"You're Wrong!"
I've long considered it interesting how non-Christians still try to think in ways consistent with the Christian worldview long after repudiating it. The funny thing is that this almost always involves contradictions with their own belief system, or an ad hoc belief in some things "just because" without any foundational basis.
For example (and I will put this in another essay eventually), science was founded on the faith that because the universe had a rational and orderly Lawgiver as creator, the universe would itself be rational and follow orderly laws. This distinctively creationist worldview gave birth to science.
Today, many scientists arbitrarily rule out the existence of God as a foundational presupposition. Committing the scientism fallacy, they insist the concept of God is "unscientific" or "outside science" and therefore non-existent or irrelevant. They still claim to believe in science and a universe ruled by law (at least, most of the time), "just because" it "works." They even caricature theists as believing in "magic" or "miracles" (misdefining miracles as arbitrary "violations" of natural laws), inverting the classical theistic viewpoint.
There is another problem that is even more common. This is the problem of truth, and of human beings claiming to know it. The inconsistency of non-revelationists (anyone who does not believe God has communicated his Word in some way to man such as the Bible, or the Koran, Book of Mormon, etc.) on the issue of truth can be exploited to confront them on a wide variety of issues. In this essay I'll deal with the issue of moral judgment.
The non-revelationist cannot believe that they have absolute truth because they have no source capable of providing them with knowledge of such truth. The mistake-ridden human mind is not an adequate source, and the non-revelationist, by definition, does not believe that an entity capable of knowing absolute truth has ever communicated it to them. Therefore, they can only offer you their opinions, not objective, absolute standards of right and wrong. This leaves them extremely vulnerable and inconsistent.
Here is an example of how you can respond to anyone who criticizes your position or actions as immoral:
"How dare you try to deny a woman's right to choose abortion! You're an evil person, trying to take away her rights!"
"When you say I am evil and wrong, what do you mean? Do you mean that my beliefs contradict your opinion, or that they are contrary to God's Law?
"What's the difference? You're wrong!"
"If I am wrong only in your opinion, who cares? What right do you have to shove your opinion down my throat?"
"It's not just an opinion! Women shouldn't be forced to take care of children if they don't want them."
"Now you're just piling up one human opinion on top of another. Your opinion that abortion is acceptable, you are saying, is based on your opinion that women shouldn't have to take care of a child they don't want. But where is this opinion coming from? Again, just your opinion or God's Law?
"The vast majority of people agree that a woman shouldn't be forced to care for children they don't want."
"Let's assume this is true. Again, you are basing everything on your opinion. Why should I accept your opinion that a plurality makes something OK? No matter how you try to avoid it, you keep founding everything on your opinions and trying to shove them down my throat. If 51% of the populace was to vote against abortion, would you accept that and change your mind?"
"Of course not. A woman has a right to choose, and even if you deluded a majority of people to think otherwise that wouldn't change what's right!"
"So you are appealing to some objective standard of truth? Something independent of your opinion, to which you try to make your opinion conform? Upon what is this standard of right and wrong based? Where is it found? Who created it?"
"Nobody wrote it. It just is, it evolves according to the needs and wants of society."
"If it isn't written anywhere, if no one in a position to really know wrote it down, then how do I know what it says? What if I disagree with you about what is right and wrong? How do you know it says what you want it to say? How do you know it's not going to change to what I want it to be?"
"It's based on certain fundamental criteria we can all agree on, like it's wrong to hurt people or steal from them."
"You're opinion again! Why can't I believe it is good to steal and kill, in order to achieve evolutionary superiority for example?"
"All right! If everything is based on opinions, then why should I listen to you and your opinions ? How can we reason with one another if anyone can deny whatever starting assumptions or opinions the other side has? Why don't we just spit and scratch each other like animals?"
"What if I'm not relying on my opinion? What if, as you assumed, there really is a Standard of right and wrong independent of the opinion of people? If the Creator of the Standard has communicated it to us, then we do not need to rely on mere opinions."
"You're getting at the Bible, aren't you? I don't believe it."
"Nor can I force you to. But please understand. If I am relying on the Bible for my understanding of right and wrong, "shoving my opinion down your throat" is the one thing I am not doing. I am supporting something that is not my opinion but an absolute standard. On the other hand, you and others like you, every time you vote or voice an opinion, can only try to force your opinion onto other people. It's all you've got to work with."
Without an absolute standard of judgment, all we have are opinions based on other opinions and certain axiomatic assumptions. Anyone else can make up contrary opinions and adopt different starting assumptions. If non-revelationists ever truly abandoned their biblical theistic roots and their own God-given conscience completely it would be quite impossible for peaceful, free, civilization to be maintained.
Notice that this can be really effective when someone - rightly or wrongly - accuses you of doing something wrong. (Of course, if the accusation is true and you did sin, then you should repent and apologize!)
"You're so self-righteous! What a jerk!"
"Let's say I have been self-righteous. Is this wrong because you don't like it, or is it wrong because the Bible condemns self-righteousness? If the former, why should anyone care what you think? If the latter, why do you also continue in rebellion against God's commands without repenting?"
This latter reply can be used aggressively whenever you are being attacked by a non-Christian to shift the focus to where it should be - on their sinful nature and need for repentance. The plank needs to be removed from their eye. They will try to shift the focus continually and often deny their sin in a fit of self-righteousness, so be ready and don't give up. The more they attack you, the more you can turn it around and use it against their own sinful nature!
Is ________ wrong because you say so, or because God says so?
Return to
Eric's InfoCenter Main Page 
Return to Reason & Revelation Page