DW is glad that CH would like him to begin talking about the death of Christ for sin, but since the pattern the New Testament gives us is to address the need for repentance first and then to talk about the need for faith in Christ as Savior he will begin with the matter of intellectual repentance. This being needed by CH because he has embraced the internal contradictions of atheism, all for the sake of avoiding God (Rom. 1:21; Ps. 14:1-2). So though DW will get to the gospel, he askes CH to hold his horses.
DW's acknowledgement that—with regard to public civic life—atheists can behave in a moral manner was not to say that morality has nothing to do with the supernatural, as CH represented, but rather that morality has nothing to do with the supernatural if you want to be an inconsistent atheist.
DW's acknowledgement that—with regard to public civic life—atheists can behave in a moral manner was not to say that morality has nothing to do with the supernatural, as CH represented, but rather that morality has nothing to do with the supernatural if you want to be an inconsistent atheist.
This is another reason that Christianity is good for the world. It makes hypocrisy a coherent concept.
The Christian faith certainly condemns hypocrisy as such, but because there is a fixed standard, this makes it possible for sinners to fail to meet it or for flaming hypocrites to pretend that they are meeting it when they have no intention of doing so.
So DW asks CH: 'Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy?'
When another atheist makes different ethical choices than you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? And if there is not a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then would it not appear that the supernatural is necessary in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?
So DW is not saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to live as a responsible citizen. He is saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live this way.
DW lays down the challenge to CH, that in order to prove him wrong he simply needs to provide that rational account.
'Given atheism, objective morality follows … how?'
DW concludes this round with a punchy:
The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either. We need the direction of the standard because we are confused sinners. We need the forgiveness because we are guilty sinners. Atheism not only keeps the guilt, but it also keeps the confusion.
No comments:
Post a Comment