Dr Paul Allen

The coronation of King Charles III went off as planned, with pomp and ceremony designed to invoke a thousand years of history, tradition, national identity, and royal majesty. Observers might be forgiven for wondering just how the elaborate ceremony in Westminster Abbey might be described as “slimmed down” from earlier traditions. Still, it was cut down a bit from the coronation of the king’s mother, Queen Elizabeth II, 70 years earlier. The king did take the title “Defender of the Faith” because the law concerning the monarchy required it, but no one took the new king as very serious about defending the Christian faith. He had proposed changing the monarch’s title to ‘Defender of Faith” rather than “Defender of the Faith,” but that was a step too far for the British. The king did arrange to have representatives of several religions participate in the ceremony. Still, the traditional language of the British monarchy and the Church of England prevailed, with many readings based on the B

Can Atheism Explain Moral "Oughtness"?Are there objective moral truths? This question has major ramifications depending on how you answer it, because it ultimately asks, “DOES GOD EXIST?” We can see the connection through examining the Moral Argument: 1 - If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist. 2 - Objective moral values and duties exist. 3 - Therefore, God exists. To avoid this theistic conclusion, atheists must refute at least one of the premises. Many wind up stating that objective moral values and duties do not exist. By making this move, however, atheists affirm that there is nothing really wrong with Hitler’s Holocaust or the Transatlantic Slave Trade. Since rejecting premise (2) tacitly affirms the atrocities of these obvious evils, committed atheists to feel the pressure to find another way to ground objective morality. Some atheists, such as Sam Harris, have attempted to find a logical way to ground objective morality in the “science

Human beings have a universal belief in right and wrong. As C.S. Lewis has observed, moral codes from cultures throughout world history vary over what specific behavior they consider moral, but there is an underlying agreement that objective moral values and duties exist. Any adequate worldview must be able to explain this feature of reality. Science and Morality In his book The Moral Landscape , atheist Sam Harris claims science can provide a basis for objective morality. But in his recent book Stealing from God , Frank Turek has written a piercing response: “Science might be able to tell you if an action may hurt someone—like giving a man cyanide will kill him—but science can’t tell you whether or not you ought to hurt someone. Who said it’s wrong to hurt people? Sam Harris? Is his nature the standard of good?” In other words, science is a descriptive discipline, but morality is a prescriptive discipline. Science can describe how things work, but it can never tell us how we

“Abort it and try again. It would be immoral to bring it into the world if you have the choice.” Richard Dawkins   recently tweeted  the above in response to a woman who wondered what she should do about her unborn child with Down syndrome . Of course that is an obscene statement and people all over the world responded. Here is how he summarized those arguments : I am being bombarded with pictures of Down’s children, with descriptions of how adorable and affectionate they are, and how rewarding to look after in spite of the difficulties. This seems to be our primary means of arguing with those who would kill our children with Down syndrome and other disabilities: point out how valuable they are  because of  the rewards we receive and how happy they are. We even have studies that demonstrate people with Down syndrome are happy with their lives. But Dawkins, and most others who support the destruction of unborn people, are more than willing to grant what we feel: I

Onion Skin ID (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) [This post is courtesy of Phillip Jensen , Dean of St Andrew's Cathedral in Sydney .] The nature/nurture debate is as endless as the determinist/freedom dispute. The safe position to adopt combines both nature and nurture. Yet that doesn’t end the debate; it simply moves the discussion onto the character of the combination. Scientific research will not bring a resolution. Not simply because the question is large and complex and the research is narrow and detailed, but because the reason for the debate is the implications of its outcomes. The ‘nature people’ have a desire to demonstrate that behaviour, especially bad behaviour, is nobody’s fault because it is inbuilt into our very being. Chauvinists use this reasoning to argue for inherited sexual differences that will excuse their behaviour towards women, just as much as homosexuals use it to justify their behaviour towards men. The ‘nurture people’ are the cultural relativists who de

Cover via Amazon It’s all relative .” “That’s true for you but not for me.” “That’s just your reality.” “Who are you to impose your values on others?” The relativist believes truth functions more like opinion or perspective and that truth depends upon your culture, context, or even personal choices. Thus evil actions by Nazis or terrorists are explained away (“We don’t like it, but they have their reasons”). Relativism , however, is seriously flawed. Relativism cannot escape proclaiming a truth that corresponds to reality. “The moon is made of cheese” is false because it does not match up with the way things are, with what is the case. As Christians, we claim the biblical story is true because it conforms to the actualities of God’s existence and His dealings with human beings. Truth is a relationship—a match-up with what is real or actual. An idea is false when it does not.  But what of those making such claims as “ Reality is like a wet lump of clay—we can shape it any way

English: Mount Sodom, Israel, showing the so-called "Lot's Wife" pillar. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) Sodom was destroyed not because of a lack of hospitality, as liberals claim; nor because of perversions, as conservatives claim; but because God did not find ten righteous men in the city. We change the world by being the church.  Ours is an ethically confused world. Materialist scientists tell us that since all is matter, there is no ultimate basis for judgments of "good" and "evil." Relativists claim that what is "good" for one person or culture may not be "good" for another person or culture. Some Christians have largely absorbed the secularist worldview to the point that their lives are virtually indistinguishable from the lives of nonbelievers.   Related articles Can the worldview of atheism rationally ground moral judgements? (winteryknight.wordpress.com) The seven fatal flaws of moral relativism (winteryknight.w

No one could possibly claim that the Beatitudes (see Matthew 5:1 -12) are overlooked or underappreciated. They have been the subject of countless books and sermon series. But this is not to say that the Beatitudes have been widely understood and properly taught. As often as not they have suffered from moralization , reduced to the level of the fortune cookie and with all the spiritual power of a fortune cookie. In Crucifying Morality, R.W. Glenn takes a new look at the Beatitudes saying, Maybe you “were taught that the Beatitudes were the highest form of morality that anyone could live by, and you know now how impossible they are. Or maybe you experienced the flannelgraph version of the Beatitudes.” If that is the case, “maybe it is time to get unfamiliar. Maybe you need to read these verses with fresh eyes for the first time. Whatever your exposure to the Beatitudes has been, you probably think of them as less powerful and captivating and helpful than they are. Take a step back

English: Peresopnytsia Gospels. 1556-1561. Miniature of Saint Matthew. (Photo credit: Wikipedia ) "And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but perceivest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" ( Luke 6:41 ) This rhetorical question by the Lord Jesus incisively points out a sin common among most Christians --the sin of sanctimoniousness , committed in the good name of morality . It is easy to criticize fellow Christians for their moral or ethical deficiencies while simultaneously justifying one's self for the same or worse defects. "Therefore thou art inexcusable, O man, whosoever thou art that judgest: for wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself; for thou that judgest doest the same things" ( Romans 2:1 ). This scripture point out that we can hide even worse sins, pretned we are holy then point out others lesser sins.  True morality is generated internally from a heart of gratitude and love for the Lord and Hi

That question is not just a matter of moral theory — it also informs our most urgent political and cultural debates. Back in May, columnist Eric Zorn of The Chicago Tribune asserted: “To me, immoral conduct is that which harms others, period.” That seems to be a straightforward statement, especially in light of its context. Zorn was writing a column in which he dismissed common arguments against same-sex marriage. In his concluding section he argued, “I will not debate the morality of various forms of private sexual conduct between consenting adults and neither should our lawmakers.” Since no one is harmed, Zorn argues, there is no real moral issue with respect to the sexual activities of consenting adults. In truth, a good many people agree with him. His logic is encapsulated in the 2003 U. S. Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas that invalidated all laws against homosexuality. I am fairly confident that the vast majority would be tempted to accept Zorn’s argument. My gues