SEAL of God (My Book!)
Days before Chad Williams was to report to military duty in Great Lakes, Illinois, he turned on a television and was greeted with the horrifying images of his mentor, US Navy SEAL Scott Helvenston, being brutally murdered in a premeditated ambush on the roads of Fallujah, Iraq. Steeled in his resolve, Chad followed in Scott’s footsteps and completed the US military’s most difficult and grueling training to become a Navy SEAL.
One of only 13 from a class of 173 to make it straight through to graduation, Chad served his country on SEAL Teams One and Seven for five years, completing tours of duty in the Philippines, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Iraq.
Part memoir, part evangelism piece, SEAL of God follows Chad’s journey through the grueling Naval Ops training and onto the streets of Iraq, where he witnessed the horrors of war up close. Along the way, Chad shares his own radical conversion story and talks about how he draws on his own experiences as a SEAL to help others better understand the depths of Christ’s sacrifice and love.
“SEAL of God” available at a limited time SALE price (33% off retail) plus personalize autograph from author only here: SPECIAL DEAL!
Fallacy: Red Herring
A Red Herring is an informal logical fallacy in which an irrelevant topic is introduced in order to attempt to shift attention away from the original issue at hand.
It has been said that, “A ‘Red Herring’ refers to a smelly fish which someone would drag across the path of the hounds pursuing their quarry, so that they get distracted and go off the path in pursuit of the fish.”
And so it is when someone commits a Red Herring fallacy they are either willfully or ignorantly attempting to introduce an irrelevant topic which distracts from the original issue at hand.
The Moral Argument: Addressing Red Herrings
Question:
“I know one person I talked to on the subject of the TMA said that how can God be ‘Good’ if He lets His people (in reference to Israel) destroy men, women, and children (citing Deuteronomy 2, particularly vs. 34). Any thing you can lend on this?”
Response:
This is a very common slight of hand the person tried to pull on you. I must point out that they are not engaging with TMA at all by erecting an objection to biblical revelation.
To make this clear in your interaction with them ask, “Can you please tell what specific premise of TMA you are attempting to address right now?”
Let us suppose that in response they try to aim their objection at premise (2). You can then point out that biblical revelation was never appealed to as support for premise (2)!
So in this particular case -with regard to TMA- such an objection introduces a straw-man and red-herring to the argument! Nobody has to read the bible to know that objective moral values exist. Let me put it this way; I knew it was objectively wrong to murder long before I read Exodus chapter 20. Make it clear that you have not appealed to biblical revelation in your argument but that premise (2) is affirmed in light of apprehending such objective moral values through moral experience!
Objectivity Apprehended In Moral Experience
As believers we are aware that this realm of objective moral values is made known to us through a God-given conscience (Rom. 2:15) but, we never had to first read Romans 2 as a sort of precondition to get that God-given conscience functioning. The awareness of objective moral values was already in full operation prior to reading the text. So it is not necessary to appeal to biblical revelation in support of premise (2) because objective moral values are already apprehended through moral experience.
Much like how we apprehend the objective reality of the physical world around us, we can also apprehend the objective reality of moral values. Most people are well aware of objective moral values with exception to morally handicapped folks like the psychotic sociopath serial killer. In the same way that some people are physically handicapped, say like the color-blind are incapable of distinguishing between the colors red and green. There are some people out there that are morally handicapped and incapable of identifying the morally objective difference between nurturing a child and torturing a child. Thus, just as a color-blind person that cannot distinguish between the colors like red and green doesn’t cause us that see color just fine to suddenly start doubting the difference we do see. So the morally handicapped person that can’t apprehend the objective difference between loving their neighbor or torturing their neighbor ought not to cause doubt in those of us that do apprehend an objective moral difference between the two.
Street Apologetics
Atheist: “how can God be ‘Good’ if He lets His people destroy men, women, and children in the Old Testament?”
Street Apologist: “I never appealed to biblical revelation in support of premise (2). I pointed out that I know objective moral values exist in probably the same way you know they exist. I apprehend them through moral experience.”
(At this point, it would be good to put them on the spot to agree with you.)
Street Apologist: “You do believe certain moral behaviors like rape or child molestation are objectively wrong don’t you?”
Atheist: “Of course!”
Street Apologist: “Ok then you agree with premise (2)!”
Atheist: “Uh…Right.”
Street Apologist: “Ok then you must disagree with premise (1), otherwise the conclusion: ‘God exists‘ will follow logically and inescapably.”
Atheist: “Ok, well I don’t believe the conclusion so I will disagree with premise (1).”
Street Apologist: “Alright, well if you affirm premise (2) objective moral values do exist yet deny premise (1), I would like to hear how you justify the existence of objective moral values in the absence of God’s existence?”
Let the squirming begin!
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below 
The Flourishing of Human Creatures
The Flourishing of Human Creatures
Another common objection atheists will launch at premise (1) of “The Moral Argument” is to that claim that objective moral values can some how find ground in whatever is conducive to the flourishing of human creatures. Such a view however would be guilt of “specie-ism” which is an unjustified biased toward one’s own species[1]. On atheism, human beings have no basis for objective moral values if they are a mere by-product of the same blind process that coughed up mosquitoes and leeches.
Human Flourishing? On atheism there is no God to bestow value or ultimate purpose on human beings. The universe does not care; it has no feelings and will show no favoritism toward mankind when it inevitably swallows the human race up in a finite amount of time. On atheism the end for mankind will be identical to the end for all other life forms such as pigs, amoebas and e coli.
On atheism there is no justification for objective moral values and to suggest that human beings maintain some special place in the universe is arbitrary and unintelligible.
Other Objections to Premise (1)
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
[1] Craig, William Lane. Reasonable Faith: Christian Truth and Apologetics-3rd ed. Wheaton Illinois: Crossway Books, 2008. Print.
Moral Platonism
Moral Platonism
(Common Objection to “The Moral Argument”)
What is Moral Platonism?
In the absence of God atheistic naturalists will sometimes attempt to say that objective moral values just simply exist without any foundation! This sort of view on objective moral values is often referred to as “Moral Platonism” (MP). You see, Plato once upon a time believed that “goodness” or say “forbearance” simple existed somewhere out there as part of the universe. Likewise “greed” “hatred” “loyalty” “selfishness” and so forth just exist, absent of any grounding!
A Double-edged Response to MP
Firstly, it is arbitrary. For instance to hold that “goodness” simply exists out there independent of any persons seems quite odd and indefensible. Moral values are properties of person and it does not make any sense to speak of them as impersonal abstractions. I mean, just appreciate that for a moment and think of what it would be like for “goodness” to simply exist as part of the universe in the absence of any God and before the arrival of the human species.
Secondly, this seems to be ad hoc. It appears to be quite coincidental that in the absence of God; a blind physical process would cough up just the right human creatures that would match up to these impersonal and ungrounded abstractions. It is like the platonic realm was just waiting for human beings to show up! And on a side note, why would there be any moral obligation to align oneself with such abstractions in a meaningless and purposeless universe. Does the universe really care?
Moral Platonism is unintelligible. The person that wants to put stock in MP has a lot of explaining to do if they don’t want to give up rationality in the process.
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
A Common Misunderstanding
A Case of Misunderstanding
It can be almost guaranteed that when you present The Moral Argument (TMA) to an unbeliever they will object to premise (1) in a similar fashion following:
“I don’t believe in God and I am a lot better than most Christians I know!”
“Are you trying to say that I have to believe in God in order to be a moral person?”
The Response
This sort of response is a very common misunderstanding of premise (1). Remember that the premise says:
If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
It is a mistake to understand this as saying; one must have belief in God in order to live a moral life. That is not the claim. In fact, I would like to mention that I know a number of atheists I worked with in the SEAL teams. And I am certain of this when I say those guys would run into harms way in the blink of an eye for the sake of others.
With that said, it is not a belief in God that is necessary to live a moral life; it is the existence of God that is necessary for the existence of objective moral values! Again, the issue at hand is not belief in God; it is the existence of God.
(1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Thus, in the absence of God there is no such thing as a moral life in the objective sense that we have been discussing! With God in the paradigm, morality reduces down to subjectivity. Just an aid to survival and any deeper meaning is illusory[1].
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
[1]“The position of the modern evolutionist . . . is that humans have an awareness of morality . . . because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than are hands and feet and teeth . . . Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says ‘Love they neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory . . .” -Michael Ruse, Philosopher of Biology
What Is The Moral Argument?
The Moral Argument
The Moral Argument (TMA) is a tremendously effective tool on the street. The reason TMA has so much force is because it reaches people on a more personal level. The bottom line is that the conclusions one draws from this argument will translate over to how they live their everyday life. In short, this one gets personal!
TMA comes in a handful of different variations and I have selected the most prominent arrangement for our discussion. It comes in the form of a logical syllogism, and therefore the conclusion will follow inescapably according to the rules of logic so long as one affirms premises (1) and (2) as true premises.
The Moral Argument Stated:
1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
2) Objective moral values do exist.
3) Therefore, God exists.
Before expanding on this, I think it would be crucial to distinguish between what it means for something to be “objectively” or “subjectively” true.
By “objective” we mean: Something is to be true independent of human opinion.
By “subjective” we mean: Something is to be true dependent on human opinion.
Objective vs. Subjective Illustrated:
If I have a 5 Dollar Bill in my wallet, it will be objectively true that I have a 5 Dollar Bill in my wallet. To make it absolutely clear, it is objectively true that I have a 5 Dollar Bill in my wallet and this truth is wholly independent of what any human might feel or think about that.
With regards to the appearance of my wallet, it is subjectively true that it is a fashionable wallet. It is dependent upon my opinion and the opinion of others whether my wallet really has that voguish elegance.
Premise (1) the claim is that if God does not exist there is no justification or accountability for objective moral values. That is to say, if God does not exist there would be no foundation outside of the shifty subjectivism that human beings impart. Put another way, there would be no objective grounding or anchoring of moral values. In the absence of God, Richard Dawkins drives the point home for us in premise (1):
“In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication. Some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, no good; nothing but pitiless indifference.”
Thus, if someone wants to negate the affirmation of premise (1) the burden of proof will lay squarely on them. It will be their responsible to erect a basis for objective moral values in the absence of God.
Premise (2) objective moral values do exist. You would think that this might be a difficult premise to validate but; almost everyone –when feet are put to the fire- will affirm the existence of some objective moral values. Most of us do experience the reality of objective moral values just as we experience the reality of the physical world. For instance, certain actions like raping to fulfill sexual desires or torturing babies for pure entertainment are not actions of “pitiless indifference” equivalent to love and kindness as Richard Dawkins would have it; rather such actions are objectively wrong regardless and independent of what Dawkins or other human beings might think or have to say on the matter! There may be those that disagree with us on this point but that should not slow down those of us that do apprehend such objective moral values anymore than a color blind or deaf person ought to cause those of us that see color and hear fine to doubt we do. Such a person that does not perceive it to be objectively wrong to rape for pleasure or torture babies for entertainment would simply be morally handicapped in the same way a blind or deaf person is physically handicapped.
Conclusion (3) if a person affirms the first two premises then the logic is airtight and the conclusion will forcefully follow that God exists. God would be the transcendent foundation and anchoring of objective moral values, wholly independent of human opinion or feelings. God would be the very source of moral value as His Nature is the “The Good” and anything contrary to His Good Nature would be Evil.
Are there common objections to these premises? Certainly, and there are very good responses too! I will be dealing with these common objections on an individual basis in my next handful of posts. As the common objections are dealt with I will provide links to them below:
Common Objections to TMA
- Addressing Red Herrings (new)
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
What is a Logical Syllogism?
A logical syllogism is a type of logical argumentation that draws its conclusion from two or more premises.
What is so powerful about this form of argumentation is that the conclusion will follow from the premises logically and inescapably so long as the premises are affirmed as being true.
In order for someone to refute the conclusion they will be forced to deny one or more of the premises and present a case for their negation.
Basic example of a logical syllogism:
Premise (1) All men are mortal.
Premise (2) All Greeks are men.
Conclusion: Therefore, all Greeks are mortal.
The conclusion is logically valid. In other words the logic is irrefutable! If some one wants to deny the conclusion -as has been stated before- they will only be able to do so by denying one or more of the premises.
Examples from Natural Theology:
Kalam Cosmological Argument (KCA)
Premise (1) Anything that begins to exist has a cause.
Premise (2) The universe began to exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, the universe has a cause.
Premise (1) If God does not exist, objective moral values do not exist.
Premise (2) Objective moral values do exist.
Conclusion: Therefore, God exists.
Note: It is inevitable that there will be those that deny certain premises but, what they will have to demonstrate is that the negation of those premises is more plausible than their affirmation. What constitutes a “good argument” is that the affirmation of any given premises is more plausible than their negation. This point cannot be stressed enough, the detractor is going to have to demonstrate that their denial of any given premise is more plausible that the its affirmation and if they do not succeed in doing so you will have an argument in good standing!
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
What is Atheism?
All too often on the street I run into people that are self-proclaimed Atheists but, when pressed to give a response as to why they believe that “God does not exist” they recant: “I never said I believe that ‘God does not exist’ I simply lack a belief in God’s existence.”
Is a lack of belief in God’s existence really Atheism though? Certainly not, and when pressed to give an explanation as to what they believe; more times than not they wind up giving a description of Agnosticism.
A true Atheist however is not someone that is open to the possibility of God’s existence. A real atheist is not one that merely lacks a belief in God. A genuine atheist is one that affirms there is no God.
The term Atheist comes from the Greek ἄθεος (atheos). In English this comes out as two words:
ἄ represents the “negative” or “no”
θεος represents “God”
Atheism is the negative (ἄ) contrasted form of God (θεος), which is to say that there is “no God.”
Claiming oneself to be an Atheist -in it’s truest form- comes with a burdensome task as it asserts a negative, that is to say, it affirms that God does not exist which comes with shouldering quite a burden of proof. Of course they are not up to the task and therefore they pour a different meaning into the word “Atheist” and so the word games and redefinitions begin.
They want that provocative title “Atheist” but when their feet are put to the fire on it, they describe themselves to be more Agnostic; or as the Latin form puts it Ignoramus. I guess identifying oneself as an Ignoramus just doesn’t have the same rousing ring to it.
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below
God vs Science?
The Common Objection: “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science!”
This objection fails logically. It is a text book example of the “either/or” fallacy.
The “either/or” fallacy is committed when someone presents only two options as though they are the only available options to choose from when in reality there are one or more choices that can be made.
In the particular objection before us it is assumed that one either believes in God; or one believes in science. But are those really the only two options available? Certainly not. There is no conflict between God and science and therefore one could opt for belief in God and science.
Furthermore, it could be argued that the Christian worldview (system of thought) is the only worldview that can justify the vary foundational conditions that are necessary for doing science. That is to say, only Christianity can provide an un-assumed answer as to why the “laws of science” are law-like and reliable rather than the atheists unjustified presumptions of such laws. For a better understanding of this click here.
So how should we respond to such an error on the street? Well, you can slice and dice the persons claim via swiftly pointing out their erred thinking by pulling out the logical fallacy card. However, I don’t think such an offensive approach will provide conditions for any further fruitful conversation. More to the point, I know so from plenty of experience and depending on the tone such a response can even be unbiblical as we are to remember to give an answer while showing gentleness and respect (cf. 1 Peter 3:15).
I would suggest that the best way to engage with the objection would be to lead the conversation by asking probing questions until no further probing questions can be asked. I can’t stress that enough! Asking the right questions is a great start to coming alongside the objector and helping them to see clearer. You won’t only win the conversation but you will be a winner of souls (Prov. 11:30).
Example:
Objector: “I don’t believe in God, I believe in science.”
Street Apologist: “Is belief in God and science in conflict?”
Objector: “Uh… I think so?”
Street Apologist: “So is it logically impossible to maintain a belief in God and science?”
Objector: “Well, I wouldn’t go so far as to say it is impossible.”
Street Apologist: “Great! You are open to the possibility and I would like to tell you about it. In fact, I would go further and say the only reason we can do science is because of God’s existence!”
“How to Answer” Archive: Click Here
Find this post helpful? Please help me by sharing it through the social media options below