Notes From the Christian Underground

Essays Related to the Novel Cruel Logic: The Philosopher Killer

by Brian James Godawa

Notes From the Christian Underground: Essays Related to the Novel Cruel Logic: The Philosopher Killer
1st Edition g

Copyright © 2024 Brian James Godawa

All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form or by any electronic or mechanical means, including information storage and retrieval systems, without prior written permission, except in the case of brief quotations in critical articles and reviews.

ISBN: 978-1-963000-59-7 (eBook)

Warrior Poet Publishing
www.warriorpoetpublishing.com

Table of Contents

Get the Novel That These Essays are All About.

Table of Contents

Could You Defend Your Beliefs If Your Life Depended On It?

The Tragedy of Evangelical Christian Deconstruction

America’s Cultural Revolution of Woke Violence

The Problem of Evil and the Existence of God

A Genealogy of Wokeness: Book Review of Chris Rufo’s America’s Cultural Revolution

The Woke War on Reality

Author Interview on Bible Over Brews Podcast

Stay Informed on the Next Theological Thriller by Brian Godawa

More Thrillers, Epics, and Dramas by Brian Godawa

Great Offers By Brian Godawa

About the Author

Could You Defend Your Beliefs
If Your Life Depended On It?

What if you were captured by a serial killer who wanted to debate with you, and the topic of debate was his moral right to kill you? Let’s imagine he would propose, “If what you believe about reality is true, then give me one valid reason why I should not kill you and I will let you go.”

What would you say?

It’s a thought experiment intended to tease out the ramifications of worldviews and uncover the contradictions that so many people have in their beliefs. As the history of philosophy, religion and culture reveals, ideas have consequences.

As a Christian, I am interested in evangelism and apologetics, sharing my faith with unbelievers and seeking to persuade them that not only do they need God for the salvation of their souls, but they also need God to make any meaningful claims about reality, knowledge or ethics.

The Bible says that “the fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge, but fools despise wisdom and instruction” (Proverbs 1:7). This is not just a pithy expression of faith. It is philosophically true. If one does not believe in the God of the Bible, they have no knowledge. That is, they may have beliefs, but they have no way of justifying their beliefs as true, and that constitutes knowledge. In fact, their beliefs will ultimately contradict their own (literally) godless worldview.

Going back to our opening thought experiment, say you are an atheist materialist who believes that morals are relative to cultures. That there is no objective transcendent moral standard to which all people or cultures are accountable. You know the accusation: Christianity should not impose its values on culture or we will end up like “The Handmaid’s Tale” of oppressive patriarchy and religious intolerance, with concubinage and murder all over the place!

There’s a problem with this atheist view. The God of the Bible says that murder is objectively, morally wrong. That means it doesn’t matter what an individual or society may say or believe, killing an innocent person is evil. So the Christian worldview has an objective, transcendent standard that justifies calling murder evil.

But if you are an atheist, you reject the God of the Bible. So how can you say that murder is wrong? Yes, you believe murder is wrong. But you cannot justify your belief as objectively true beyond your own subjective feelings. What standard can you appeal to that places any moral obligation on your captor whatsoever?

You cry out, “I believe murder is wrong. It’s my truth.” Well, the serial killer believes murdering you is right. It’s his truth. Your truth is not his truth, and his truth is in charge. Why should he listen to you? 

That’s the logical conclusion of moral relativity. You must answer the question: what is the objective standard that can adjudicate between two competing individual subjective claims to their truths? If you cannot, your view reduces to arbitrariness without valid obligation on anyone.

“Society says it’s wrong. You’ll go to prison,” you may protest. “Ah,” says the killer, “I don’t plan on getting caught.” You see, social consequences do not make something wrong. It only makes one want to avoid the social consequences. If consequences make murder wrong, then escaping the consequences makes it right.

Not only that, but the social contract and its laws are rooted in majority rule (democracy) or minority rule (elitism). In either case, it is the imposition of the will of one group on the will of another. Which is to say, might makes right. That would mean your murder would be right if a majority of people or those in power (such as a serial killer) considered it so.

“No!” you exclaim (you atheist, you). “Might does not make right!” Well then, if the individual does not determine moral right and wrong, and society does not determine moral right and wrong, then why should the serial killer not kill you?

What about survival of the species? Surely, it is better for our survival if we don’t allow murder. Yet, survival as a desirable good is also an arbitrary subjective value judgment that is simply not universal, in societies or individuals. Species live, species die. It’s the Circle of Life.

The bottom line in biology is that the life and survival of all biological organisms is predicated on the death of other biological organisms. Death is the ultimate end, and therefore ultimate purpose of all life. Besides, there is no morality for mere molecules in motion.

Unless there is a transcendent creator God who gives value to life beyond its mere material properties. Only with that God can there be a moral judgment of anything as evil. Without that God, all human constructed meaning and morality are delusional fairy tales of false comfort.

Atheist arguments for moral right and wrong continue in desperate grasping to find an ever-elusive justification for morality. But if one does not acknowledge the God of the Bible, then one’s worldview always reduces to arbitrariness and self-contradiction, because without God there is no such thing as objective good and evil. There are only wills in conflict. And all appeals to right and wrong are mere rationalizations of power.

What about you? Could you defend your beliefs if your life depended on it?