no right to tell me how to live my life" is just the personal opinion of the speaker. So no one has a moral obligation to abide by it. On the other hand, if it is objectively true that, "You have no right to tell me how to live my life," then moral values cannot be simply a matter of personal opinion, they must be objective. This is the same rational problem faced by relativistic views of truth. In addition to this rational problem, relativism is not livable. Think about how this applies to your own life. If you believe that moral values are matters of personal opinion, then you could never complain when someone cheats or steals from you or cuts in front of you in the checkout line. You also could not complain about things that you feel are injustices in the world because matters of justice would be matters of personal preference and opinion. Most people tend to think that some things are objectively and universally wrong. Even though there is moral disagreement in the world, there are some things that are wrong no matter what. matter whether people believe they are wrong, and they are wrong for everyone, everywhere, regardless of context. For example, it is not morally permissible to torture others for fun. This is not a matter of personal opinion or cultural customs. Most people think that everyone is morally obligated to promote human flourishing. Most people also believe that it is acceptable to judge the moral decisions of others and force them to live in certain ways. For example, many people think that society should actively work to stop murderers, prevent people from stealing money from others, and stop human trafficking. Most people think that a lifestyle of charity, helping those in need and service to others, is better than a life of selfishness and abuse of others. All these types of judgments can only be made if moral values are both objective and universal. How do we know right from wrong? Even when it is acknowledged that moral values must be objective and universal, people still recognize that many moral problems are difficult. In many situations, it is not always easy to choose the right thing to do, but the problem of knowing right from wrong is even worse if moral values are relative to culture or opinion. Just as relativistic views regarding truth lead to nihilism with respect to knowledge, relativistic views of morality also lead ultimately to moral nihilism. This can be seen whenever there is moral disagreement. If a moral choice must be made, and there are two opinions about which choice is correct, how can the two options be judged? If moral values are simply a matter of opinion, then no one would be able to determine the right thing to do. Simply put, if moral values are not objective, then there is no basis for moral knowledge. One of the reasons moral questions are difficult is that moral values cannot be discovered empirically. There is no scientific experiment or observation that can reveal which moral values ought to be upheld. Indeed, science seems ill-equipped to solve moral problems because it focuses only on observing, measuring, and describing the natural physical world. When an immoral act is observed, you can observe much about what is going on, who the person is, what he or she is doing, where it is occurring, and so on, but what you cannot observe is that it is wrong. Christians believe that ethics should be grounded in absolute principles of right and wrong that are based on the unchanging nature of God as revealed in the Bible and in the person of Jesus Christ. Further, Christians believe that guilt and shame can be taken away in the forgiveness offered through Jesus Christ. Because of this belief, Christians see themselves as imperfect, yet forgiven, imitators of Jesus Christ. They see the world as a place that often suffers because of morally wrong choices, as a place that misses the good that could have been if the morally right choice would have been made, and as a place that needs the forgiveness found in Jesus Christ. Christians see God as a guide to avoid the pain of wrong choices and enjoy the good of right choices. But Christians also believe that non-Christians have real moral knowledge, can know right from wrong, and can live good lives. The reason for this is that all humans, whether they believe in God or not, are made in God's image and are able to perceive the moral features of life. The New Testament book of Romans highlights this, as it says, quote, "For when Gentiles who do not have the law, by nature do what the law requires, they are a law to themselves, even though they do not have the law." They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, Romans 2, verses 14 through 15. Here, the word Gentiles refers to people in the world who did not have access to God's revealed moral commandments, and yet the author indicates that the Gentiles still have a basic knowledge of right and wrong and are able to make moral decisions. This shows that although our moral sense is imperfect, we have a basic sense of morality built into our natures and written on our hearts. Old View and Ethics As stated previously, outside of the Christian worldview, whenever people compare moral perspectives with one another and make judgments about which view of morality is better, they are comparing them with an unstated objective standard. They are measuring these ethical decisions against something else in order to determine that one is better than the other. What is the standard? From where does that standard come? Where do objective values the standard used to judge one moral decision from another come from? If there is a universal ethic that acts as the standard, then there must be a standard maker. This is key to the Christian worldview. Christianity recognizes that there is a universal ethic given to humanity by God. That universal ethic is intended to keep people from harm and direct them toward personal and public well-being. Philosopher Peter Kriefd in 1986 recognized that the universal sense of injustice at suffering indicates that God exists. While the problem of suffering will be more directly addressed later in this book, the idea here is that the sense of injustice that people experience when they witness the suffering of the innocent implies that there is justice and that a universal or absolute right or wrong does exist. It also recognizes the role of intention in moral action. If a person knows that there is no intention to do harm, but an action causes suffering, he or she views the action as morally different than when harm is intended, changing the view of justice and injustice. Think of it this way, if universal morality did not exist, why would people even care about justice? Why would the suffering of the innocent bother anyone if there were no absolute difference between right and wrong? If moral absolutes do not exist or exist only in the eye of the beholder or within culture, people would have no sense of injustice at the suffering of the innocent. Ethics would be a personal preference and no one would have a sense of injustice when another does not follow personal preference. For example, if one prefers all cars to be blue, does he or she feel a sense of injustice if someone else's car is green? No, of course not. Similarly, if ethics is the preference of the individual or of a society, people would not feel this universal injustice at the suffering of the innocent. However, people do. This shows us that objective moral absolutes do exist. Further, people feel sadness when a natural disaster causes suffering, but they do not feel a sense of injustice. However, when a group of terrorists cause the suffering of numerous innocent lives, people feel a sense of both sadness and injustice. That sense of injustice indicates that a universal standard exists and has not been followed. If there is a feeling of injustice at the suffering of the innocent, then there must be a standard right and wrong, and because there is a standard right and wrong, there must be a standard giver. If God does not exist, then it is hard to see how objective moral standards exist. Where else would they come from? Some naturalists have suggested that moral values are a byproduct of the process of evolution. For example, the belief that murder is wrong may be a derivative of an instinct that was beneficial for survival. Because according to this theory, humans have evolved these traits, we have come to believe that murder is wrong. Others have said that social conditioning explains our moral beliefs. The problem with both of these views, however, is that while they can explain the origin of our belief that murder is wrong, they cannot account for murder actually being wrong. Other naturalistic philosophers have said that human flourishing is objectively good, therefore all people have a moral obligation to promote human flourishing. There again, the problem remains, everyone may agree that human flourishing is objectively good, and Christians do agree with this, but naturalism cannot provide any reason why human flourishing is objectively good. Naturalism cannot account for the existence of objective moral values, and it cannot explain why they are objective, however the Christian worldview can. The Christian, Suffering, and Justice For the Christian, justice is coming in this life or in eternity. Christians are called to serve those who are suffering. God does not wish the suffering to be abandoned, therefore he sends Christians around the world to alleviate suffering in hospitals, orphanages, schools, relief projects. individual care and more. Of course, Christians ought to do a better job of this. Many do go and many do serve. The existence of suffering is a reminder that there is a standard. God will make all things right. He sent his son to forgive sin and prepare a new world, and believers are called to serve the suffering. Living a Good Life Most world views, including the Christian worldview, realize that people have a personal ethic. That is, as part of the human condition, people develop personal understandings and convictions about what is right and wrong. For instance, many believe that consuming alcohol is wrong for them. It leads to unfavorable consequences, so it is avoided and deemed wrong for them personally. Those who come to such conclusions are not necessarily suggesting that no one should ever drink alcohol. It is simply a decision they believe is right for them, given the totality of their life experiences. Thus, the existence of a personal ethic does not detract from the existence of moral absolutes, but it does complicate the discussion to some degree so it needs to be noted. Secondly, most world views recognize that each culture or society has its unique set of rights and wrongs in the forms of customs and standards of that society. Travel to a different part of the world, and what one finds offensive may be normal behavior there and vice versa. Societal standards may be as simple as etiquette or as complex as being written into law. They come from forefathers and unique cultures. As with one's personal ethic, the existence of societal ethics does not detract from the existence of moral absolutes, but again, it complicates the discussion. Finally, there is the idea of a universal ethic, that is, a right and wrong for everyone. Most people want to draw the line of what is right and wrong for everyone somewhere. A clear example would be the murder of an innocent human being. All civilizations have a prohibition against murder. What if someone decided that it is morally permissible for him or her to murder someone? People would quickly object and say, "No, it is still against the law." In an unjust society in which the basic laws are corrupt and unfair, laws against murder could be removed. However, honorable citizens of that society could still object with good reason that murder is wrong. That internal sense that something is wrong seems to stem from a moral impulse and seems to imply the existence of a universal standard for right and wrong. These three ethics, universal, societal and personal, can be understood in relation to one another. In an ideal world, universal ethics would be accepted by all. Societal ethics would align perfectly with universal moral standards, and personal ethics would embrace all the moral truth found in both universal ethics and societal ethics. In this ideal world, everyone would agree about the nature of right and wrong. In an unjust world, one's personal ethic accepts only some of the societal ethics, which in turn accepts only some of the universal ethics. In an unjust world, what one considers right or wrong personally is very different from society's laws and is very different still from universal human rights and wrongs. While progress can and has been made in some areas, this world is far from just. While people can recognize right and wrong, their misguided desires, personal biases, and self-interested goals often move them in the wrong moral direction. It is important in the examination of worldview to discover personal beliefs, challenge them, and then analyze how they affect how one sees the self, others, life, the world, and God with that set of beliefs. Begin with universal or absolute morals. What is right or wrong for all humans? Why should we believe that they are universal? What is considered right or wrong in the culture? Is culture correct in its assessment? Why or why not? Assess personal ethics, those actions, attitudes, or thoughts that may be right or wrong for individuals. Why are those correct? Challenge personal beliefs and analyze them, and in the process, seek to discover the wisdom that the creator has woven into creation, including the human conscience. Choosing to have and abide by a personal ethical code and a means for forgiveness when it is broken is extremely important. The wisdom of moral absolutes is that they first honor the standard maker, God, who has provided this ethical code for the benefit of people individually, the public good, and as a reflection of his nature. This ancient and classical wisdom found in absolute morality is also a guide toward avoiding human pain and, at the same time, a guide toward inner human health. What feels good often does not achieve the long-term goal of avoiding pain and seeking health. At the same time, people must also incorporate grace and forgiveness, yet there can be a danger in this. Quote, "For certain people have crept in unnoticed who long ago were designated for this condemnation. Ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into sensuality and deny our only master and lord Jesus Christ." Jude 1.4. Grace and forgiveness cannot turn into a license to do what individuals wish. For the Christian, grace and forgiveness are a path back to the standard and the standard giveer. Conclusion Critics of Christianity often state that Christianity was devised to control people's lives. This could not be more untrue. First, Jesus, his twelve apostles, as well as Mark, Luke, James and Paul, were pursued, persecuted, imprisoned, and tortured, and all but one were horrendously murdered for their beliefs. What control did they gain over others? None. Rather, the far more likely scenario is that these brave Christians risked everything in order to proclaim freedom. That is what absolute truth and absolute morality do. They bring freedom. Living in the wisdom of absolutes implies that people ought to study and analyze truth and discover universal principles for life. It implies that people ought to learn and do their best to follow absolute morals while living in grace. Most of all, a defined reality implies that there is a harmony that can be found by living within the absolute truth of this existence and within moral absolutes. That harmony offers an indescribable freedom. GCU's One Foundation supports the university's commitment to biblical Christianity, including doctrine and practices deeply rooted in the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints. For more information about GCU, visit gcu.edu. Additional chapters of this audiobook, chapter notes, and other resources related to the Christian worldview are available at TheologyCommons.org