HANDBOOK OF CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS

ON THE CONSCIENCE AS THE SEAT OF GOD

AND IMPLANTED BY GOD

Handbook of Christian Apologetics says in its 15th argument for the existence of God that

 There must be a God for we all have a conscience however dimmed it may be and he must have put it in us.
 
Reason replies:

But that assumes some of us have properly developed consciences.  What if the ones we called dull are the right ones?  You have a circular argument here, "God is a God of morality and so planted a guide in us. We feel that x is wrong and that shows God exists and is a moral God."  That rubbish in fact shows no respect for conscience at all and wants to capture it for a religious ideology.

The computer has a conscience that bringing up a spreadsheet program when requested to bring up a word-processing programme is wrong. Conscience is simply information about things you shouldn’t do.
 
The argument from conscience in the Handbook of Christian Apologetics says that since my conscience could not come from nature for nature is below me and is non-intelligent, or from me because it is a pain to me and because there is no reason why I should decide what is right and bind myself to follow it or from society for it has no provable right to tell me what to do leaves only God has having the right to tell me what to do and put a conscience in me. So my conscience proves that there is a God.

This argument is so bad that horrific is not the word for it.

Conscience is geared towards survival. It is a help for you to live in this world. You cannot live without one. To say that I cannot decide what should make me happy or society cannot impose its values on me for my and its happiness and welfare is really to say that morality is not about goodness but about causing suffering. For if happiness is good we can work out appropriate behaviour from that and the mind will afflict us if we wander from the path to happiness for we are built to be happy. Page 77 agrees with Kant that it is silly to say that you can lay moral obligations on yourself for that is like saying you can bind yourself and still be the one bound. You can for as my work, The Gospel According to Atheism, proves that you can work out what you should bind yourself to. It has to do with respecting yourself and not some God.

Conscience is not a pain most of the time. We want it and we want others to have it. Conscience can be wrong so it is not the voice of God.
 
Some argue that the protests of conscience come from nowhere it seems so God must be the source (page 62, Arguing with God). They say that what I see around me does not tell me what is wrong but the voice inside my head does. But the voice is created by memory so though it is true that what is around you has not told you it is true that what WAS around you has told you. Conscience is just an intellectual activity like seeing a sum as wrong and as I said it is caused by the desire for happiness.

Are we and God to love good deeds because they are good or are they just good because we love them? In other words, is good good no matter what we or God thinks? Or can we just create morality? Christians say that morality comes from God's nature not what God likes or commands. So love is right for God is a loving kind of being. That is one example. But who says that just because God's nature is love that it should be? It does not prove that love is morally obligatory. However you want to ground morality, even if you cannot do it, you know that GOD IS NOT THE WAY TO DO IT! You end up with lies.

For the Christian, we have to have free will before we can be moral beings. So free will is the horse and morality is the cart. Morality claims that all that matters is love and as there is no love without justice justice is up there with it as well. Only love and only justice count. Now we are told that free will matters most. A free agent can have the power to choose without it being about moral right and wrong. Imagine somebody who just does maths all their life. If moral concerns are only optional if you have free will, then the Christian should admit that even if we have free will it might not morally matter what we do.

Free will cannot be proven for we know that physical causes and drugs can decide for you and yet you feel you are the one that has made the decision and that it is your decision.

Nothing works at all if you want to join God and moral concerns.

The Christian would see conscience as implanted by God to do the judging. It can be distorted by sin and errors and lack of information but it is still the seat of God in us. But its judging does not mean it is from God. He is saying, "My conscience judges like it is superior to me and thus put there by a superior judge. Therefore it is the work of God." But he is assuming it really does act superior but just because it tells you you did right or wrong does not mean it is trying to rule you. The argument that conscience can be warped denies that conscience is supreme. What if the warped one is not warped and is right? His errors compound. He gets conscience wrong. Then he thinks it points to free will. He thinks free will points to morality and morality points to God. None of this is coherent. None of it follows.



No Copyright