Gensler, Chapter 3 - Supernaturalism PDF

3 Supernaturalism Supernaturalism (SN): “X is good” means “God desires X.” Pick your moral principles by following God’s will....

3 Supernaturalism Supernaturalism (SN): “X is good” means “God desires X.” Pick your moral principles by following God’s will. Supernaturalism (SN), also called the divine-command theory, says that moral judgments describe God’s will. Calling something “good” means that God desires it. Ethics is based on religion. We’ll begin by listening to the fictional Ima Supernaturalist explain her belief in supernaturalism. After considering some objections, we’ll explore how religion and ethics might connect even if SN is wrong. SN is controversial in Christianity (and in other religions with a supreme God, like Judaism and Islam – see Gensler 2016: 3), with some thinkers accepting SN and others rejecting it. 3.1 Ima Supernaturalist My name is Ima Supernaturalist. I’ve embraced supernaturalism as I’ve come to appreciate the deeply religious basis for morality. In Sunday School, I learned that God gave us the ten commandments: Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. 01. Thou shalt not worship false gods. 02. Thou shalt not take God’s name in vain. 03. Keep holy the Sabbath. 04. Honor thy father and thy mother. 05. Thou shalt not kill. 06. Thou shalt not commit adultery. 07. Thou shalt not steal. 08. Thou shalt not bear false witness. 09. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s wife. 10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor’s goods. The ten commandments are from the Old Testament (Exodus 20 and Deuter- onomy 5); they express God’s will and the moral rules. Jesus taught that the deeper idea behind the commandments was to love God above all things and Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.  40 Part 1: Popular Metaethics love our neighbor as ourselves (Matthew 22:37–40). He also summed them up in the golden rule: “Treat others as you want to be treated” (Matthew 7:12). Religion didn’t mean much to me for many years. For a time, I was a “lost soul.” I did drugs and I stole money to support my drug habit. My life was going down the drain. But then I connected with a Christian group and had a religious conversion. Now God is a strong force in my life. To do the right thing is to follow his will. I believe this – and it helped me to get my life back in order. In my ethics course last semester, we studied three secular approaches. The first two based ethics on social approval and personal feelings. These led me into my drug habit; I can testify that these views can lead us to ruin. My teacher pro- posed, instead, that we do whatever a perfectly rational “ideal observer” would want us to do. This view is fine, but only if we add that God is the “ideal ob- server.” Otherwise, we’re only appealing to a vague hypothetical construct. My view, supernaturalism, sees moral judgments as religious statements: “X is good” means “God desires X.” What does “God” here mean? The usual def- inition is “the all-good, all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the world.” But this makes my definitions circular (since I’d use “God” to define “good,” and then “good” to define “God”). It also suggests that standards of goodness exist prior to God’s will (instead of God’s will creating the standards). So it’s better to define “God” as simply “the all-powerful, all-knowing Creator of the world.” I have three arguments for my view. These argue from the Bible, from God’s sovereignty (absolute power), and from the source of morality. The first two are based on my religious beliefs and show how SN flows naturally from religion. (1) Bible. Given a belief in the Bible, supernaturalism has to be true – because the Bible teaches it. The Bible always uses “good” as interchangeable with “what God desires.” And the account of God writing the ten commandments on stone tablets teaches SN vividly. So if you believe in the Bible, then you’ll accept SN. (2) Sovereignty. If you believe in God, then you believe that all laws of every sort depend on God’s will. But then all basic moral laws must depend on God’s will. So God created the moral order, and his will distinguishes right from wrong. So if you believe in God, then you’ll accept SN. (3) Source. If you accept objective moral duties, then you must accept that Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. these have a source – and the only workable source is God. Other explanations fail: the source of objective duties can’t be a non-person (since these are lower than persons and so can’t impose duties on persons), you (since then you could cancel duties and so duties wouldn’t be binding), or other individuals or society (since these have no moral authority over us if they tell us to do what is wrong). Thus belief in objective moral duties requires belief in God. This argument doesn’t presume belief in God, but it might lead to this belief. My three arguments presume, respectively, that you believe in the Bible, or God, or objective duties. If you don’t believe in any of these, then I can’t argue with you. But you’re going to have a difficult time living your life if you don’t decide to believe in something! How does believing in the divine origin of values influence my life? I see three main influences. (1) I regard morality as objective, and so I take it very seriously. Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.  Supernaturalism 41 So racist actions are objectively wrong, since God forbids them. Thus the duty to oppose racism is serious. Many supernaturalists are prepared to die to defend their moral beliefs. I can’t see how you could take morality seriously if it were based only on personal feelings or social approval. (2) I connect morality closely to religion. So I have a strong religious motiva- tion to be moral, and I follow a religious approach to moral education. A big problem with the world today is that people try to teach morality without teach- ing religion – which won’t work. So people grow up without any firm values. (3) I see atheists as confused about morality. At first I was perplexed that some atheists can accept morality and try to live moral lives. But I learned that atheists first got their values from a religious source. They lost their religion but kept the values – even though the values make sense only on a religious basis. So atheists who accept morality are confused. Clearheaded atheists, like Jean-Paul Sartre, reject morality, saying that everything is permissible if there’s no God. What are we supernaturalists like? My parish paper mentioned a survey where people described us. Some talked about us as “intolerant judgmental fundamen- talists” who look for clear-cut answers from above instead of struggling with moral issues. Others called us “deeply religious people” who see morality not as abstract truths but as part of our personal relationship with a loving God. Don’t overly generalize about us. Yes, some supernaturalists are judgmental, even though Jesus forbade this (Matthew 7:1–5). But others see that, as sinners ourselves, we should avoid “casting the first stone” against others (John 8:7). Yes, some have selfish motives, obeying God just to avoid punishment and gain reward. But others, responding in gratitude to God’s love, strive for an unselfish love toward God and neighbor. Since the Bible has to be understandable to a wide range of people, it appeals to both higher and lower motives. 3.2 Knowing God’s will This is still Ima. I need to tell you how we can know God’s will. Supernaturalists differ on this. Perhaps we can know God’s will through (1) the Bible, (2) the church, (3) prayer, or (4) reason – or (5) we can’t know God’s will – or (6) we Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. should combine these answers. (1) Bible. I was brought up to believe that the Bible teaches clear-cut answers on all moral issues. But I’ve learned about gray areas where people interpret the Bible differently. My grandfather was a pacifist during the Vietnam War. He thought it was wrong to kill a human for any reason, even self-defense. He took “Thou shalt not kill” and “Turn the other cheek” literally. But many of his friends thought it their duty to fight the “godless Communists.” They quoted passages urging the Israelites to conquer their enemies. Which side is right? Should a Biblical Chris- tian be a pacifist or a militarist? And how do we decide this? I think we need to understand individual passages in the light of the Bible’s general message. People who try to do this may end up interpreting things differently. So the Bible leaves us with gray areas. And the Bible doesn’t directly address many issues. Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.  42 Part 1: Popular Metaethics Also, which religion and bible should we follow? My Jewish, Islamic, and Mormon friends accept different scriptures. But all religions have the same general message about God’s will, that God wants us to have concern and love for each other, and treat others as we want to be treated. The details vary, but the general message is the same. (2) Church. Many see their church as a moral authority. Some think that their church teaches an unchanging and infallibly true moral system, and we must accept everything it says. But history shows that church teaching has evolved over the years and sometimes has blind spots that need correction. My church mostly recognizes this. And so I look at my church as I look at a wise teacher: I listen and try to learn – but in the end I may disagree on some details. (3) Prayer. Many pray to God for guidance, and then take their feelings as a sign of God’s will. I do this myself. But we can confuse God’s will with our likes and dislikes. We’ve all seen religious fanatics who think God wants things that in fact are crazy and hateful. So we need input from the Bible and the church to help us to form our conscience. (4) Reason. Some follow an ideal-observer method, where we ask “What would a perfect God who knows everything and loves everyone want us to do?” Others follow their moral intuitions, seen as implanted by God to help us to know his will. These approaches can be helpful, particularly if we add input from the Bible and the church. (5) Can’t know. Some think that God’s will is completely unknowable, since God is mysteriously above our little minds. Romans 11:34 asks, “Who has known the mind of the Lord?” – which perhaps suggests that we can’t know God’s will. But surely we know some things about God’s will, even though we can’t know all the details. I get angry with people who think they know all the details and won’t listen to anyone else. (6) Combine. I think we need to combine all four sources: the Bible, the church, prayer, and reason. Where the sources speak clearly and in unison, our belief is solid. So it’s clear that God wants us to love each other, and to treat others as we want to be treated. It’s also clear that God opposes stealing, lying, adultery, and killing – and racism (which violates “Love thy neighbor”). But there are gray Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. areas, like pacifism. Here we follow our prayer and reason as best we can, while we gain insight from the Bible and the church. In these gray areas, we should be less confident of our beliefs and more tolerant of opposing views. Let me highlight SN’s attractions. SN is popular among ordinary people; so it’s not a view that only a philosopher could love. It explains morality in a clear way. It makes morality objective; human values have to conform to a higher law. It can appeal to higher motives (unselfish love and gratitude to God) or lower ones (punishments and rewards). It can give us strong community support – from our religious tradition and local church – in helping us to form our moral beliefs. And it makes morality part of our personal relationship with God. Reflect on how you react to this view. Do you have objections? Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.  Supernaturalism 43 3.3 The atheism objection Ima has given us a clear formulation of an important approach to morality. As a religious person, I agree with much of what she says. But I don’t think ethics and religion connect as closely as she claims. I don’t think that moral judgments require belief in God, or that “X is good” means “God desires X.” One problem is that SN makes it impossible for atheists to make positive moral judgments. Imagine an atheist who says “Kindness is good, but there’s no God.” If “X is good” means “God desires X,” then this claim is self-contradictory (since it means “God desires kindness, but there’s no God”). But it isn’t self-contradic- tory. So “X is good” doesn’t mean “God desires X.” If supernaturalism were true, then atheists couldn’t consistently make positive moral judgments. But atheists can consistently make positive moral judgments. Supernaturalism isn’t true. My argument doesn’t assume any alternative view about what “good” means. But it does assume that our atheist friends aren’t contradicting themselves when they make positive moral judgments. Ima thinks that such atheists are contradicting themselves. Their moral beliefs assume God’s existence, which they reject. She explains how this could happen: “Atheists first got their values from religion. They lost religion but kept the values, even though the values make sense only on a religious basis.” But not all atheists got their values from religion. Morality can grow up in an atheist society that’s never taken the existence of God seriously. It’s difficult to believe that such atheists by “good” mean “desired by God.” It’s also difficult to believe that our atheist friends use “good” this way. Imagine discussing a moral issue with an atheist friend. You suggest that you both stop using “good” and in its place use “desired by God.” Would this sub- stitution change the discussion? It would likely end the discussion. The atheist surely doesn’t use the two expressions as equivalent in meaning. Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Ima could respond that believers and atheists mean different things by “good.” Believers mean “desired by God,” but atheists mean something else. Then atheists could make moral judgments even if they deny God’s existence. But this second response makes it difficult to see how believers and atheists can have fruitful moral discussions. If both sides mean something different by “good,” then they can’t really agree or disagree morally. If I say “This is good” (meaning “God desires this”) and the atheist says “This is good” (meaning some- thing else), then we aren’t agreeing – other than verbally. I can have fruitful moral discussions with people even if I know nothing about their religion. The discussion will go mostly the same regardless of religious beliefs. So believers and atheists seem to mean the same thing by “good.” But atheists surely don’t use “good” to mean “desired by God.” So, presumably, neither believers nor atheists mean this by “good.” Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.  44 Part 1: Popular Metaethics From a practical standpoint too, it would be better not to base ethics on some- thing as controversial as religion. But a determined supernaturalist could bite the bullet and hold to SN despite these problems. 3.4 Socrates’s question Socrates, the first major philosopher of ancient Greece, was a religious person who tried to follow God’s will. He saw ethics as closely connected with religion. But he rejected SN in Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue, largely on the basis of a penetrating question. I’ll express his question in my own words. Let’s suppose that there’s a God and he desires all good things. Then: Is a good thing good because God desires it? Or does God desire it because it is good? Let’s assume that kindness is good and that God desires it. Which is based on which? Is kindness good because God desires it? Or does God desire kindness because it’s already good (and God knows that it’s good)? Socrates and most people prefer the second alternative: God desires kindness because he knows that it’s good. His desires don’t make it good. Instead, he wouldn’t desire it if it weren’t already good. But then kindness is good prior to and inde- pendently of God’s will. It would presumably be good even if there were no God. This alternative involves giving up SN. SN must take the first alternative: Kindness is good because God desires it. Kind- ness wouldn’t be good if God didn’t desire it. Prior to God’s desires, kindness is neither good nor bad. This answer seems to make ethics arbitrary. Or let’s assume that hatred is bad, and that God forbids it. Is hatred bad because God forbids it (so if he didn’t forbid it then it wouldn’t be bad)? Or does God forbid it because it’s already bad? This second alternative is more plausible, but it involves giving up supernaturalism. This point is subtle but important. If you don’t get the point, I suggest that Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. you reread the last few paragraphs a few times until the idea comes through. This might surprise you, but relatively few Christian philosophers clearly favor SN (that God’s will makes things good or bad). William of Ockham of the late Middle Ages was the most famous defender of SN. Suppose that we take the SN alternative (that God’s will makes things good or bad). We might then ask, “What if God desired hatred; would hatred then be good?” Ockham would have shouted, “Yes, if God desired hatred then hatred would be good!” But this is implausible. Imagine that an all-powerful and all-knowing being created a world and desired that its people hate each other. Would hatred then be good? Surely not! Such a creator would have an evil will. But then we can’t say that “good” by definition is what the creator desires. Another problem is that SN trivializes the claim “God is good.” On SN, this Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.  Supernaturalism 45 means only “God is (or does) what is desired by God.” But even evil people can be (or do) what they desire. 3.5 SN arguments Ima had three arguments for SN. Supernaturalism must be true, because: 1. the Bible teaches it, 2. God’s all-powerful sovereign will is the basis for all laws, and 3. God is the only plausible source of objective moral duties. But these arguments fall apart if we examine them carefully. (1) The Bible argument assumes that the Bible teaches supernaturalism. The problem here (even if we assume that what the Bible teaches must be true) is that the Bible doesn’t really teach SN. The Bible, properly understood, doesn’t take a stand for or against SN. Years ago, my Bible teacher cautioned against using the Bible to answer ques- tions that the Biblical authors didn’t ask and that wouldn’t have made immediate sense to them. The Biblical authors weren’t concerned with Socrates’s question. Nor would it have made immediate sense to them. Thus it seems illegitimate to use the Bible to prove SN. The Bible teaches that we ought to obey God; but this is compatible with other approaches to ethics. Maybe we ought to obey God because his commands reflect a deeper knowledge of an independent moral order. On this non-SN view, stealing isn’t bad because God forbids it; instead, God forbids it because it’s already bad. This non-SN approach is consistent with the Bible; nothing in the Bible contradicts it. If so, then believing in the Bible doesn’t require SN. (2) The sovereignty argument assumes that all laws of every sort depend on God’s will. The problem here (even if we assume that there’s a God) is that it’s doubtful that all laws depend on God’s will. Is “x = x” true because of God’s will, so it would have been false if God had willed otherwise? This law seems true of its very nature, and not true because God made it true. Maybe moral laws are the Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. same. Maybe hatred is evil in itself, and not just evil because God made it so. (3) The source argument assumes that objective moral duties need a source and that God is the only plausible source. The problem here (even if we accept objective moral duties) is that it’s doubtful that such duties need a source. To say that they need a source assumes that “A ought to be done” means something of the form “X legislates A.” But why accept this? Maybe basic moral truths (like the logical truth “x = x”) are true in themselves, and not true because someone made them true. Then they wouldn’t need a “source.” 3.6 Ethics and religion How do ethics and religion connect? SN connects them with a definition: “X is good” means “God desires X.” But SN has problems, even from a religious Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.  50 Part 1: Popular Metaethics defended on a non-SN basis. SN isn’t a consequence of belief in God; basic moral principles might be like the logical truth “x = x,” which is true in itself, and not true because God decided to make it true. Finally, some ways to defend the objectivity of ethics don’t base ethics on God’s will. Some are led to SN because they believe that ethics connects closely to religion. But the alternative natural-law view also connects the two closely, even though it rejects SN. Optional sections discuss modified SN (which bases “good” on what a wise and loving God would desire) and supernatural virtues (which extend the view of Plato and Aristotle by adding three religious virtues: faith, hope, and love). 3.10 Study questions 1. How does supernaturalism define “good”? What method does it use for arriving at moral beliefs? 2. How did Ima sum up Biblical teaching about God’s will? (3.1) 3. How did Ima view the three secular approaches to ethics (cultural relativ- ism, subjectivism, and the ideal-observer view) that she studied in her ethics course? 4. How did Ima define “God”? How did she avoid the danger of circular definitions? 5. What were Ima’s three arguments for accepting SN? 6. In what three ways did SN affect Ima’s life? 7. Some think supernaturalists are “intolerant judgmental fundamentalists.” How did Ima respond to this charge? 8. What problems did Ima mention about taking the Bible as the sole source of our knowledge about God’s will? (3.2) 9. How did Ima think we can best know God’s will? 10. Sketch your initial reaction to supernaturalism. Does it seem plausible to you? What do you like and dislike about it? Can you think of any way to show that it’s false? 11. Explain the argument against SN based on the idea that atheists can make Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. positive moral judgments? How could Ima respond? (3.3) 12. What was Socrates’s question? Explain the two possible answers. (3.4) 13. How could Ima’s three arguments for supernaturalism be criticized? (3.5) 14. Natural law rejects SN but closely connects ethics and religion. On this view, how would believers and atheists differ on (1) our origin and pur- pose, (2) our knowledge of moral truths, and (3) our motivation for leading moral lives? (3.6) 15. Explain modified supernaturalism and its advantages. (3.7) 16. How did St Thomas Aquinas build on Aristotle’s ethics? How does moral theology differ from moral philosophy? (3.8) Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.  Supernaturalism 51 3.11 For further study Do the EthiCola exercises for “Ethics 03 – Supernaturalism” and “Ethics 03r – Review of 0–3.” The Lewis and Bible readings in the companion anthology (Ethics: Contempo- rary Readings, Gensler-Spurgin-Swindal) fit this chapter. My Ethics and Religion has an extended discussion of many of these issues. For more on Ockham’s SN ethics, see pages xlviii–l of his Philosophical Writings. For a debate between myself and a colleague, see my “Is God the source of moral- ity?” (I say no). Socrates’s question about SN is in Plato’s Euthyphro dialogue. Sartre (in his Existentialism and Human Emotions) and Mackie (in his Ethics) are atheists who think an objective ethics is possible only if it’s based on God’s will. For St Thomas Aquinas’s view, see his Treatise on Law (Questions 90–97 of Part I–II of his Summa Theologica). For ways to modify SN to avoid problems, see the essays by Adams and Carson’s book on Value and the Good Life. For a sourcebook on Christian philosophy, see my The Sheed & Ward Anthology of Catholic Philosophy. The Bibliography at the end of the book has information on these works. Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.  Taylor & Francis Taylor & Francis Group http://taylorandfrancis.com Copyright © 2017. Taylor & Francis Group. All rights reserved. Gensler, Harry J.. Ethics : A Contemporary Introduction, Taylor & Francis Group, 2017. ProQuest Ebook Central, http://ebookcentral.proquest.com/lib/ualberta/detail.action?docID=5178444. Created from ualberta on 2024-09-06 02:49:01.