Biblical Apologetics (Class): Week 4

Now, you can take Biblical Apologetics at your own pace! Download the class workbook (below) and then go week by week watching the class recordings and following along with any other content provided.

1. The ad-hominem argument. Ad-hominem means “to the man”

• This is an attack on a person's character rather than on an idea. 
• In other words, you are comparing a person's claims and commitments against the person’s behavior, complaints, assertions, and others.

2. Biblical example: The scribes and the Pharisees sit on Moses’ seat, 3 so do and observe whatever they tell you, but not the works they do. For they preach, but do not practice. (Mt 23:2–3).

3. With this method, we are trying to show that the foundation upon which a person stands other than the truth about Christ, is crumbling to dust.

4. Here again, we must carefully listen to the position of the non-believer in order to identify what it is that they hold to be true yet can not abide by it.

5. Christian View:

• We believe in objective moral values and absolute truths, which are derived from the teachings of the Bible and the divine commandments of God.
• Morality, according to Christianity, is based on a set of unchanging principles and ethical guidelines that are applicable to all individuals and situations.
• Actions are considered morally right or wrong based on how well they align with God's commandments and the teachings of Jesus Christ.
• We believe in the existence of a higher authority and an afterlife, where individuals are held accountable for their moral choices.

6. Subjective Moralism:

• Those who adhere to subjective moralism argue that moral values are not universal and absolute, but rather, they are individually determined and may vary from person to person.
  • Subjective moralism posits that moral values are not universal and absolute, but rather vary individually from person to person.
• Morality is seen as a matter of personal preference, cultural influence, or situational context, and there are no objective standards for right and wrong.
  • Morality is considered a matter of personal preference, cultural influence, or situational context, without any objective standards for determining right and wrong.
• In this view, individuals are encouraged to rely on their own conscience, feelings, and personal judgment to make moral decisions.
  • Individuals are encouraged to rely on their own conscience, feelings, and personal judgment to make moral decisions.
• There is often an emphasis on moral relativism, meaning that what is considered morally acceptable or unacceptable can change over time and across different cultures.
  • Moral relativism is emphasized, meaning that what is morally acceptable or unacceptable can change over time and across different cultures.

7. These two perspectives represent different approaches to understanding and determining moral values, with Christianity, advocating for an objective, divinely grounded morality, while subjective moralism argues for a more personal and variable approach to ethics.

8. General Questions?

• What can we identify as the fundamental flaw with the idea of subjective moralism according to Christianity? Humanity is infected with sin.

9. Example #1: What are some questions we can begin to ask about the following position?

• Subjective Moralist: Yes, that's correct. I believe that morality is subjective and varies from person to person.
• Christian: I respect your viewpoint, but I'd like to explore it further. One common challenge I've heard about subjective moralism is that it can sometimes lead to moral relativism, where there are no fixed standards for what's right or wrong. How do you address this concern?
• Subjective Moralist: Well, I think that different cultures and individuals have their own moral frameworks, and what's right for one may not be right for another. So, there isn't a single universal standard.
• Christian: I see your point, but consider this: we can both agree that there are actions in the world that are universally considered as "sinful" or morally wrong, such as murder or theft. These actions cause harm and suffering, and it seems that we, as humans, have a shared understanding that they should not be done. Doesn't this suggest the existence of a moral standard that transcends subjectivity?
• Subjective Moralist: I suppose you have a point there. It's true that many societies have common rules against these actions. But, isn't that just a result of our collective experience and practicality?
• Christian: It could be, but consider this: why is it that we feel a sense of guilt or remorse when we do something we know is morally wrong? Where does that internal sense of right and wrong come from? It's as if there's a moral compass within us that points to a standard beyond ourselves.
• Subjective Moralist: I hadn't thought about it that way. It does seem like there's something innate within us that guides our moral judgments.
• Christian: Indeed, it suggests that there might be an inherent moral framework. For Christians, this framework is derived from our belief in God's moral law, which is absolute and transcendent. But even from your subjective moralist perspective, the existence of sin and our shared sense of right and wrong imply the need for some moral standard that everyone must follow.
• Subjective Moralist: I have to admit, this has given me something to think about. While I still believe in subjective moralism, it's becoming clear that there's more to the morality debate than I initially considered.
• This fictional dialogue illustrates a possible realization that, even from a subjective moralist perspective, the existence of sin and a shared sense of right and wrong may point to the presence of a universal moral standard that transcends individual subjectivity.

10. Stanford scientist, after decades of study, concludes: We don't have free will. After studying humans and other primates for 40 years, Stanford neurobiologist Robert Sapolsky has concluded that many factors beyond our control influence our choices and behaviors, leaving free will to be negligible in any context.

Or, browse sessions from the entire class.