Groothuis’ "Christian Apologetics" ch.6: Truth Defined and Defended

The apologetics study group LOVES this quote from Groothuis’ Christian Apologetics:  “We may be entitled to our own opinions, but we are not entitled to our own facts.” p. 124  It’s actually a variant of a quote commonly attributed to Daniel Patrick Moynihan and a couple others, but that is not credited in the book.  Still–it is true.  I think it is fair to say it has achieved meme-status.

“‘Adultery is wrong’ is true because that statement corresponds to the objective, universal and absolute moral law revealed by God, which is in accordance with his eternally stable character and the character of his creation.” p. 126

That last quote hits on natural law, divine command, Euthyphro’s Dilemma, the is-ought fallacy, et cetera.  I am currently discussing that with some folks from ILP here, and have done some work on it previously if you scroll to the relevant section here (“Euthyphro, Hume, Plato, Gettier”).

(discussion index)

Advertisements

About Maryann

Maryann Spikes is the past President of the Christian Apologetics Alliance. She blogs at Ichthus77, and loves apologetics and philosophy. In particular she loves to study all things Euthyphro Dilemma and Golden Rule. A para-educator (autism) for five years, she holds a Certificate in Christian Apologetics from Biola University, an AA in Humanities via Modesto Junior College, and moonlights as a freelancer on Upwork. You can follow her on Twitter @Ichthus77, connect with the Ichthus77 community on Facebook, or look her up on Google+.
This entry was posted in Apologetics, Divine Essentialism, Euthyphro Dilemma, Gettier Problem, Golden Rule, Groothuis' 'Christian Apologetics', Is-Ought Fallacy, Justified True Belief, Natural Law and Divine Command, Norris' Epistemology, Reviews and Interviews. Bookmark the permalink.

3 Responses to Groothuis’ "Christian Apologetics" ch.6: Truth Defined and Defended

  1. How does G. prove that adultery is wrong based on objective, universal absolute moral laws revealed by God . . . in accord with the character of His creation.”

    Has G. taken a good look at “the character of His creation?” There are hermit species and social species; herbivores and carnivores; some that mate for life, others that live to mate, and some that eat their mates. Plus, there are species in which sons mate with mothers, newborn children mate with each other, fathers kill other father’s children, mothers eat their children, daughters eat their mothers, and fetuses devour each other in the womb.

    And for all the trumpeting of being “anti-adultery” the same OT is in favor of many thing we consider “wrong” today.

  2. G. doesn't prove it is wrong. Justification and correspondence are two different things. Justification was beyond the scope of this chapter, and probably the scope of this book.

    Morality only comes into play in species with a conscience. I agree cultures in the OT would disagree on more issues with many cultures today.

    Thanks for replying, Ed.

Tell it:

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s