��ݮ��Ƶ

How should we think biblically about morality in today’s culture? What do we way to the skeptic who insists that morality is nothing more than a matter of one’s opinion? What is the moral argument for God’s existence? Why is God critical for a coherent view of morality? We’ll answer these questions and more with our guest, our colleague Dr Dave Horner around his new book with JP Moreland, (don’t let the title throw you) —or how to think about morality and ethics.

Dr. Dave Horner is Professor of Theology and Philosophy at Talbot. He has a D.Phil. from Oxford and is the author of several books, including Mind Your Faith: A Student's Guide for Thinking and Living Well, and numerous journal articles, book chapters, blog posts and conference presentations. He's a specialist in Aristotle and Aquinas in addition to ancient and medieval philosophy.

Episode Transcript

Scott: How should we think biblically about morality in today's culture? What do we say to the skeptic who insists that morality is nothing more than a matter of one's opinion? What's the moral argument for God's existence? And why is God even critical for a coherent view of morality? We'll answer these questions and more with our guest, our colleague, Dr. Dave Horner, around his new book with J.P. Moreland—and don't let the title throw you—called Metaethics, or as it’s being translated, How to Think About Morality and Ethics. I'm your host, Scott Rae.

Sean: And I'm your co-host, Sean McDowell.

Scott: And this is Think Biblically from Talbot School of Theology at ��ݮ��Ƶ. Dave, thanks so much for joining us. Love your book. It's just terrific. But I think we need to be aware, it is a bit on the technical side. We're going to try our best to bring the cookies down on one of the lower shelves today. So, for those who have never heard the term before, what is metaethics, and why does it matter?

Dave: Okay, let's start more broadly. So ethical questions are things like, what sorts of things are right or wrong, good or bad? What kind of life is a rightly ordered, flourishing human life? Where do things like abortion, and same-sex marriage, and war and so on fit into all that? So that's ethics, okay? But when you dig in a little deeper, you realize that there are really two subcategories going on in ethics. What we call normative ethics, which is from the term norm or standard, that's what those questions are: what's good and bad, right and wrong, and how do we decide that, and so on. But there are some questions below the surface. What's going on when we make moral judgments like that? What are we talking about? And that's what metaethics is about. From a Greek preposition, meta, which means above, or about, or something like that. So if normative ethics is thinking in ethics, metaethics is thinking about ethics. About the ethics itself, its nature, its status. What's going on below the surface? What are the philosophical and theological presuppositions, worldview commitments and so on? So, metaethical questions would be things like, what kinds of things are rightness or wrongness? Are we talking about real properties in the world, objective features of reality, or are these human constructions that emerge from our preferences, or desires, or attitudes or something like that? Is morality grounded in the nature of things? Is there a real moral order? Are moral properties and moral duties, are they objective? Do they apply to everybody, or are they relative to particular individuals or society? So the relativism question is a metaethical question. And then, finally, what's the best way to think about these things? And what general picture of reality makes the best sense out of how we ought to think about these things, including the God question? Where does God fit in terms of ethics? Does ethics point to God? Is God necessary to ethics? These are all metaethical questions.

Sean: You mentioned abortion. We could talk about immigration, gun control. People don't just jump in blindly and start debating these issues. They carry with them certain assumptions about the nature of right and wrong, the nature of reality, where moral duties come from. And they inform how we land on ethical issues. So, metaethics…I've often found when I'm having a disagreement with somebody about, say, abortion again, to use that example, it's helpful to say, okay, what are the underlying issues informing why you hold the view that you do? That's where you really make progress with somebody. Now, you and I were talking this week, Dave, that I remember the first time…I was a student when you started at Talbot. And I remember some of the things in the very first class I had with you on ethics, going all the way back. But I also remember some of the story, like, why you've been studying this for so long. What's your interest and story behind ethics and metaethics?

Dave: Well, I was in campus ministry work…well, I'll start back even a little further. When I went to college at a secular university, I lost my faith. I had a crisis of faith. I came back to faith through apologetics.

Sean: Nice.

Dave: Your dad's work helped.

Sean: Oh, wow. Okay!

Dave: And I began to read. And I found that there were smart people who actually believe in God. And I wanted to be one of those. In fact, that first year, we brought a group of people into our campus from Probe Ministries. And you may remember those guys. They would send Christian academics into secular universities. And we students would ask our professors if they could speak in our class and give a Christian perspective on this academic discipline. So, I got my psychology prof to invite this guy, Mark Cosgrove, in. And there were 400 people in the class. And I was sitting next to the prof. And Cosgrove gave this brilliant 20-minute talk. And then he took questions for half an hour. And the prof said to me, “Ask him this.” I said, “You ask him.”

Sean & Scott: [laugh]

Dave: But that day, I thought, that's what I want to do. I want to represent a Christian worldview credibly and graciously, as he did, in the marketplace of ideas. And I was drawn to ethics as, kind of, the area that was really interesting to me. How do people live? And how ought they to live? What is a flourishing life? What makes something right or wrong? Now, I didn't even know what the word metaethics meant at that time.

Sean: [laughs]

Dave: But I was asking metaethical questions. Because it just seemed to me, from reading C.S. Lewis and others, that the God question is a huge part of that. There seems to be a pretty clear connection there. So that's how I got started in this.

Scott: So Dave, let me pursue that a little bit further. Because I know this particular book was sort of a long time coming. And you've had some things that you've had to deal with personally that have kept you from being able to write some of this stuff down. And your colleagues and I have been after you for years. You've got so much good stuff. Please start writing this stuff down. But you just weren't able to do that for a while. How come?

Dave: In 2007, my body just collapsed with a severe immune system disorder. I spent years working in an iron foundry and being exposed to various toxins. And finally, my immune system just kind of went out. And I was particularly toxically responsive to mold. Well, mold spores attach to paper. So books were a problem. And so, of course, I was surrounded by books. And I was particularly—

Scott: You were particularly surrounded by old books.

Dave: I was, yeah. And my major field for my doctoral work over at Oxford University was in ancient and medieval philosophy.

Scott: [laughs]

Dave: And so, I had some pretty old books, and some pretty moldy books. And so, I mean, I didn't know what was going on at first. And it turns out I also had Lyme disease. So that also compromised my immune system. And so, there was this journey. But for a long time, the journey included having no books, no paper. So I was a professor who couldn't have books. So—

Scott: You were the only academic I've ever known who was allergic to your books.

Dave: Yeah. [laughs] Yeah. And I would tell my undergrads, you know, I'm allergic to books. I can't have books. And they say, then why are you assigning so many books to us?

Sean: [laughs]

Dave: And then I said to my grad philosophy students, like Sean, yeah, I can't have books. And they said, we'll take your books. So anyway, it was a long journey. It was 12 years before I eventually went on disability. And during that time, the Lord healed me of it. Came back, and I have books. In fact, I have another one right here that I just wrote with J.P.

Sean: Part of that—

Scott: I remember during that time, a number of us walked with you through that time. I remember your wife was going through breast cancer and chemotherapy. And she was actually taking care of him, because he felt worse than she did at the time. And that's when it really got to me how debilitating this was. And that's why I am so thrilled for you to be back healthy and be able to write. You know, and you've got so much good stuff. I'm glad it's finally getting into print.

Dave: Thank you.

Sean: You described that apologetics helped bring you back to the faith. You cited C.S. Lewis. Obviously, he makes one of the most well-known, kind of, moral apologetics. Maybe explain what that is, and kind of the heart of the argument that he makes.

Dave: Okay, so moral apologetics is…a way to think about it is, the early philosophers and theologians thought about the ultimate values that we are all after. The things that just everybody is seeking are goodness, truth, and beauty. And they came to the conclusion that they're really this…they're interdependent. They're all bound up with each other. And when the early Christians started thinking theologically, they said, well, yeah, because that's…God is the ultimate ground of goodness, truth, and beauty. He is the good, the true, and the beautiful. So, when we see beauty, and we hunger for it rightly, we're actually ultimately hungering for God, who's the ultimate ground of that. Same with goodness. Same with truth. So, if we think about apologetics, we could think of it as being all of those, right? We seek to make a rational case that Christianity is true. But some people make a more aesthetic case, for God is the beautiful, and so on. Well, moral apologetics is kind of running with the goodness thing. As we think about morality, as we think about goodness, that's really ultimately going to point us to God, because He's the ultimate ground of that. And so, we call this field moral apologetics. That's a fairly new term. But that includes anything related to how morality points to the existence of God and the need for belief in God. And one line of that, a central line of that, is what we call moral arguments for the existence of God. So that gets us to Lewis. The moral arguments would be, okay, let's look at these features of morality. And we say, okay, what's the best explanation for those? What's the most adequate grounding for how we think about morality? Or, what's the most adequate grounding, or necessary grounding, for moral obligations, say? Can it ever stop short of that? Well, Lewis does the most famous version of this. And that's what really influenced me, right? Early on. The very beginning of Mere Christianity, he does a kind of analysis of what I call common moral experience. How do we operate morally? And he said, look at how we quarrel. We don't just fight. You know, when somebody takes our seat on the train, and jumps in there when we happen to stand up to take off our coat, or something like that, we say, you know, that's my seat. That's not fair, or something. We don't just try to beat the guy up, because we're bigger than he is.

Sean & Scott: [laugh]

Dave: We say, no, that was wrong in some way. So he says, if you look at how we quarrel, we appeal to moral standards, even if we're a moral relativist. So, as he says, you could talk to the most flagrant moral relativist, moral skeptic, but you do something unjust to him, and he'll say, “that's unjust” before you can say Jack Robinson. That's the way he puts it. So, what are we to conclude from that? We just seem to find ourselves in a world in which there are objective moral standards, whether we like it or not. Well, what does that tell us about the world? What's the best explanation for why the world would be like that? And he says, if you appeal to just physical stuff, mindless stuff, you don't get morality out of that. The best explanation is a mind, is a person, moral person. So, morality goes all the way up, or all the way down to the basis of reality, if you want to go that way. The reason we trip over objective moral values is that's the way the world is made, because it's made by a moral Creator who had made it with moral intentions and made us with moral intentions.

Scott: And therefore, it answers the ultimate moral question, the “who says” question. Who says something is right or particularly wrong? This is the reason I think this field is so important. And I'm so glad you've carved out a nice niche in this area. Because I remember when you and I came to faith a long time ago, people weren't asking the same questions that they are today. We were asking, is the gospel true?

Dave: Yes.

Scott: And that's not the fundamental question people are asking today. People are asking today, is the gospel good?

Dave: Yes.

Scott: And so that moral argument, I think, is really important today. And I'm so glad that you're focusing more on that. Now, in the book, you use the term…you argue for a position known as moral realism. What do you mean by that, and why is that so important?

Dave: Moral realism is the view that there are objective moral values. They're real. They're real things. They're not fictions. And that when we make moral judgments like abortion is wrong, we're actually describing reality. And those statements, those moral judgments, are true or false, depending on whether or not they match reality. And there's a whole lot more I could say about that, but that's the basic idea. And so, we think it's really important for us to articulate moral realism right off the bat for two reasons. One is, it is the standard view that most people hold, including the critics of moral realism, the skeptics. They all basically admit, yeah, this is the view not only that predominates among normal people in normal conversation on the train, but it's what moral philosophers have almost all held throughout the history of philosophy. So they recognize they're going against the common view. Well, as G.K. Chesterton said, we can talk about the democracy of the dead, that there are certain views that just win because people hold them. And we ought to respect them in a particular way. They stick with us. They stand. They're common sense, in this case, common sense morality. So it's important to articulate moral realism, because it's the default view, I think. And then we can understand all the other options out there as ways of, kind of, departing from it. But also, we can evaluate them. Do they do a good enough job of accounting for our common moral experience, the way we perceive morality, the way we behave?

Sean: So in one sense, it's not just the majority view. You're not saying most people believe this, therefore it's okay. Most people believe it because that reflects certain common sense views that are universal among human beings, that there's such a thing as right, there's such a thing as wrong, just like there's such a thing as gravity. That's what I mean by moral realism.

Dave: Right. And it does—yeah, you're right. The fact that most people hold it doesn't settle the question. Otherwise, this would have been a much shorter book.

Sean & Scott: [laugh]

Dave: So it doesn't win by default. We have a fancy word for that. It's defeasible. It could be wrong. But the fact that this is the predominant view over broad cultures, over centuries, and so on, and it's even reflected in common moral experience among people who aren't moral philosophers, that gives it some antecedent weight. And so, there's a burden of proof on the positions that deny that. They might be right, but they have to do a better job of accounting for how we actually experience morality than moral realism.

Sean: And again, even if people don't want to concede that, look at their life. They're going to make moral judgments and live as if moral realism is the case, which makes your point. Now—

Scott: I think everybody becomes a moral realist once they are a victim of injustice.

Dave: Exactly.

Sean: There you go.

Dave: Before you can say Jack Robinson.

Scott: That's correct.

Sean: That's C.S. Lewis again. Now, one of the objections Lewis responds to, which is maybe the most common one I've heard in discussions and debates with atheists and skeptics, is maybe evolution can explain morality. Can it, in part, in whole? What would your response to that be?

Dave: Well, evolution is a story about how we come to hold the beliefs that we do, when it's applied to epistemology. So we come to adapt. I mean, if we accept it, it's a story about why we do some of the things that we do and how we hold the beliefs that we do. And so, it doesn't tell us whether those beliefs are true. It doesn't actually give us moral reality. So, naturalistic evolution is a story that naturalists tell. We think the world is just nothing but physical stuff. And by golly, it looks like people come to believe that there's more than just physical stuff. There are moral properties. There are moral duties that we're beholden to, and so on. Well, for serious evolutionists dealing with ethics, like Michael Ruse, they would say, yes, it makes sense that people come to believe these things, like moral realism. But it's not true. It's a fiction. It's just that holding those beliefs is adaptable. But they're not actually true. But we really think they are true.

Sean: [laughs]

Dave: I mean, that's common moral experience, is that these things are actually true.

Scott: And we live that way, too.

Sean: Let me say one thing.

Scott: Go for it.

Sean: So that's helpful to me, because I've gone back and forth with an atheist friend of mine. And he said, look, evolution can explain why we believe things and how we behave. And I said, in principle, maybe all of our moral beliefs are illusions to get us to survive. But we want a worldview that explains reality as it is, doesn't explain it away, but accounts for it. And it seems to me that's where evolution falls short.

Scott: Now, Dave, Sean and I have both found that most people are pretty good at distinguishing between objective and subjective statements, things that are discernible facts and things that are simply matters of opinion, until we get to morality. And then, because there is disagreement, we assume that moral truth can't be objective. Why do you think we jump from disagreement or moral diversity to morality being just a subjective matter of opinion, and that's all there is to it?

Dave: Well, there are a couple of things that I'll mention. And there are probably several reasons. But one is what we call scientism, which is the view that is widely held—even though people don't even know what it means—that the only real access to knowledge about reality is what we can test with our five senses and establish in science. Well, if you come in with that assumption, then you're just already going to think, okay, when it comes to ethics or religion, we're not really talking about reality. We're talking about opinion, preference, and all that kind of stuff. So I think scientism is kind of an underlying, all-purpose derailer of serious thought about these really, really important questions. But there's also, I think, a fiction that people have that there isn't disagreement about other factual issues, including science. So one naturalist moral realist these days has this catalog, all these massive disagreements within science itself. But nobody concludes from that that well, it's all just subjective, or something like that. You just realize, okay, we have our perspectives and stuff, but we're dealing with reality here. And so, you hold position A. I hold position not A about this. They can't both be true. So we have to look for evidence, and so on. So there's this fiction that that's the way it is in science and other rational disciplines. But there's no way to do that in ethics. That’s just false.

Sean: That's a helpful distinction, because it seems so obvious to me that just because we differ doesn't mean there's not knowable truth. We differ in science, differ in history, and the assumption is not, well, it's all subjective. But the fact that we do this in morality, like you said, Scott, shows that we think it's so, just, deeply a subjective discipline, even though our behavior really betrays us in one sense. What would you say to the skeptic who said, all right, Dr. Horner, why should I even be moral? Why bother to be moral? I don't want to participate in the moral project, thank you.

Dave: [laughs] Well, I guess I would say something like, is it even conceivable that you might want to flourish in your life, to have a life that actually works, that's connected with reality? I'm just guessing that in other areas, you might want to adjust your beliefs to reality. When I talk about the moral game, I'm not talking about some fiction here. I'm talking about a way of understanding life that is, I'm convinced, grounded in reality. And when we live according to reality, we flourish. And so, I guess I would try to maybe change the way they think about the moral game. This is not just a fiction. Have you considered that? And then if you look at the key thinkers throughout history, including the pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle and all these guys, they were very serious about this question. In fact, they said this is the most important question. What kind of life is a well-ordered life that's worth living? And then that was a moral question. What should I live for?

Sean: Part of my assumption is…I've never had somebody say to me, why should I be moral? I assume people know they should be moral, and they're just confused because of some foolishness in our culture. So I just want to appeal to what they know. Do you really have questions whether or not we should be honest? Do you really have questions about justice mattering? And appeal to what's written on their hearts. That’s Romans 2?

Dave: That's good. And if you think that's true, and you really do, then why aren't you all in with that?

Sean: It's like William M. Craig said, if someone doesn't think torturing an innocent child for fun is wrong, they don't need an argument. They need a therapist. [laughs]

Dave: That's right.

Scott: I think he's right about that. He's right.

Sean: We know these things.

Dave: Or they need imprisonment, maybe.

Sean & Scott: [laugh]

Scott: Dave, help our listeners understand a little bit more about why belief in God is so critical for having a coherent moral approach to life, because it seems to me that we've got many non-believers who are living virtuous lives. In fact, I think you make a good case that there are some non-believers that live more virtuous lives than many believers do. So what is it about belief in God that matters so much? Because atheists have moral systems. And as you pointed out, everybody has a moral system. It may not be well-developed. They may not know much about it. But the way they live illustrates that. So if I'm an atheist, I'm thinking, I'm getting along just fine with my own view of morality. I do the right things. I'm a good person. Why do I have to have belief in God to undergird it all?

Dave: Well, first of all, there are two questions about how God relates to morality. One would be, do I need to believe in God to be a morally good person? And this is not claiming that. In fact, I think the answer is no. And I think we have biblical warrant for that: general revelation. And that includes, in Romans 2, the natural moral laws written on our hearts. So, everyone created in the image of God is able to have some awareness of moral reality. And if they live according to that, to a certain extent they're going to flourish. And that's great. So the question is not, do I have to believe in God in order to be a moral person? And it's really, sadly true that there are plenty of non-Christians who live much better lives than many Christians. Sadly. Shouldn't be that way, but it is. No, the question here is now more of a metaethical question. Okay, what picture of reality grounds your understanding of morality? What is the most intellectually satisfying understanding of how this all works? Now, I'm happy if somebody…well, I believe that it's important to be honest, and all that kind of stuff. That's good enough for me. Well, I'm glad they believe that. And maybe, depending on their circumstances, that's enough. But as Hastings Rashdall, who was an old Oxford philosopher, said, essentially, as long as everybody's speaking the same language, you don't have to ask about meanings and what's going on. But as soon as people start speaking different languages, now you have to pay attention to the language. As soon as people are asking questions about the basis, the foundation, of morality, then you'd better care about that. You better think about that. And as it is in fact the case that there’s a lot of questions that people have, and they are arriving at different, now normative, ethical conclusions, it’s eroding and changing the way they look at life and the way they live their lives. Once they examine the foundation, they realize, oh, maybe there really isn't a real morality. So I don't need to live this way. So it's different levels. Probably not everybody has to ask whether you have to believe in God. And you don't have to believe in God. The question is, what's the best explanation? What's the best grounding for the way we understand morality actually to work?

Sean: Dave, you gave me the chance to endorse this book. And I eagerly read all of it carefully, happily endorsed it. It's called Metaethics: A Short Companion. But I'm just curious, it's 192 pages, does that qualify as a short companion? You know I'm just kidding, I’m giving you a hard time here.

Dave: Yeah, that's not a moral question.

Sean: [laughs]

Dave: That's a definitional question.

Sean: So that's in good fun, you don't have to take it. Obviously, giving you a hard time. But who did you write this to? And how do you hope people will use this? How does it benefit listeners who are going, these are, like, big questions? How is this going to practically help me think biblically and live my life as a follower of Jesus?

Dave: They are big questions. And they're complicated questions. And I don't know if I've made them less complicated today. But there really is no introduction to metaethics from a Christian perspective out there. So, there was a crying need for this. And the publisher wanted to start a series of introductions to different elements of ethics. And the thing that's complicated—or one of the things—about metaethics is that because it's about the foundation of morality, it's not just normative ethics. It touches on these other philosophical disciplines, some of which are difficult. Metaphysics, semantics, moral psychology, epistemology. And so, it is a very confusing world. And I've had to do a lot of work to try to figure it out myself. And I didn't have this to help me. So what we've tried to do is to make it actually a companion. Maybe not too short, but a companion nonetheless. That's in the title, A Short Companion. But a sort of guidebook along the way to help people navigate this world and say, okay, here's what's going on here. Here are the metaphysical issues, and what does that mean? Here are the semantic issues. What does that mean? How does that relate? So it's written for thoughtful students, pastors, laypeople that want to think about this, that want to try to get a handle on it. Parts of it are more complicated than others. But that's the attempt, to take a very complex area of thought, and one that has a distinctive terminology, too, and just try to make it intelligible.

Sean: Well, I think you did it. You can only make an argument like this so simple. But you didn't lose the meat of it in a way that people willing to read and think about it are going to walk away with, I think, a renewed understanding of this topic. So I think it's great.

Scott: Yeah. I think we would…Sean and I would both say it's really important that people know not only their views of right and wrong, but how they got there. And in talking with other people about moral questions, to press them not just on the position they take, but how they think about morality in general. And that, we found, is one of the really nice avenues that goes from moral discussion to the gospel.

Dave: Exactly.

Scott: And that's why I think that the God part of this is so important.

Dave: I'll just mention this. One metaphor that might be helpful is to think of ethics as a house, and this is about the foundation. And Jesus…it's always important to bring Jesus in, if at all possible.

Sean: [laughs]

Dave: But after all, Jesus stressed that your house is only as good as the foundation. So you'd better think about your foundation. So it's important for us to think about the foundation of these views that we have, even if they're the correct views. But it's also important to ask others, okay, so what's going on in the foundation of your view? Have you examined it? Is it adequate? Have you considered what would make it fully adequate, and strong, and able to withstand the storms? And I want to make the case that that ultimately points us to God as the ultimate foundation that can establish this and make sense out of it.

Scott: And I know we all encourage our students to do something similar during this political season when politicians are addressing fundamentally moral questions, to think about not only the position they take, but how do you think they got to that position? What kind of view of morality do they have that enables them to draw the kind of conclusions that they have? Now, sometimes they don't tell us, but the reasons they give often are quite revealing about how they're thinking about morality. Dave, thanks so much for being with us. We want to commend to our listeners your book, Metaethics: A Short Companion. It does get kind of technical in places, but overall, I think you and J.P. both do a great job of bringing the cookies down on one of the lower shelves. And we really appreciate that. It's a good work, and I wish it would have been out there long before this, but I'm very grateful for what God's done with your health to be able to do this and to do it so well. So thanks so much for being with us.

Dave: Thank you, Scott and Sean. I really appreciate it.

Scott: This has been an episode of the podcast Think Biblically, Conversations on Faith and Culture, brought to you by Talbot School of Theology at ��ݮ��Ƶ, offering programs in Southern California and online. And we have more master's and bachelor's degrees that have to do with the intersection of faith and culture than we know what to do with. At Talbot, we have degrees in Old Testament, New Testament, systematic theology, apologetics, philosophy, Christian pastoral ministry, all the way across the board. And we encourage you to visit biola.edu/talbot in order to learn more. To submit comments, ask questions, or make suggestions on issues you'd like us to cover or guests you'd like us to consider, please email us at thinkbiblically@biola.edu. If you enjoyed today's conversation, please, please, please give us a rating on your podcast app. It's really important that you take the time to do that and share it with a friend. And please join us on Friday for our weekly Cultural Update. Thanks so much for listening, and in the meantime, remember, think biblically about everything.