Bill Pratt | March 30, 2009
Let’s define free will first. I define free will as the human ability to make contrary choices or decide between multiple options. Free will is the power of self-determination. It gives human beings the power to make real moral decisions. Some Christians deny that humans have free will because they say it diminishes God’s sovereignty. If humans [...]
Bill Pratt | March 17, 2009
Nobody. Christians hold that God has always existed and will always exist and is, therefore, uncaused. Only things that begin to exist need a cause, and God never began to exist, so God needs no cause. Nobody and no thing made God. Something or someone had to have always existed, or else everything that exists [...]
Bill Pratt | March 11, 2009
Philosopher Ken Samples, in a recent “New Reasons to Believe” (Vol 1 , No 1) publication, argues that naturalistic evolution cannot explain how human beings can have true beliefs about anything. Naturalistic evolution posits that there only exists the material, natural world around us. Everything that exists is the result of random, material processes working [...]
Bill Pratt | March 9, 2009
In a previous post, we showed that God is not the direct cause of moral evil. But if God is not the cause, then who is? Christians answer that free creatures are the direct cause of moral evil. How does this work? God gave human beings the power of free will. Free will is defined [...]
Bill Pratt | February 17, 2009
In the previous post, we found significant problems with survival ethics, the ethical theory which claims that “morality is easily explained by evolution and the tendency for biological life to survive and reproduce.” But there are more problems. Survival ethics are merely descriptive, not prescriptive. They describe the behaviors of the past that led to [...]
Bill Pratt | February 16, 2009
Have you ever heard someone say the following? ”Morality is easily explained by evolution and the tendency for biological life to survive and reproduce.” If so, read on because this post will evaluate this position to see whether it can really explain morality. If you would like to understand a little more about the theory before reading [...]
Bill Pratt | February 14, 2009
The final ethical system we will analyze is known as the immanent purpose view. This view holds that “there is no reason why something rather than nothing exists, that there is no purpose for human history, that there is no life after death, and that humans are the result of a blind process of evolution.” The [...]
Bill Pratt | February 13, 2009
Continuing our critique of optimistic humanism, we find that proponents of the view are unable to speak about the subject of morality without contradicting their own ethical system. Proponents of optimistic humanism admit that ethics are relative and changing over time. They assert that there are no absolute, objective moral values that are true for all [...]
Bill Pratt | February 12, 2009
We continue with our analysis of optimistic humanism. In the previous post, we found that optimistic humanism is incapable of condemning obviously immoral acts as objectively or absolutely wrong. In addition, this ethical system cannot explain the “oughtness” inherent in moral norms. But there are additional problems for optimistic humanism. Morality seems to require humans to [...]
Bill Pratt | February 10, 2009
In the previous post, we introduced the ethical theory of optimistic humanism. In this post, we will start to analyze optimistic humanism in order to see whether it can adequately explain morality. Many of the same objections can be cited for optimistic humanism as were cited for social Darwinism because both base their ethics on [...]
