Jason Dollar . Net

Definition

Essentially, agnosticism can be called I-don’t-know-ism, when it comes to the question, “Does God exist?” Agnosticism comes in two flavors. 1) Strong agnosticism says that nobody can know if there is a God. That is, knowledge of the divine is not available to humans. 2) Weak agnosticism is much more modest, stating that some people might know if there is a God, but the agnostic maintains that he has not personally been convinced.

Why do people become agnostic?

Some agnostics have carefully researched all the evidence in favor of the existence of God and have concluded that it is not strong enough to support belief in God. However, they have also concluded that evidence does not disprove the existence of God. So they suspend belief until further evidence is provided.

Some agnostics are too busy to examine the evidence in favor of God’s existence. Since time is a major commodity, it is difficult for many to invest hours attempting to answer the question of whether there is a God. So they simply default on agnosticism.

Some agnostics are too lazy to examine the evidence in favor of God’s existence. It isn’t that life is too busy for these folks, its just that studying can be difficult, and so they opt out and decide to take the risk of agnosticism.

Some agnostics are immoral and want to stay that way. These people know that if they began to believe in God, they would have to change their behavior, so they simply maintain that they do not know if God exists, and remain in their cycle of immorality. These folks are typically not interested in the evidence at all, but rather in keeping the authority over their own lives.

What is the problem with agnosticism?

It is dangerous. Here is a story to illustrate:

Ben was minding his own business while riding on a train from Cincinnati to his hometown of Pittsburgh. The man sitting in front of Ben (whose name happens to be Will) suddenly turns around, holding his cell phone in his hand. He speaks directly to Ben, but in a loud voice so that all the passengers can hear. “I have been on the phone with my wife who is watching CNN. She saw a report that our train is in danger. The bridge we are supposed to be crossing about ten miles down the track has been washed away by a flooding river. We must do something!”

Ben is naturally troubled by this report and turns his ipod off to concentrate. Just then Mary, the lady sitting behind Ben, leans over the seat and retorts to Will:  “Oh, don’t be such an alarmist! I’ve been speaking with my family too, and they say the bridge has sustained some damage, but it’s only minor. They say it should hold our train just fine. We have nothing to worry about!”

Ben is officially an agnostic. He honestly doesn’t know whether the bridge is safe to cross or not. Should he believe Will or Mary? In his gut, Ben is aware of his need to find out for sure. So he begins to research the situation in careful detail. He says to Will, “Okay, tell me exactly what your wife said she saw on CNN.” Will repeats his wife’s story that the bridge is totally washed out.

Ben turns to Mary, “Which network was your family watching?”

“I’m not sure,” she says, “and now I can’t get a cell phone signal to call them back.”

Ben feels a sense of panic and decides he needs to act quickly to get more accurate information. He walks the aisle to the cabin and knocks loudly on the locked door. One of the engineers cracks the door and peeks out. “Yes?”

“Have you guys been watching the news?” asks Ben politely.

“No. Why?”

Ben recounts the information to the engineer, stressing that the train could be in serious trouble if the bridge is out. But the engineer is not interested. “We haven’t heard anything. If there was a problem the station would let us know.” He then adds, “We are on a schedule, mister. We cannot stop this train unless it is a real emergency.”

What is Ben going to do now? He feels that his own life is at possible risk, but he isn’t sure. He is still basically agnostic. But this is precisely why remaining agnostic is so dangerous. Many people, who say they do not know if God exists, or which religion is true, seem to pretend that they are not even on the train of life. They act as though it doesn’t matter whether there is a God, or which worldview is true. But in Ben’s case, it clearly matters.

Most religions have some type of judgment doctrine. Christianity, for example, holds that those who die in their sin will spend eternity in Hell as punishment. So the agnostic is on the train of life and Christians are preaching, in effect: “The bridge is out. If you remain in your current condition you will soon crash and be ruined.”

Of course, other people, like Mary in the story, are saying that everything is fine. No judgment is coming for anyone. Naturalists, for example, claim that when we die, we simply cease to exist. There is no afterlife to worry about.

Who should we believe? Well, at the very least the agnostic, like Ben, should get up and do more research. Maybe the Christian is wrong, but the agnostic should at least study the position very carefully before he simply dismisses it altogether. Put another way, the agnostic had better be absolutely certain that the bridge is safe before he sits back down in his seat awaiting his fate. At that point, of course, he is no longer an agnostic – he has made his decision to disbelieve.

Back to Ben, who warned the engineer about the bridge, but was brushed off. Suppose, as he continues thinking about the situation, he becomes more and more convinced that Will is right. He comes to believe that the bridge is actually out and that his life is in danger. If this happens, he may decide to do something radical. Perhaps he opens the door of the train, takes a deep breath, and leaps. Would that hurt? Absolutely. He would hit the ground hard, and potentially break bones. But Ben concludes that this jump is better than remaining agnostic on the train where he is facing potential death.

The Christian is the person who is convinced that judgment is coming. This is not all there is to Christianity, but this is certainly part of it. He is convinced that he is a sinner who deserves the everlasting judgment of God, and he is willing to take a leap from the train in order to avoid that devastation. Will it hurt? Yes. Will he lose things he really wants? Yes. But in the end, his life is gained. Jesus taught this when he said:

And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, “where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.” (Mark 9:43-48)

Agnostics cannot pretend that they are not on the train of life. We are all riding. But there is horrific devastation ahead. The evidence for this is highly convincing. Christ has offered us an opportunity to jump. He even promises to catch us when we leap. You should not be content to sit in your seat and await an unknown fate.

An atheist named Ben recently commented on my article Something and Not Nothing: The Cosmological Argument for the Existence of God.

Theists post the question “Why does something exist instead of nothing” like its a profound question.

Ok, here’s a question: How can nothing exist? I’m yet to see a theist who can explain how “nothing” can exist. Its a dumb argument.

Quote: “The first cause is not matter and energy.” – Could you pls back up that statement with some evidence? How could you possibly know what the first cause is or isn’t when scientists with the best technological tools at their disposal are still scratching their heads over the same question?.. Oh i get it. When Christians don’t have an answer, they simply fill it with their God. Fantastic dark age thinking: Thor is also the cause of thunder, you know’… dark age method…

If God doesn’t need a first cause, then why does energy? Maybe energy always existed.

Comment by ben

Here is my response to Ben’s thoughts:

Hi Ben,
Your perplexed response I think gets at the heart of the issue with the Cosmological argument. We are looking here for the best explanation for the data. We are not filling in the gaps as you say (an ad hominem designed to make theists look stupid). The data is clear – something exists. I do not have to explain how “nothing” exists since something does, but I do need a decent explanation as to how something does exist.

So the options are essentially 2 – either matter / energy has always existed (or caused itself to exist, or popped into existence without a cause) OR a living, eternal, intelligent being caused the universe to exist. BOTH options have problems (why do you pretend that Christians do not admit this?) However, what is the BEST explanation based on scientific data? Well, what is the data? 1) Living beings exist. 2) Intelligent beings exist. 3) The universe appears to be designed (DNA, irreudcible complexity, fine-tuning, ect.)

So, sure, energy might be uncaused and eternal, but energy has a hard time explaining 1, 2, and 3 above. Why? Life does not come from non-life. Intelligence does not come from non-intelligence. And design does not come from chaos.

So here is basic science, Ben. Follow the evidence where it leads. Sure, it is difficult understanding an eternal being (God), but that is not our point. Our point is to show that God – a super intelligence – is (from a scientific point of view), the best explanation for the cause of the universe. In other words, theists do not maintain that we can show how God does not need a first cause, but we are showing that nothing ELSE makes sense without God standing AS the first cause.

You do not have to agree, but I do encourage atheists to quit pretending Christians are stupid, or in the “dark ages” for believing this. After all, the evidence is clear, and it appears the atheist is the one who believes against it. Thanks again foy your response, Ben, and if you’d like to talk further I’d be glad to.

PS – It is okay to change your point-of-view and become a believer. Anthony Flew, the prominent atheist who recently changed his position to theism did so because of the overwhelming amount of evidence.

Here is a sermon I preached awhile back when I was pastor at Valley East Baptist Church from Hebrews 10:35-39.

Or click here to download.

What is scientism?

 It is the dogmatic philosophical position that true knowledge only comes through the scientific process. Scientific knowledge is considered to be superior to philosophical or religious knowledge. This view provides the authoritarian basis for the naturalistic view of reality, which asserts that the universe is comprised of nothing but matter / energy.

Who are some well known people who hold to scientism?

Carl Sagan, now deceased, was one of the most vocal defenders of scientism. Recent prophets of this dogmatism include Richard Dawkins, Sam Harris, and Christopher Hitchens.

How many people hold to scientism overall?

It is really hard to say since scientism comes in varying degrees of strength, and since adherents rarely advertise it. But, especially in the university setting, scientism seems to be an underlying accepted belief system among large numbers of people.

Why should scientism be rejected?

1. Scientism does not meet its own criteria. It cannot be shown through scientific evidence that scientism is true since it is a philosophical assumption.
2. Science itself depends on many non-scientific assumptions in order to work: like the assumption that the universe is orderly and is the type thing that can be studied, or that scientists should be honest in reporting their findings (honesty is a type of ethical knowledge, not scientific knowledge).

Further reading:

Here is a brief introduction to some of the problems with Scientism from Martin Ryder, University of Colorado at Denver.

Why do many people continue to hold to some form of scientism?

Perhaps to use it as an explanation of reality that seems to work. To their minds, it seems to answer more questions in better ways than other alternatives. However, it is blatantly self-defeating and closed-minded, ignoring many lines of evidence that lead to the existence of God. God is simply excluded since he cannot be studied scientifically. This is unfortunate considering that God’s existence answers many, many more questions in infinitely superior ways than scientism ever can.

Are there different types of scientism?

Yes, there is a distinction between strong scientism which says that a proposition is only true, if and only if it is a scientific proposition or theory. Weak scientism is bit less dogmatic, allowing for other forms of knowledge, but continuing to assert that scientific knowledge is the best knowledge available.

How many Muslims are there in the world?

There are around 1 billion adherents to Islam in the world, which is roughly 20% of the world’s population. Only Christianity claims more followers.

Who is the founder of Islam?

Muhammad, a merchant born around 570 A.D. in Mecca, Saudi Arabia.

How did Islam get started?

Muhammad was a very religious man, who was raised in an environment where many gods were worshiped. As he traveled he encountered Christians and Jews and respected the way they worshiped only one God. At the age of 40, Muhammad claims to have received a visit from the angel Gabriel, who gave him the words which would later be recorded as the Qur’an. Muhammad then began to preach that Allah was the only god, and that he was Allah’s prophet.

What does the word “Islam” mean?

Though it has connotations of “peace,” Muslims understand it to mean “surrender,” that is, to surrender oneself totally to the dictates and will of Allah and Muhammad. Another way to look at it – surrender to Allah is how Muslims intend to bring “peace” into the world.

How do Muslims practice their religion?

To be a faithful Muslim, one must obey the Five Pillars of Islam:

1. Recite: There is no god but Allah, and Muhammad is his messenger.
2. Pray: Five times a day facing Mecca.
3. Give: Charitable giving to the poor.
4. Fasting: No food, drink, or sexual intercourse during the daytime hours of the month of Ramadan.
5. Pilgrimage: If able, every Muslim should travel to Mecca at least once in his lifetime.

How do Muslims view Jesus Christ?

Muslims believe that Jesus is a very great prophet, second only to Muhammad. They do not believe that Jesus is the divine son of God, nor that he died on a cross. They despise the doctrine of the Trinity.

What is the goal of Islam?

Through the enactment of Sharia Law, Muslims desire to bring the rule of Allah to the entire world.

How is a person counted righteous before Allah?

His good deeds must outweigh his bad deeds. It is a works-based system of self-justification.

Are Muslims terrorists?

The serious ones are. The majority of Muslims adhere to Islam because of tradition, or family allegiance. They do not take the Qur’an seriously when it comes to Jihad (holy war). But those Muslims who believe Islam not to be a mere religion, but total reality, are willing to kill the “infidel” (non-Muslims) in order to establish Islam globally. As we observed on September 11, 2001, many are even willing to become suicide bombers in order to achieve this goal. Recent surveys reveal that perhaps 10% – 20% of Muslims are in this serious category, which translates into more than one hundred million people.

How do we know that Islam is a false religion?

1. There is no evidence that Gabriel ever appeared to Muhammad.
2. The Qur’an was written by only one person. There are no checks and balances which come through multiple authorship (the type thing we see with the Bible). The bottom line – one person can lie much easier than multiple people.
3. Muhammad utilized his religion to achieve incredible wealth. He was an extremely violent and untrustworthy person.
4. Islam borrows its concepts from Judaism and Christianity, though it twists both beyond recognition.
5. Islam ignores the historical evidence of the trustworthy nature of the Bible and the resurrection of Jesus Christ.

Important final comment

Islam is the single biggest apologetics issue Christians face today. Not because it is a consistent or viable worldview, but because there are so many Muslims in the world today, and because they wield considerable political power, especially due to the oil reserves in their possession. Considering the violent goals of the religion, and their world take-over mentality, Christians must face Islam head on. How is this done? Through the preaching of the Gospel to Muslims. Amazingly, the Lord is saving many Muslims everyday, showing them the truth that Jesus Christ is the risen Son of God and that Muhammad is a false prophet.

Further reading:
Why Jesus Is Trustworthy But Muhammad Is Not

Great website:
Answering Islam

Jesus Christ is actually the Lord of the universe. This is not a religious opinion, it is reality.

His shining glory is the only factor that provides sense and direction to our lives, since he has created us for the purpose of honoring him.

What is truth? When a student graduates from high school, how can we be sure he knows it?

The task is daunting, but the Spirit of God is mighty to save.

Let us pray. Let us sacrifice. Let us focus. Let us rely upon the great King, who comes from on high to bring forth salvation.

The phrase “Christian Hedonism” is very new, but the concept is very old. In recent days, John Piper has been responsible for the new clothing, or phrasing, and its most recent developments, primarily with the publication of his book Desiring God.[1]

Each chapter within that book details a certain area of life that is influenced by Christian Hedonism and how life ought to be lived in light of the biblical truths of Christian Hedonism. Though many Christians disagree with Piper’s choice of controversial words – “hedonism” – and many disagree with the system itself, it is thoroughly based in biblical revelation and has been extremely influential in the modern church.

Christian Hedonism is essentially the view that pursuing one’s own pleasure fully leads a person to God, the only provider of concrete and lasting satisfaction. This pursuit of pleasure is the very thing which actually glorifies God the most, so that the pursuits of pleasure and of God’s glory are not mutually exclusive, but actually the same single pursuit. Both God’s glory and man’s joy are possible and in fact rise and fall together. As Piper so famously puts it, “God is most glorified in me, when I am most satisfied in him.”

The implication of this position for ethical considerations and moral judgments is incredible. Piper makes it abundantly clear that, “I do not come to the Bible with a hedonistic theory of moral justification. On the contrary, I find in the Bible a divine command to be a pleasure-seeker.”[2] Though Piper mentions ethical considerations briefly, it is not the point of his work. There is a need then for a more detailed ethic of Christian Hedonism. This article will seek to extend the discussion of Christian Hedonism into the realm of philosophical ethics.

Christian Hedonism as a worldview comes complete with its own ethical system which can be clothed in normative ethical terminology. Though this practice may not be necessary in the eyes of the Christian Hedonist, and perhaps it might even seem compromising to the position itself, yet it seems to be a helpful process in order to see how and where Christian Hedonism sits among the other ethical systems that people commonly hold. On a meta-ethical basis, Christian Hedonism would be considered part of the family of ethical objectivism, since it is grounded in the fact that morality is bound up with the very eternal character of God, neither presiding over Him nor being arbitrarily sent by Him. I will not seek to elaborate further upon meta-ethics, however, choosing rather to focus this article upon the various ethical systems people generally espouse and how Christian Hedonism sits among them.

I am making the case that, with significant modifications, the teleological systems of Egoism and Utilitarianism, Deontology, and Virtue-based ethics are all necessary parts of the Christian Hedonistic ethical system and that the underlying philosophy of Christian Hedonism is the glue that holds these supposedly contradictory systems in place as one elaborate structure. In order to accomplish this lofty goal, I will look at each system and make needed modifications to it in order to place it properly into the system, much like the pieces of a puzzle. Hopefully it will be seen that they mesh together perfectly and in fact, provide needed checks and balances for each other.

Teleological Ethics

Goals are extremely important to the Christian Hedonist. The Bible, whose content supplies the foundation upon which Christian Hedonism is built, makes it abundantly clear that the end goal not only of ethics, but of everything, is the glory of God. This can be seen succinctly in passages such as Isaiah 42:8, “I am the Lord, that is My name; and My glory I will not give to another, nor My praise to carved images.” Thus, all things are moving toward this goal, and by necessity will arrive there, since God cannot fail and He alone is ultimately in control of history.

People very often revolt against this truth, declaring that it makes God out to be arrogant or self-centered, character traits that He openly condemns in other places. Other people think God is obligated to love them (that is, people) more so than anything including Himself. Both of these positions grossly misunderstand the position. God condemns self-centered or arrogant behavior in others, not because self-centeredness is wrong in and of itself, but rather because the self-centeredness of people is empty. When we focus inward and essentially worship ourselves, we treat ourselves as though we are God. In reality, of course, we are not. But here is the catch – He is! Therefore, God is allowed to do what He condemns in others, namely self worship, because He is God and we are not. People were designed and created as an extension of God’s love for Himself. Human beings have the capacity, design, and charge to praise and glorify Almighty God with every aspect of our existences.

The Bible also makes it clear that the way in which people bring maximized glory to God is through the enjoyable interaction that is available with Him via salvation through His Son Jesus Christ. A relationship wherein the believer is filled with maximized pleasure and happiness (all found only in Christ, of course) is the condition a person must be in to bring a maximized amount of glory to God. This being the case, the pursuit of one’s own satisfaction is not inconsistent, but rather a necessary part of the pursuit of God’s glory. Thus the penultimate goal of history is a person’s own full satisfaction and happiness as it is only found in a proper God-glorifying relationship.

These particular ethical goals lead to an examination of the two main teleological systems: egoism and utilitarianism. Can these goal-oriented ethical theories be modified to fit within the Christian Hedonistic ethical framework?

Egoism. It goes without saying that self-interested egoism, of the variety promoted by Ayn Rand,[3] is absolutely inconsistent with Christian Hedonism. That form of egoism has a totally different ground and goal in mind.

The ground of this anti-Christian form of egoism is essentially Naturalism, or the belief that the only things that exist are material. This system is inherently atheistic and usually buys into evolutionary ideas, where survival of the fittest is the chief slogan. Rand’s egoism declares that I should live for my own best self-interest because I only have one shot at life and my desire should be to be the king of the hill while I am alive. This of course, is in no way consistent with Christianity.

Also, Rand’s egoism states that the goal is a person’s own self-fulfillment and happiness apart from any other considerations. That is to say, the effect of my own self-interested pursuits need not take into account how those pursuits affect other people or my environment. But the Christian Hedonist recognizes that path as a way to disaster, since our sin natures will always lead us away from the only thing that will bring objective and actual satisfaction – the glory of God.

Thus Egoism must be and can be significantly modified. Let us call the modified version Christian Egoism. It states simply that there is an objective source of true personal pleasure and happiness, namely God Himself, and that I am ethical obligated to pursue my own joy and pleasure in Him.

Another significant change must be noted regarding the place of altruistic behavior within the system. As previously stated, self-interested egoism does not consider the damage done to others in the process of finding one’s own supposed joy whereas Christian Egoism operates within the system of biblical ethics (see virtue ethics below as an integral part of the total ethical structure). This means that Christian Egoism is very often filled with altruistic behavior, recognizing that in God’s system, self-sacrifice for the good of others, leads to greater ultimate pleasure for the individual. Jesus, then, “for the joy set before Him endured the cross” (Hebrews 12:2). A possible logical argument for this position may be as follows:

1. The ultimate goal of God in creation is the glory of God (this includes the ultimate goal of morality).

2. The way in which this goal is achieved is through the satisfaction of the individual in God alone (and not in any other source).

3. Therefore, to pursue one’s own self-interest (in the greatest objective way, not in subjective ways) is to pursue the glory of God.

4. Within this God-centered system, altruism is the best way to pursue one’s own self-interest, since serving others brings us closer to God. (Consider Jesus’ command to wash one another’s feet).

5. Therefore, altruistic behavior leads to the greatest satisfaction in God and the greatest glory of God.

Utilitarianism. Christian Hedonism also leads to a modified Utilitarianism, which we might call Christian Utilitarianism. Another, more simple, more common and certainly more biblical word for this might be evangelism. This connection may seem a bit artificial, but I hope to show convincingly how the two hold hands with each other.
If Utilitarianism generally says: make moral decisions based on what will bring the greatest good to the greatest number of people, then Christian Utilitarianism maintains that the greatest good is God and the only way to God is through the preaching of the Gospel. Thus, the Christian “Utilitarian” (used in that modified sense) will seek to maximize pleasure for the greatest number of people by preaching the Gospel to as many people as possible, since salvation in Christ is the objective greatest good that can be obtained. Piper seems to agree strongly with this perspective, as seen in the title of his book on missions Let the Nations be Glad.[4]

Classic Utilitarianism is weak in that it does not properly define what is the greatest good. This is where Christian Utilitarianism thrives. It holds fast to a certain and definite and unchanging greatest good, an objective greatest good, and an exclusive greatest good. It maintains that any other good besides this good is not the ultimate good and thus should not be the proper goal of a utilitarian ethic.

Christian Utilitarianism does not suffer from many of the objections that attack the classic, philosophical version, for the very simple reason that the goal is more specific and better defined.

If the general “greatest good” goal is used without a stronger definition, then for example, justice may be compromised, since injustice may lead to the greater general happiness of a greater number of people. This might be the case in a situation were a town is attempting to squelch racism and a terrible crime is convicted. A white man and a black man are both arrested as suspects for the crime. The police determine, based on the evidence that the black man is the guilty party, but they realize that if the white man is acquitted and the black man accused, then riots will surely break out in the city, and all their work to destroy racism will be lost. So the police chief, operating under classic utilitarianism, opts to release the black man, the guilty party, and to convicted the white man, who is innocent. He argues that this will lead to a greater amount of happiness for a greater number of people, and that this act of injustice is but a small price to pay for greater good.[5]

Christian Utilitarianism would scoff at such notions. If happiness is only found in God, maximizing His glory and living under His objective moral guidelines, then injustice is not permitted. Likewise, a Christian utilitarian would not fall prey to making an ethical decision that violates his integrity as a classic utilitarian would, because there are various Christian ethical principles that would guide the decision making process.

An example of this problem is the hypothetical situation in which there are 10 prisoners who are going to all be shot unjustly for supposed crimes committed against an unjust government. However, a particular foreigner is brought into this situation with the challenge that if he shoots one of these prisoners, the other nine will be set free. A classic utilitarian would maintain that the person has a moral duty to kill a single person in order to bring about a maximized good for a maximum number of people. This would, in most cases, violate the basic moral integrity of the person who does not want to shoot anybody for any reason.[6]

However, a Christian utilitarian would have other factors to consider in this circumstance, because he would understand that freedom is not necessarily the greatest good these nine might experience. He also would consider the incredible suffering on an infinite scale that the one would probably experience, assuming he is an unbeliever. So shooting the man is not to put him out of his misery, but to send him to a greater misery than the happiness of all the nine freedmen put together. But then again, if all ten of them are killed as a result of the refusal to kill the one, than assuming all ten of them are unbelievers, it would be an even greater degree of infinite suffering.

Thus, the Christian utilitarian would have to conclude whether shooting the one would be a justified killing or an unjustified killing. If it is concluded that this instance is the latter (murder), then under the Christian system, it is not permitted. However, if the former, than he would not be harming his conscience or alienating his integrity because he would be doing the right thing in the eyes of God to Whom he is ultimately accountable.

Perhaps the captors would allow the Christian utilitarian to have conversations with the prisoners in order to determine if they know Christ as Savior. Perhaps after the one is killed and the others set free, opportunity will be given to share the Gospel with them which would maximize their ultimate happiness and make the shooting of the one even more justified (if it is indeed a justified killing, a question which Christians would certainly argue over).

Hopefully, it is clear that having a specific and objective greater good in mind makes Utilitarianism much more tenable and defeats many of the objections against it. Biblical Christianity provides that greater good and shapes the system.

The next question would be: How do Christian Egoism and Christian Utilitarianism fit together? Am I to seek my own greatest good or the greatest good of the most number of people? Christian Hedonism supplies us with the answer – both. Seeking my own greatest good in Christ involves altruistically sharing the Gospel with as many people as possible, which in turn leads to the greatest good (Christ) for the greatest number of people. In other words, the thing that gives me the greatest amount of pleasure as an individual also gives the greatest number of people the greatest amount of pleasure. The bottom line is that within the Christian Hedonistic umbrella, Christian Egoism and Christian Utilitarianism are the same pursuit in essence.

Deontological Ethics

Consider now how a Christian Hedonist might also declare that a moral decision is right or wrong based upon the intrinsic value of the act itself, as well as the consequence of the act. Deontological systems stress that the ends never justify the means[7], but a Christian Hedonist would say the ends determine the means. Thus, if the end of a moral decision is God’s glory through the greatest happiness for the individual (Egoism) and for the greatest number (Utilitarianism) than there will be certain acts that lead to these ends. These acts, precisely because they lead to said ends, are intrinsically valuable in and of themselves. It is the ends that determine and make valuable the means.

A Christian Hedonist would not be content to state, as the pure deontologist might, that acts have value without any relation to source or end. This is how deontology must be modified to fit the system. Again, it is the source and the end which makes each act valuable, but it must be stressed, each act indeed is valuable.

The mistake often made in ethical discussions is separating teleological and deontological systems as if acts can be performed without an end in mind, or that an end can be held without specific acts in mind. This is ridiculous, for these are two separate parts of the same ethical mechanism. Christian Hedonism recognizes this and therefore does not seek to devalue an act in and of itself, but also sees the truth that no act is performed without a specific end in mind. The Christian Hedonist recognizes that these two sides of the same system act as checks and balances for each other. If ever I am confused about a moral decision approaching it from a teleological end (since I cannot know the future), I can also view it from a deontological perspective asking if the act is good in and of itself. Since the act and the end are part of the same ethical system, this should aid me in making the right choice.

So for example, if I am faced with the dilemma of whether to shoot one man in order to save the lives of nine, I might not use utilitarian methods alone in attempting to ascertain my decision. I also maintain the right to ask the question whether shooting someone is ever morally permissible in a Christian ethical framework. If I decide that it might be in certain circumstances, I can then explore those circumstances to see if the one I face is one of them.

Again, Christian Deontology balances out Christian Utilitarianism. This works because God is holy and thus the acts He wants us to perform would also be holy. And we know that if the end of morality is His maximized glory and individual and corporate maximized pleasure and benefit, then we can also be sure that the individual acts He wants us to perform will tend to that end.

Virtue-Based Ethics

Let us not forget, however, a third and perhaps even more significant ethical system, virtue-ethics. This view states that neither the end nor the act is the most significant aspect of a moral decision, but rather the character of the person who performs the act. Virtue ethicists maintain that a person can only make a right decision if he or she is the type of person who has the ability to make that decision, that is, if he or she is a person of character.

Holding to this view on its own is extremely short-sighted for it tends to forget that acts are valuable in and of themselves and acts do lead to certain consequences. However, a modified version of virtue ethics is the final component in the Christian Hedonistic ethical system, for it is clear that not just anyone will comprehend or desire to follow the system, indeed, it does take a certain type of person. Namely, it takes a converted person who longs for his or her own satisfaction as well as the satisfaction of the greatest number of people and all for the glory of God.

Furthermore, if the person is truly converted, there will be a desire to bear the fruit of the Spirit of God which deals primarily with character issues. He will want to demonstrate love, joy, peace, patience, and self control for example. All of these positive and godly character traits will move a person to make correct moral decisions, acts that have value on their own, but that also have consequences that tend to the glory of God and the satisfaction of people. If a person has not been spiritual regenerated by the Holy Spirit, he will not at all have this desire and thus will not be able to live by this ethical system.

It is again vital to note that all three aspects of the system must be in place for the system to work properly. In my estimation, prior philosophical attempts to produce an ethical system have failed because of a lack of glue to hold it all together. Teleological theorists have not seen how deontology and virtue ethics related to it and vice versa, because the needed adhesive was not produced that holds them all together. Biblical Christianity is that needed glue to show that indeed, all truth is God’s truth. Unregenerate people have enough knowledge and desire due to common grace to work out part of the picture, as seen in their many attempts to work out various ethical systems, but God’s truth is the only thing that makes an ethical system truly work.
[1] John Piper, Desiring God, (Sisters, OR: Multnomah Books, 1986).
[2] Ibid., 20.
[3] Most of Rand’s philosophy must be deciphered from her novels We the Living, the Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged.
[4] John Piper, Let the Nations be Glad, (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1993).
[5] Louis P. Pojman, How Should We Live?, (Belmont, CA: Thompson Wadsworth, 2005) 125.
[6] ibid., 124.
[7] Ibid, 137.