Secular Reasoning and Child Murder

There can be no autonomous and/or secular arguments for anything theological or political.

All thinking that arrives at a truth about God needs to begin with God. God makes it clear that ‘autonomous’ and or ‘secular’ human reasoning cannot arrive at truth:

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD.

Isaiah 55:8

Human reasoning is given the necessary facts, by God, to arrive at a ‘God Conclusion’, 

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Romans 1:19-20

but will not do so:

Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Romans 1:21-22

And it is not autonomous:

Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

Romans 1:19

When men like Ben Shapiro attempt to throw themselves into an argument using only secular and autonomous terms, they deny the very truths that they are supposed to be defending. I just listened to a podcast with Ben who, while very clearly denying that a man was a woman (just because that man ‘thought’ he was a woman), called one Sodomite the ‘husband’ of another Sodomite.

This kind of moral confusion derives itself from this desire to make a ‘secular’ argument, and ends up giving away the war in order to win a battle.

Von, you're addressing the issue epistemologically/logically. Shapiro is addressing it tactically. 

Unfortunately these tactics don't work. They literally "castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful". If we do not act in a way, and argue in a way, that is consistent with our underlying presuppositions and convictions, then we will, in our arguments, undermine those convictions.

We see this in our modern society where we have literally lost the linguistic war. We have supposedly pro-life people ashamed to use the word 'murder'; and recoiling in horror at the idea that those murderers should be put to death. We have Shapiro echoing the idea of the majority of Evangelicals when he says 'We don't care what they do in their bedrooms'.

Of course we care what they do in their bedrooms!! Sodomy (et al) is a blasphemy against God. Sodomy brings down the judgement of God on a society!! The acceptance of Sodomy as just 'something they do in their bedrooms' undermines the bedrock values of the entire society and will lead (has led) to a multitude of other ills.

I haven't had time to listen to the whole podcast. But in my conversations with an Orthodox Jewish friend, he often tries to claim that we can have 'secular' arguments: or arguments that will be able to convince anyone, of whatever philosophical or religious foundation.

That is not true, unfortunately. When two people start with two different foundations (presuppositions) for their arguments, then the same argument cannot reach both. When one side is trying to glorify God, and the other side is trying to contradict that glory... there can be no common agreement.

Von, it would be helpful to bear in mind (if you're not already) that Ben Shapiro only means this with regard to public policy.

There is no difference.

Let's take what should be the easiest and most basic of public policy pronouncements: Children should not be murdered. Seems easy, right? Yet we kill 3000 children every day here in the US, and Ancient Greece was known for infanticide of 'unfit' infants.

There can be no 'secular' argument, for anything.

The government exists to protect individual rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. 

That is an American, not a secular, argument... and it is based (read a few more words later) on the acceptance of a Creator God whose will created those rights for us.

If you deny the existence of that Creator God, then it is trivial to deny the existence of those created rights.

In fact even many people who accept the existence of the Creator God would deny these 'rights' (as I do).

So that is not a 'secular argument'. It does not appeal to values shared by all people.(and it is ironic that you would bring up 'should murder be legal' when my post pointed out that, for a vast swatch of the modern American and European public, the answer is 'yes'.)

You're addressing the issue epistemologically/logically. Shapiro is addressing it tactically. 

Unfortunately these tactics don't work. They literally "castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful". If we do not act in a way, and argue in a way, that is consistent with our underlying presuppositions and convictions, then we will, in our arguments, undermine those convictions.

We see this in our modern society where we have literally lost the linguistic war. We have supposedly pro-life people ashamed to use the word 'murder'; and recoiling in horror at the idea that those murderers should be put to death. We have Shapiro echoing the idea of the majority of Evangelicals when he says 'We don't care what they do in their bedrooms'.

Of course we care what they do in their bedrooms!! Sodomy (et al) is a blasphemy against God. Sodomy brings down the judgement of God on a society!! The acceptance of Sodomy as just 'something they do in their bedrooms' undermines the bedrock values of the entire society and will lead (has led) to a multitude of other ills.

We need only press them on their lack of consistency in condemning murder more generally but condoning it in this specific instance.

Wrong. Indeed disastrously wrong. And we have seen the result.

While it is true that all non-believers nonetheless have some sort of conscience (in varying degrees), and thus they will not commonly use the word 'murder' to describe the murder of children in the womb... that does not mean that their views are 'inconsistent' or that if this were proved to them they would mind.

There is someone I frequently talk to who, when I speak of how someone 'should' do something, they often reply with a statement about what the person 'wants' or 'likes'. To me this is a logical category mismatch: one of us is discussing 'should' and the other 'like'. One is arguing for moral imperative, the other is arguing desire.

But for the post moderns of today there is no mismatch there: because what one 'should' do is precisely what one 'wants' to do. As the old song says, 'It can't be wrong if it feels so right'.

So to the modern, no more than to the Nazi, the argument of consistency falls on deaf ears. The baby, like the Jew, can be murdered with ease, because they are not 'convenient'.

---

Thank you for reading Von’s Substack. I would love it if you commented! I love hearing from readers, especially critical comments. I would love to start more letter exchanges, so if there’s a subject you’re interested in, get writing and tag me!

Being ‘restacked’ and mentioned in ‘notes’ is very important for lesser-known stacks so… feel free! I’m semi-retired and write as a ministry (and for fun) so you don’t need to feel guilty you aren’t paying for anything, but if you enjoy my writing (even if you dramatically disagree with it), then restack, please! Or mention me in one of your own posts.

If I don’t write you back it is almost certain that I didn’t see it, so please feel free to comment and link to your post. Or if you just think I would be interested in your post!

If you get lost, check out my ‘Table of Contents’ which I try to keep up to date.

Thanks again, God Bless, Soli Deo gloria,

Von