A (0:00)

Why do people so vehemently deny the existence of God?

B (0:04)

The primary reason, in my opinion, why man does not desire to affirm the existence of God is because he understands that if he affirms the existence of God, he is then immediately thrust into a situation of moral responsibility.

A (0:25)

Moral responsibility. That's what they're afraid of. Christians believe in absolutes, moral absolutes, ethical absolutes, and an ultimate being, the one who is the standard of moral perfection. Welcome to Renewing youg Mind on this Tuesday. I'm Nathan W. Bingham. This week R.C. sproul is helping us to think rightly about many of the objections that come to Christians and come against the Christian faith. It's a series recorded with a group of students at the Ligonier Valley Study and a series that hasn't been featured on Renewing youg Mind for almost two decades. It's a great joy to be able to go back into the archives to feature some of these classic messages from the early days of what has now become a global discipleship ministry. The refrain from the world today is, well, that's your truth. There's a widespread denial of absolutes. So are there absolutes? Here's Dr. Sproul.

B (1:31)

What I want to look at briefly is the very common objection to Christianity. It's not so much an objection to the Christian faith as it is a defense mechanism used by other people to offset the claims of the Christian faith. And that is the statement that you've all heard many, many times. There are no absolutes. The reason why that particular statement has been problematic vis a vis the Christian faith is because the Christian faith is a faith that professes confidence in absolutes, absolutes with respect to being, absolutes with respect to value, absolutes with respect to meaning, and certainly absolutes with respect to ethics and to commandments. And there, I think, is the real rub. There's the real clash between the believer and the unbeliever. Dostoevsky's famous statement, if there is no God, all things are permissible. That thesis, that conclusion, is understood clearly by modern man. The primary reason, in my opinion, why man does not desire to affirm the existence of God is because he understands that if he affirms the existence of God, he is then immediately thrust into a situation of moral responsibility. And if we can eliminate absolute being, absolute value, absolute meaning, we can eliminate absolute truth and absolute ethical demands, then I am liberated, in the final analysis, in the fullest sense of liberation from any ultimate responsibility for my life. The statement there are no absolutes proceeds from a philosophical Basis of anarchy. It has much in common, of course, with existentialism, and we'll examine that in a moment. But let's just look at it for a second. There are no absolutes reminds me of the kinds of statements that we read in the period in Greek history between the impasse that was reached between the great philosophers Parmenides and Heraclitus in the age of sophism and skepticism that preceded the revival of metaphysical inquiry under the leadership of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle. The old skeptics, the classical Greek skeptics, made such statements as that. That there are no absolutes. I can remember one by Gorgias, who made the statement that. That all statements are false. And of course, if all statements are false, then what does that say about the statement all statements are false? If all statements are false, then the statement all statements are false is false. So then not all statements are false, right? And that's the same kind of a thing that immediately comes into your mind when somebody makes the nonsensical statement there are no absolutes. If there are no absolutes, then the statement there are no absolutes is not an absolute statement. But you see, the statement there are no absolute is a universal negation in terms of logic. And it is an absolute statement that there are no absolutes. So that can't be true if there are no absolutes, there's at least one absolute, namely the absolute that there are no absolutes. But if there's one absolute, then there can't be no absolutes, there can't be none and one at the same time and in the same relationship. So we see also an irrational notion contained immediately within the statement. The statement itself is formally and analytically invalid. But it's not enough simply to point out the formal absurdity of such a statement. At a practical level, we have to go beyond that and deal with the notions that lead up to such a statement there are no absolutes, and get a feel for some of the cultural movements that are related to it. And also to ask the question, how can a Christian respond to the statement there are no absolutes? The first thing that I think we need to do when we are confronted with those who make such claims that there are no absolutes is to force them to see the real and full implications of such a statement. Most people today, in their life and worldview under which they operate, are eclectic. They are selective, they are inconsistent, they are confused. Eclecticism is confusion. In the final analysis, I don't know anyone who's really eclectic who's been able to work in an eclectic framework, in a framework of consistency. And what I mean by eclecticism, of course, is you take a little bit of truth from this system, a little bit of truth from that system, a little bit of truth from another system, a little bit of truth from still another system, and try to live in the tension of this kind of tossed, salad, smorgasbord perspective of truth. Well, what's the basic motivation for that kind of a construction of a worldview? What is usually behind that kind of perspective? Wanting to do your own thing? Exactly. What we do is that we take from one system what we like, we take from another system what we like, we take from another system. The principle of selectivity is determined by people's desires. But again, your desires may be fulfilled, but your life and worldview cannot stand up under analysis. Very, very few people in our modern society are thoroughgoing nihilists. A nihilist is one who sees all the implications of the statement there are no absolutes and operates accordingly. And so what I'm getting at is this, that people on the grassroots, at the popular level, who make statements like there are no absolutes, for the most part, will not embrace nihilism. So our first step in dealing with these people is to try to show them that the statement there are no absolutes must inevitably conclude with nihilism and force them to face the implications of their statement or else abandon that criticism. Because if there are no absolutes, what else would that mean? If there are no absolutes, there are no absolutes. If there are no absolutes, period, then that means, as I mentioned earlier, there can be no such thing as absolute being, only becoming. There's no final ultimate reality, no ultimate being who is at the top of the level of being. There's no God, there's no self existent, eternal being. Nothing is in a state of being. Everything is in a state of becoming. Everything is in a state of transition. There is nothing permanent, nothing ultimate. Only transitory mutations change. So we have no absolute being. What else must be faced? What about absolute value, huh? There can be no absolute value in terms of that which we value because there are no absolutes. So if there's no ultimate value, if there's no value in the sense of capital, V A L U E, then the next implication is, can there really be secondary values? If there's no such thing as absolute value singular, can there be values plural? Wouldn't seem logical. Certainly not absolutely. Anything that's called a value or considered to be valuable can only be done so on an Arbitrary, capricious, and subjective basis on the basis of personal whim, which reduces to arrogance. And as a subtle claim of being absolute oneself. When a person says, there are no absolutes, he is really saying, I am the absolute. Because if there are no absolutes, then any value that that person has in all human beings have some value can only be determined by his own subjectivism, which reduces itself to pure arrogance. Now, the reason why there can't be individual values is that there's no objective standard. There's no ultimate standard of value by which we can really determine whether something is objectively valuable or not. And if we have no standard by which to judge whether things are objectively valuable or not, the only possible way we can talk about value is in a subjective way. You become the ultimate reference point of the universe. Now, if there is no ultimate value, there's also no ultimate meaning to human existence. People say, you know, there are no absolute values. And usually the next thing that comes out of your mouth, we should do what we find meaningful. As soon as you say there aren't any absolutes, and then most people turn around and say, well, then really the thing that we should do is that we should do that which is meaningful. But as soon as they say we should do that which is meaningful, we are elevating the notion of that which is meaningful, even meaningful to us personally, as an absolute standard for behavior. And again, that would belie the first assertion that there are no absolutes. If there are no absolutes, then the standard of doing that which is meaningful to me cannot be considered an absolute. Yet this is the kind of inconsistency that people live within once they reject the notion of absolutes because they can't stand the ultimate implications of such a statement. If there is no absolute meaning, then any meaning that is meaningful in this world also is arbitrarily, capriciously, and subjectively affirmed. But it can't be really objectively meaningful. If there's no absolutes, then there can't be anything such as absolute truth. There can't be truth with a capital T, only truths with a small thing. But how can a small truth, how can a particular truth be judged to be true if there isn't some kind of objective standard for truth? And how does it usually function in this kind of a system, in a relativistic framework which says, okay, there's no such thing as absolute truth, only particular truths? Well, then how do we discover a particular truth? Exactly. You determine for yourself what is true for you. And when we talk like that the meaning of the word true becomes a nonsense term, because what you have to do is say again, truth is that which is meaningful to me. And truth then becomes thrown back upon the definition of meaningfulness. But there's no basis for determining meaningfulness except that which I find valuable. And that throws us back to the problem of value, which again reduces itself to arbitrary, capricious subjectiveness. If there's no such thing as absolute truth, then there's no such thing as absolute goodness. And so here's where we enter quickly into the moral sphere. And if there is no such thing as absolute goodness, no such thing as absolute truth, no such thing as absolute meaning, no such thing as absolute value, no such thing as absolute being, we have to go the way of the radical existentialist and beyond the radical existentialists such as Nietzsche and Sartre. Nietzsche's conclusion being that life is Das nichtache nothingness meaningless. He was a nihilist. There is no meaning. We have to create our own values, but that's an impossibility because we don't have the stuff of creation. The very building blocks of value have been destroyed from the very beginning. And again, I say we have to go beyond Nietzsche, because Nietzsche himself was totally inconsistent at this point. He says life is meaningless, and yet he's given all kinds of ethical imperatives to his readers. We ought to live according to a master morality rather than a slave morality. We ought to build our houses on the slopes of Vesuvius. We ought to send our ships into uncharted seas. We ought to seek to become the Ubermensch. He's constantly giving those kinds of ethical injunctions to other people, but he has no basis whatsoever to say I ought to do anything. If there are no absolutes, the word ought must lose its meaning, and it loses its force. There can be no such thing as a categorical imperative or a particular imperative. The imperative must be removed from the language, and it must be removed from life. Because I have no right to say to any other person that they ought to do anything if there are no moral absence. Understand that this is the problem, the dilemma of the humanist who wants his cake and eat it too. The humanist and the relativist lives on borrowed capital. They live on borrowed capital. Humanism is so attractive to the Christian. Why? Because it extols many of the same and similar virtues that Christianity extols. They're concerned for justice, they're concerned for peace, they're concerned for the dignity of man. They're concerned for such virtues as honesty and integrity. And industry, et cetera, et cetera, love, charity, long suffering. And the humanist says that he's four. The well being of mankind. And at the heart of the humanist manifesto is a strong affirmation of the dignity of man. The absolute then becomes the welfare of man, the dignity of man. But if there is no God, if there is no ultimate purpose, no absolute purpose to human existence, no absolute value to human existence, no absolute meaning to human existence, how can you possibly assign such a magnificent word as dignity to man? I beat this drum all the time. But see, this is the fatal weakness with the humanist who wants to seek the dignity of man. That dignity is inseparably related to the question of origin and destiny. Here's the difference between Christianity and all varieties of humanism, whether they're pessimistic forms of humanism or optimistic forms of humanism. Here's the basic tension that in the Christian faith, man's origin is seen in light of an absolute being who assigns to man an absolute value, who gives him an absolute destiny of purpose, who gives him an absolute framework of ethics in which he is to live out his existence. So that man himself is not an absolute being, but a dependent being, a created being, a finite being. He gets his dignity from his relationship to the one who is absolute in being and value and meaning and truth. That is to say, man's dignity is real according to the Christian faith, but that dignity is derived and dependent upon the one who stands alone in the context of intrinsic dignity. So that man's origin is in the hands of one who exists in intrinsic value, meaning, truth, being and dignity. And his future is designed and determined by the one who exists in the context of intrinsic dignity, value, being and meaning. So that from a Christian perspective, man's origin and his destiny are rooted in dignity. And it is easy for us to see why we can assign such a concept as dignity to man right now. But in the non theistic framework, in the humanistic framework, which sees man as the ultimate being, recognizing at the same time that man is contingent, derived, dependent and finite, how is the origin of man viewed? It's a cosmic accident. He has a purposeless and teleological origin. He comes out of nothing. And he is destined to what the existentialists call non being, to nothingness. His origin is in nothingness and meaninglessness. His destiny is in meaninglessness. How can you possibly assign dignity in between? Do you feel the weight of that? Can you even give me any philosophical reason why I should give a rip about human beings? They have no dignity. They're meaningless beings. You see, the only alternative for me to absolutes is to sleep into one morning. That's the only alternative for any thinking person. That's why Sartre came to the conclusion that life is a useless passion. And his one little book, tiny little book, where he gave perhaps his final comment on the significance of humanity. He entitled the book Nausea. That's a kind of consistency. But then even Sartre resorts to preaching from time to time and starts trying to assert certain values because even he can't live in the context of meaninglessness. Immanuel Kant, who gave such a massive critique of the traditional arguments for the existence of God based upon reason and empirical data, after he said that we can have no theoretical knowledge of God. We cannot demonstrate the existence of God intellectually or scientifically. Kant himself did not repudiate the notion of the existence of God. He substituted for his theoretical argument for the existence of God a practical argument for the existence of God. And Kant's argument for the existence of God has since become known as the moral argument for the existence of God, in which Kant says, we must live as if there were a God. We must live as if there were a God. Otherwise there can be no basis for ethics other than anarchy. And anarchy inevitably produces tyranny. It may be the tyranny of the majority, it may be the tyranny of the lobbyists, it may be the tyranny of the vested interest groups. But it will obviously and inevitably lead to the tyranny of the strong and reduce life to the status of the jungle. You are right now living in a sophisticated, technological, civilized, modern jungle. That's what happens when you abandon the sense of moral absolutes. Then the law becomes utterly positivistic. That is particularistic rather than universal. There is no standard of law except that which the power wants. That's jungle. That's jungle rule. That's the survival of the fittest. That's rule by strength, not by truth. Now what Kant is saying is that that's exactly what will happen in a society that abandons moral absolutes. That's why he argues that we have to live as if there's a God. He said, we can't know whether or not there's a God. Intellectually, I disagree with him. He came to that conclusion, but he didn't come to the conclusion. Therefore, let us live as if there is no God. Let us live as if all things are permissible. Now he understood that the survival of civilization was dependent upon the God hypothesis. We must live as if there's a God. Why? For ethics to be meaningful, I think we need to point that out to people, see that they're living on borrowed capital, that the humanist and secularist today wants to hang on to certain Christian values, certain Christian goals, certain Christian meaning without the only possible basis for it. We have to get our borrowed capital back.