In Kingdom Triangle by J.P. Moreland he mentions five shifts in the way our culture things that have greatly affected our worldview, especially in terms of how we view faith.

Shift #1 – From Knowledge to Faith

Basically, religion is no longer in the realm of knowledge.  The only knowledge that exists is that of a material world.  There is no nonempirical knowledge and no objective immaterial world.  Religious claims are not to be considered factual either.  Because there religion is not a domain of fact and knowledge there are no experts.  Which is why many people are just as apt to turn to Oprah for spiritual advice as they are Billy Graham.

Moreland points out this shift is even seen in Christian schools and Universities:

Note the ubiquitous language used to describe the integrative endeavor (integrating Scripture and theology with other fields of study to help students form a Christian worldview): the integration of faith and learning.  What does that communicate?  It implies that insights gained from various disciplines from chemistry to literature deserve the cognitive label “learning,” while biblical assertions are named “faith.”  When push comes to shove and there are tensions between “faith” and “learning,” guess who wins?  The academic discipline in question will carry greater cognitive authority than biblical teaching, which, conveniently, will be placed in some complementary upper story of meaning and value, while factual, intellectual labor will come from the academic disciple.

Theistic evolution is a product of that academic approach.  So religion is regulated to the arena of feelings and is thought to have no factual basis.  So my feelings about Christianity is just as “valid” as the person who visits Graceland eagerly awaiting the return of the king (Elvis, not Jesus).

Shift #2 – From Human Flourishing to Satisfaction of Desire

A shift of how we view happiness has occured.  When the Founding Fathers in the Declaration of Independence, talked about “life, liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness,”  they meant something entirely different than what is thought today.

Moreland explains that in the ancient world to the beginnings of our nation that when people thought of the “good life” it was widely understood to mean a life of human flourishing constituted by intellectual and moral virtue.  Moreland writes that the good life “is the life of ideal human functioning according to the nature that God himself gave to us.”  I would assume Moreland means our nature before the Fall.

So happiness was understood as a life of virtue.  The successful person, Moreland says, “was the person who knew how to live life well according to what we are by nature because of the creative design of God.”

Things have changed.  A recent definition of happiness is “a sense of pleasurable satisfaction.”  So now happiness is a feeling, and its essence is the satisfaction of desire.  This has moved our culture toward greater self-centeredness and shallow lives.

Shift #3 – From Duty and Virtue to Minimalist Ethics

The loss of moral knowledge, since all knowledge is empirical – regulated to the natural world, means a shift has occurred in how the moral life is viewed.  Duties and virtue are central to a moral life.  But there must be moral knowledge to know what duties and virtues are correct.  Moreland writes that “moral rules without knowledge degenerate into customs… and customs are too trivial to marshal the courage and effort needed to life by and internalize them.”

The impact of the shift to minimalist ethics is disastrous.  This view can be expressed like this, “One may morally act in any way one chooses so long as one does not do harm to others.”  The leaves the floodgates wide open.

Shift #4 – From Classic Freedom to Contemporary Freedom

Freedom in the classical sense mean that we had the power to do what we ought to do.  It is liberating.  This is the type of freedom that the Bible describes.  Freedom not to sin.  Freedom to follow Christ and to honor Him with our lives.  We are no longer enslaved by our sin.  Absent moral knowledge, freedom is now understood to mean “the right to do what one wants to do.”  A major difference, and we have seen how these shifts so far have affected our society.

Shift #5 From Classic Tolerance to Contemporary Tolerance

Moreland says, that intuitively we sense that tolerance is a good thing, but we also sense that something is wrong with the way it is applied today.  We see this shift largely in what we call moral relativism which holds “that everyone out to act in accordance with the agent’s own society’s code (or, perhaps, with the agent’s own personal code).  What is right for one society is not necessarily right for another society.”

It implies that moral propositions are not simply true or false.  Instead whether something is true or false (in the moral realm or religious realm) is relative to the beliefs of a given culture or individual.  In the application of truth we can certainly see that, but relativism says that the truth values are relative to a given culture.

So when it comes to the shift in how we view tolerance.  The classical view is that one tolerates people, not ideas.  It is an absolutist position, and Moreland states is inconsistent with relativism.  Because if we don’t hold the other position to be morally false what is there to tolerate?

The new version of tolerance claims that we should not even judge that another’s viewpoint is wrong.  So if I believe homosexuality is morally wrong, I’m viewed as intolerant.

Moreland wraps up illustrates what these shifts can and will lead to in a culture that lacks the resources to stop such a descent:

Men are empty selves gorged on and dulled by seeking happiness and, as a result, are individualistic, narcissistic, infantile people who approach others as objects that exist merely to make them happy.

Not a pretty picture.

3 comments
  1. “Because there religion is not a domain of fact and knowledge there are no experts. Which is why many people are just as apt to turn to Oprah for spiritual advice as they are Billy Graham.” (Shane)

    But doesn’t religion also play up the fact it is based on faith? That also seems to an internal message that is helping people to ‘turn off their minds’ for the sake of a faith that is ‘pre-worked out’. In some sense, the church has helped to bolster this attitude than to reform it. Now we can blame society for this – but it may very well be a result of faith becoming less a thinking person’s place so there is some kick-back. I am not surprised at the everyone turning to a more personal faith and being right – Christianity is very individualistic (personal Jesus) also and may have helped to pave this trend.

    “So happiness was understood as a life of virtue. The successful person, Moreland says, “was the person who knew how to live life well according to what we are by nature because of the creative design of God.” (Shane)

    I think this may have been so – but even then their view of what God wanted was skewed beyond any reasonable recognition. These are the same people that drafted up a document – who owned slaves and tortured/killed Indian peoples to usurp their lands. We have to remember, when we look into the past and these glorious ideals, they were not even sure if they meant ‘all peoples’. So happiness – in their day – was happy for some and really un-happy for others. And maybe today we have a skewed view of happiness (I actually do agree) – but aren’t we just doing the same thing they did back then (ie: convenience)?

    ““One may morally act in any way one chooses so long as one does not do harm to others.” The leaves the floodgates wide open” (Shane)

    I actually tend to agree with the minimalist ethic – since it is eerily similar to ‘treat others how you want to be treated’. See even the sentence itself – one may act anyway they want as long as it doesn’t hurt another – it lays out a moral guideline/structure/limit. In essence, the floodgates cannot be ‘wide open’ since the ethic does tell us to not do stuff that harms others – meaning there is a lot of things we need to shelf for the sake of the other (and relationship). In all actuality, I wish more people would live by that simple sentence in its fullest intent.

    “Absent moral knowledge, freedom is now understood to mean “the right to do what one wants to do.” (Shane)

    I think freedom is the right to express ones self in the way they see fit. I would suggest one temper their freedom with moral guidelines – namely in ‘hurting another’ – but I think freedom s getting to know who and what you are. Some prefer poetry, some art, some music, some writing, some dancing, etc.

    “It is an absolutist position, and Moreland states is inconsistent with relativism. Because if we don’t hold the other position to be morally false what is there to tolerate?” (Shane)

    I think there needs to be some healthy debate on issues of morality but I also think we need structure, a paradigm, a guideline, a standard by which we determine the actions of our lives. I am by no means a relativist in that sense of the word – we all need basic structure – moral code – to determine when we are inside and outside certain lines. I would posit it to be very unhealthy when someone has no basic structure – I would posit that as insanity.

  2. “Because there religion is not a domain of fact and knowledge there are no experts. Which is why many people are just as apt to turn to Oprah for spiritual advice as they are Billy Graham.” (Shane)

    But doesn’t religion also play up the fact it is based on faith? That also seems to an internal message that is helping people to ‘turn off their minds’ for the sake of a faith that is ‘pre-worked out’. In some sense, the church has helped to bolster this attitude than to reform it. Now we can blame society for this – but it may very well be a result of faith becoming less a thinking person’s place so there is some kick-back. I am not surprised at the everyone turning to a more personal faith and being right – Christianity is very individualistic (personal Jesus) also and may have helped to pave this trend.

    “So happiness was understood as a life of virtue. The successful person, Moreland says, “was the person who knew how to live life well according to what we are by nature because of the creative design of God.” (Shane)

    I think this may have been so – but even then their view of what God wanted was skewed beyond any reasonable recognition. These are the same people that drafted up a document – who owned slaves and tortured/killed Indian peoples to usurp their lands. We have to remember, when we look into the past and these glorious ideals, they were not even sure if they meant ‘all peoples’. So happiness – in their day – was happy for some and really un-happy for others. And maybe today we have a skewed view of happiness (I actually do agree) – but aren’t we just doing the same thing they did back then (ie: convenience)?

    ““One may morally act in any way one chooses so long as one does not do harm to others.” The leaves the floodgates wide open” (Shane)

    I actually tend to agree with the minimalist ethic – since it is eerily similar to ‘treat others how you want to be treated’. See even the sentence itself – one may act anyway they want as long as it doesn’t hurt another – it lays out a moral guideline/structure/limit. In essence, the floodgates cannot be ‘wide open’ since the ethic does tell us to not do stuff that harms others – meaning there is a lot of things we need to shelf for the sake of the other (and relationship). In all actuality, I wish more people would live by that simple sentence in its fullest intent.

    “Absent moral knowledge, freedom is now understood to mean “the right to do what one wants to do.” (Shane)

    I think freedom is the right to express ones self in the way they see fit. I would suggest one temper their freedom with moral guidelines – namely in ‘hurting another’ – but I think freedom s getting to know who and what you are. Some prefer poetry, some art, some music, some writing, some dancing, etc.

    “It is an absolutist position, and Moreland states is inconsistent with relativism. Because if we don’t hold the other position to be morally false what is there to tolerate?” (Shane)

    I think there needs to be some healthy debate on issues of morality but I also think we need structure, a paradigm, a guideline, a standard by which we determine the actions of our lives. I am by no means a relativist in that sense of the word – we all need basic structure – moral code – to determine when we are inside and outside certain lines. I would posit it to be very unhealthy when someone has no basic structure – I would posit that as insanity.

  3. “Because there religion is not a domain of fact and knowledge there are no experts. Which is why many people are just as apt to turn to Oprah for spiritual advice as they are Billy Graham.” (Shane)

    But doesn’t religion also play up the fact it is based on faith? That also seems to an internal message that is helping people to ‘turn off their minds’ for the sake of a faith that is ‘pre-worked out’. In some sense, the church has helped to bolster this attitude than to reform it. Now we can blame society for this – but it may very well be a result of faith becoming less a thinking person’s place so there is some kick-back. I am not surprised at the everyone turning to a more personal faith and being right – Christianity is very individualistic (personal Jesus) also and may have helped to pave this trend.

    “So happiness was understood as a life of virtue. The successful person, Moreland says, “was the person who knew how to live life well according to what we are by nature because of the creative design of God.” (Shane)

    I think this may have been so – but even then their view of what God wanted was skewed beyond any reasonable recognition. These are the same people that drafted up a document – who owned slaves and tortured/killed Indian peoples to usurp their lands. We have to remember, when we look into the past and these glorious ideals, they were not even sure if they meant ‘all peoples’. So happiness – in their day – was happy for some and really un-happy for others. And maybe today we have a skewed view of happiness (I actually do agree) – but aren’t we just doing the same thing they did back then (ie: convenience)?

    ““One may morally act in any way one chooses so long as one does not do harm to others.” The leaves the floodgates wide open” (Shane)

    I actually tend to agree with the minimalist ethic – since it is eerily similar to ‘treat others how you want to be treated’. See even the sentence itself – one may act anyway they want as long as it doesn’t hurt another – it lays out a moral guideline/structure/limit. In essence, the floodgates cannot be ‘wide open’ since the ethic does tell us to not do stuff that harms others – meaning there is a lot of things we need to shelf for the sake of the other (and relationship). In all actuality, I wish more people would live by that simple sentence in its fullest intent.

    “Absent moral knowledge, freedom is now understood to mean “the right to do what one wants to do.” (Shane)

    I think freedom is the right to express ones self in the way they see fit. I would suggest one temper their freedom with moral guidelines – namely in ‘hurting another’ – but I think freedom s getting to know who and what you are. Some prefer poetry, some art, some music, some writing, some dancing, etc.

    “It is an absolutist position, and Moreland states is inconsistent with relativism. Because if we don’t hold the other position to be morally false what is there to tolerate?” (Shane)

    I think there needs to be some healthy debate on issues of morality but I also think we need structure, a paradigm, a guideline, a standard by which we determine the actions of our lives. I am by no means a relativist in that sense of the word – we all need basic structure – moral code – to determine when we are inside and outside certain lines. I would posit it to be very unhealthy when someone has no basic structure – I would posit that as insanity.

Comments are closed.

Get CT In Your Inbox!

Don't miss a single update.

You May Also Like

Gay and Bisexual Men and HIV/AIDS

Why is it that Rekha Basu and many on the left diminish…

Changing the Definition of Marriage Doesn’t Alter Biology

A story in The Des Moines Register yesterday illustrates the slippery slope…

Of All The Horrible Religions

Idolatry is something that most of us don’t think we do.  I…

To Obama Science Trumps Ethics (Update: Former State Senator’s Perspective)

In President Barack Obama’s remarks before he signed the Stem Cell Executive…