Essentials of Apologetics - Lesson 6

Why Truth Matters (Part 2)
Sean McDowell
Lesson 6
Essentials of Apologetics

All right, so in our first session we were careful to define what we mean by truth, and I think what we probably realized is we all follow the correspondence theory of truth. It's inescapable, but when the topic shifts to moral values or religion, people will change what they mean by truth.

Now I'm curious, what would you say really quickly is your favorite flavor of ice cream? Anybody?

Rocky road.

Chocolate rocky road.

[inaudible 00:00:33] cookie dough.

Cookie dough. Okay. I've heard some good answers. I might've heard the correct answer in the back. The best flavor of ice cream is chocolate peanut butter. Hands down. Now, by show of hands, who says that's true? Who says that's false? Okay, wait a minute. So you're telling me the statement, chocolate peanut butter ice cream is the best, can be true for me, but not true for most of you? And the answer is, excuse me, we're talking about something we call subjective.

Subjective claims are personal and they're private and they depend upon the beliefs of an individual. In fact, the key word within subjective is what? The subject, the person. So the status of a subjective claim is rooted in what a subject thinks or feels or believes. So when you think of subjective claims, I want you to think of ice cream flavor preference because whatever preference you like or whatever one you choose is the best for you. What if I were to make a different statement and say, "Chocolate peanut butter ice cream controls diabetes"? Can that be true for me, but not true for you?

The answer is no. This is no longer a preference claim about the subject. This is a claim about the real world that can have big time consequences, can't it? See, this is something we might call an objective claim. Subjective claim, the keyword is subject. Objective claim, the keyword is object. Subjective claims are about the mind independent external world, and they are independent of what someone believes. So the true status is not your feelings or preferences. The true status is the thing in itself. So if I had, for example, a big scoop of ice cream here and I said, "This is delicious." Is that really about the ice cream or is about my experience of the ice cream? It's about my experience of the ice cream. If I said, "This weighs 20 grams." Now what's that about? That's about the object, not the subject. That's the ice cream itself. When you think of objective claims, I'd like you to think of insulin because insulin actually helps control diabetes.

Now I'm going to ask you folks, you can be loud for this one so they can hear you when they're watching, is to participate here with me and answer one of two things. When I throw a statement up on the screen, if it's a subjective claim, just respond, "Ice cream." If it's an objective claim, feel free to shout out, "Insulin." Now, very important, I'm not asking if these claims are true or false. I'm simply asking what kind of claim are they? Okay? Objective claim, insulin. Subjective claim, ice cream. Here we go. Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

Ice cream.

Okay, good. Even if you don't like Coke or Pepsi and you prefer coffee, you know this is still a preference claim. Diet Coke has fewer calories than regular Coke.

Insulin.

Okay, insulin. Good. Now it's not a preference and a matter of liking. Now we're talking about a property that the soda has or allegedly has. It's about the object. Good. Ice cream or insulin, two plus two equals four.

Insulin.

Okay, good. This is one, I don't think I've ever had anybody answer ice cream, although they're trying somewhat today to change the nature of math. We all know that math, if anything, deals with a mind, independent objective world. Our feelings or preferences don't change it. Good. Ice cream or insulin, Hawaii is the most beautiful vacation spot on earth.

Ice cream.

Okay, good. We all know it's San Juan Capistrano. By the way, the claim that arose is beautiful is an objective claim. If you don't think that's a true claim, you're just as wrong as if you think two plus two equals five, and I'm dead serious, but we'll come back to that. Ice cream or insulin, George Washington was the first President of the United States.

Insulin.

Okay, good. Now what discipline does this deal with? This is history. This is a historical claims. You can't see this physically, but we all know that things in the past either happened or they didn't happen, and that's not dependent upon what we think or feel about it. So good. Ice cream or insulin, action movies are more enjoyable than romances.

Ice cream.

Okay, good. Now, some of you guys are like, "I don't know, I might die on that hill." Almost 24 years of marriage speaking here, not a hill worth dying on. Ice cream or insulin, Sean McDowell can bench press 300 pounds. I am not feeling the love. Who says ice cream? Who says insulin? Okay, it was about 50/50. Now listen very carefully. I told you, I'm not asking if this is true or false. I am asking what kind of claim is this? Is this a preference claim that can be true for you but not true for me, or is this a claim about the objective mind independent world?

Now, I think you might change your vote. You might have different views or opinions about whether I can do this, but there is an objective mind independent truth that makes this true or false. Your beliefs don't change that. They might or might not accurately reflect it, but they don't change it. Now, we could test this. We could throw on some 45 pounds and cut off my sleeves and see if I could bench press it. The answer is yes or the answer is no. Some would be like, "But yeah, we want to know." Here's the deal, I cared before I was 40. Now, I just want to stay alive.

So don't confuse knowing whether something is true or false with it being true or false. For example, I can make the claim there's 50 quadrillion, zillion, zillion atoms in the universe. That is true or false. There is a truth status about the number of atoms that exist even though we'll never know it this side of heaven. So there can be questions for which we don't know the answer. Like you could say George Washington spat in a puddle in 1784. You could probably never prove that's true or false, but either he did or he didn't, right? So in this case, you don't know the answer, but there's still a mind independent truth that depends on the object. In this case, me.

All right. Ice cream or insulin, Earth is the center of the solar system.

Insulin

Okay, it's insulin. You hesitated because the statement's also what? It's false. You can have a false insulin claim. If I said George Washington was the second president, that's about George Washington. That's about the object, the presidency, but it's false. She can have a false objective claim. Two plus two equals five is objectively false.

Now, this is not a historical claim or a mathematical claim. What kind of claim is this? Scientific claim. So far you've told me historical claims, scientific claims, mathematical claims are like insulin, not ice cream. How about this one? Ice cream or insulin, abortion is wrong.

[inaudible 00:08:32].

I heard a blend on this one. Now, is this a scientific claim? No. Science might help us answer it, but this is a moral claim. Are moral claims like ice cream that are matters of preference or are they like insulin that deals with the objective real world?

Now, some time ago I was having a conversation with a fellow and he goes, "If you don't like abortion, don't have one." I said, "Sorry to point out the obvious, but I can't." Now by the way, notice what he did. "If you don't like abortion, don't have one." Where did he shift the question of the morality of abortion? To a matter of likes and preferences, to a subjective issue. If you don't like chicken, get fish. If you don't like coke, get tea. So I looked at him, I said, "Hey, I'm curious. Are you against slavery?" He's like, "Of course." "They said Then if you don't like slavery, don't own a slave."

Friends, are we against slavery because we don't like it? The answer's no. We're against slavery because we know it's objectively wrong to own and mistreat another human being based on something secondary like skin color. If morality is like ice cream, then guess what? You couldn't judge anybody for doing anything morally wrong because there is no such thing as subjective right and wrong. Saying that torture and murder and rape is wrong if morality is subjective, is like saying it's wrong for you to like cookie dough ice cream.

Now, some people might in theory say they believe that, but no one really does. In fact, you want to know what someone believes about morality? It's not by what they say and it's not by what they do. It's by how they want to be treated. People will break a promise to you, but the moment you break a promise to them, they will cry foul. So you know someone's views on morality, not by their actions but by their reactions. You know someone's views on right and wrong, not by their actions but by their reactions. I teach at Bible university full-time, but have continued to teach one high school Bible class part-time and at the time of this recording, my daughter's in my class, which has been pretty special. And sometimes students will have a hard time with the issue of right and wrong being objective and I'll say, "Look, if someone tells you there's no such thing as right and wrong, cut in front of them in line." What are they going to say? "That's not fair, that's not right," as if there's some objective standard outside of us we're bound to follow.

I was speaking in another country on the other side of the world and they said, "In our country, your example does not follow." I said, "Why?" They said, "Because if you are older, you're supposed to cut in line over somebody who's younger." I said, "Okay, so if you're younger and you cut in line in front of somebody who's older, is that wrong?" They said, "Yes." I said, "That's my point." The principle is we know there's right and wrong in fairness and justice, although we might experience it differently in our practice.

Friends, think about it this way. What is the question at the root of abortion? What's the question? Here's what I think the question is. So imagine when this taping is done, you go home and you decide to do the dishes. Now for some of you, this is going to take a lot of imagination. You're doing the dishes, younger brother or sister or sibling or grandchild comes up and says something like, "Hey, mommy, daddy, papa, can I kill this?" But your back is turned. What question would you ask back? "What is it?" You turn around, it's a roach. You'd be like, "Hurry up." You turn around, it's a little puppy, you'd be like, "Whoa! Why do you want hurt a puppy? That's really messed up." You turn around and like, "Hey, I pulled this infant out of a carriage down the street. Can I kill this?" You'd be like, "Whoa! No! Definitely not."

Now, what's the difference between how we should treat a roach and how we should treat a human being? The difference is what it is. How we treat something is based upon what it is. That's why when the Nazis wanted to exterminate the Jews, what did they have to do? Dehumanize them and call them rats and vermin because we know we should treat human beings differently than we should treat a roach, and the answer is what it is.

Friends, when it comes to abortion, here's the question, what is the unborn? If the unborn is not human, no justification is necessary. If the unborn is human, then let me ask you a question. When is it morally justified to end the life of an innocent, vulnerable human being? Either the unborn is human or it's not human. Either we protect human life or we don't. We all know that moral questions upon reflection deal with objective reality. One more example might help.

A number of years ago when I was teaching full-time in San Juan Capistrano at a Bible school, some of you might recall this, some of my students came to me and they said, "Dr. McDowell, there's this big atheist freethinking club at the public school in our town." And they came to tell me about it. I said, "What do you guys want to do about it?" They said, "Well, what if we have a debate where we challenged three of their students and three of our students to debate the historical Jesus, morality, objective or not, an intelligence design evolution?" I said, "Great idea."

So our church in San Juan had three atheist students. Three of my students packed it out. It was incredible. One of my students got up there, I trained her and she said, "There is a right and wrong and we all know it and we expect people to follow it. There's an objective moral law, and that points towards the best explanation there being an objective moral lawgiver." When their students came up and said, "There's no objective moral law." It's like ice cream. You have your values, you follow them. We have our values and we follow them. It's all a matter of preference.

When he sat down, when he signed for the closing speech, the same student just got up. Note, minutes before, he said there's no objective right and wrong, it's all a matter of preference. Stood behind the podium in our church to a packed audience and he looked out noticing it was probably mostly Christians. He goes, "You know, you Christians are a bunch of bigots. You're homophobic, you're intolerant and you're hateful. Shame on you." And he repeat himself and he sat down. Do you notice the contradiction? "There's no objective right and wrong or moral law, but you hateful, bigoted, intolerant, immoral Christians have violated every moral duty that you have. Shame on you." I don't know why his head didn't explode, only that he was so full of false ideologies and had pushed the beach ball down, but at this moment the truth seeped out. Now, I couldn't point it out as the moderator. Why? Because he would've said, "That's not fair." Which would've made our point, wouldn't it have? But I know they actually believe in fairness.

All right, ice cream or insulin, three more for you. Jesus was a carpenter.

Insulin.

Insulin. Jesus died on the Cross AD 30.

Insulin.

Now, some argue 29, some argue 33, but it's still an insulin claim. How about this one? Jesus resurrected as proof he is divine. Insulin. Okay, good. Now, this is now a historical claim with theological implications. Is the claim that Jesus resurrected in God, the kind of claim that can be true for you but not true for me? Or is there an objective true status about this claim? Now for clarity, let me put it in perspective. Nobody dies and goes to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus. You realize that, right? Nobody dies and goes to hell just because they don't believe in Jesus. People die and go to hell because of a rebellion against their creator, because of a moral virus the Bible calls sin. And to say that Buddha or Krishna or Muhammad or any other religious figure can forgive your sins is like saying chocolate peanut butter ice cream controls diabetes. It doesn't work in the objective real world.

Have you ever really thought and wondered why Jesus is the only way? Why is Jesus the only way. In our age, two of the greatest virtues are diversity and inclusiveness. Jesus seems pretty exclusive, doesn't he? The road is narrow. Why is Jesus the only way? The answer's actually somewhat simple. Jesus is the only way to God because he's the only one who fixes the problem that is broken, that separates us from God. You see, the problem is sin. There is an objective moral law rooted in God's character and sin separates us from a holy God and gives us a debt that we owe to God that we cannot pay ourselves. Jesus, the God man steps in human history, lives a sinless life, pays the debt for us and offers us salvation as a free gift if we're humble enough to accept it.

You see, think about it. Again, if your car runs out of gas, it doesn't do any good to rotate the tires, change the spark plugs, get a new carburetor or drop five grand and get a new transmission. You got to identify the problem and fix it. The root of the problem in the world is not that we forgot that we are God. Religion has done some bad things, unfortunately, but the root of the problem in the world is not religion. The root of the problem is not that we forgot that we are God. Jesus said the root of the problem is the human heart.

You see, the human heart is the heart of the problem. The human heart is the heart of the problem. In fact, you might say the heart of the problem is the human heart. Out of the human heart comes idolatry and lust and jealousy and sinfulness, which is why we need a new heart. What's unique about Christianity though is it's not the kind of faith system that can be true for you, but not true for me. Again, Paul writes, "If Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless. You are still in your sins." All of Christianity rests upon Jesus rising from the dead roughly 2,000 years ago. That is true or it's false and you believe it or you don't. Questions or thoughts on the nature of truth or objections that you've heard about this I could potentially help with?

Why are there so many different Christian beliefs?

Why are there so many different Christian beliefs? So let me make a distinction between core Christian beliefs and secondary Christian beliefs. So I have friends who call themselves Christians yet deny the trinity. I have friends who call themselves Christians and yet one in particular believes that Jesus sinned. I have friends who call themselves Christians and say, "Jesus is God, but we're all God." Now, they might say, we're all Christians. I would push back and say, there are certain core basic beliefs that go back to the time of Nicaea, back to the New Testament that you have to hold to be a Christian, the resurrection, deity of Christ, sinfulness of mankind. Those are core fundamental beliefs we cannot disagree over and still be Christians.

So the difference between another religion or a cult and Christianity is a rejection or a denial of, or a twisting of a core belief. Different denomination is either a difference in an important but secondary theological belief or in church governance or really emphasis of certain beliefs. So when it comes to secondary beliefs, you and I can differ over the age of the earth. You and I can differ over the role of women in the church. You and I can differ over the author of Hebrews. Well, those are important but not essential beliefs to salvation. So I think the reason we differ over beliefs is because I mean the Bible's long enough, right? It's not going to answer a lot of the questions we're asking today. Even if the Bible was 10 times as long as it was, human nature, we would find ways to divide and differ. And I think God also doesn't answer every question because he wants us to love each other apart from our differences. He wants us to seek him through the scriptures and follow him.