Defining Skeptical Theism

LABELS  

Labels can allow an individual to compartmentalize his or her own beliefs, and these certain labels can permit others to differentiate the ideas one may hold.  In this post I will attempt to loosely explain what I think skeptical theism is.  However, in order to determine what I think a skeptical theist is or could be[1] I need to define what a theist believes in [theism] first.  Theism is a loaded word because theism can vary from theist to theist.  For example, one theist could believe in Molinism and the other theist could believe in Calvinism.  I can even entertain an instance where one theist could come from the school of Process Theism and the other theist could come from the school of Classical Theism.  So, there are particular concepts that could differ from one theist to the other.  Yet, I am content to define and categorize theism in following manner:

Theism (from Gk. Θεός, ‘God’).  The term, prob. first employed by R. *Cudworth in the preface to his Intellectual System (1678), was originally used as an opposite to ‘atheism’, and only later acquired its present definite meaning to denote a creed distinct also from *pantheism and esp. from *Deism (q.v.).  Theism, as the word is currently employed, may be said to denote a philosophical system which accepts a transcendent and personal God who not only created but also preserves and governs the world, the contingency of which does not exclude miracles and the exercise of human freedom.  Theism, therefore, leaves room for the Christian revelation and is in various forms the view of the world common to all orthodox Christian philosophers; it is also required by *Judaism and *Islam.  Apart from certain aberrations, usually of a pantheistic character, Theism was the basis of Christian philosophy down to modern times.  Relegated to the background by the Deistic philosophy of the 18th cent. and the *Hegelianism and materialism of the 19th, it has again found many competent and convinced exponents in the modern world.[2]

Furthermore, theism derives from the Greek word theos, which means God/god.  Theism, therefore, is a belief which adheres to the supposition that there is a God, and this God, is actively involved with whatever God created.

SKEPTICAL THEISM

I have briefly defined theism above, but what does it mean to be a skeptical theist?  A skeptical theist, of course, must be some sort of theist.  I personally use the "label" of skeptical theism, because if there is a God, and God is the greatest conceivable being—then it stands to reason I would be unable to [fully] understand everything God has done, does, and/or allows.  Some of the things God may have done might include allowing certain evil(s).  However, not being able to decipher something God allowed before or now does not mean the event will never be understood—nor does it mean God does not have a good reason for allowing or actively orchestrating the event; it just means at that moment we lack information to make an informed conclusion.  Further, the skeptical theists presupposes God's creation is ordered, designed, etc., and if the actions of God are organized and God is[3] also good; then, an event which appears as "needless evil" may actually not be.  Therefore, the skeptical theist believes he or she does not have knowledge proper, and I especially see no reason to commit to a conclusion that supposes God is responsible for needless evil when also considering the free will defense.

________________________________

[1] What I mean to say there is that I am trying to define what I understand a skeptical theist to be.  However, I think or I am open to the idea that people who would label themselves as skeptical theists could have certain variations in their beliefs from that of other skeptical theists of what it means to be a theist.

[2] F. L. Cross and Elizabeth A. Livingstone, The Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church, 3rd ed. rev. (Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press, 2005). 1608.

[3] Some examples of God's goodness are God's incarnation and revelation in Jesus Christ.

Entertainment

There is this thing that tends to grab the attention of people. The thing I am thinking about is entertainment. By observing other people and myself it appears to me we spend part of our time searching for something to entertain us; whether it be a movie, card games, video games, or what-have-you. I like being entertained for some reason or another. The experiences of being in a different world whether it be movie(s), book(s), or video game(s) take me out of my reality.  In these "experiences" I am not physically in them, rather, my mind through my imagination takes me to a specific place.  I might even be able to travel to a different place on a whim, but I am not physically in these places.

Why do I like being entertained? Could it be that I am trying to escape my daily life, because it's too hectic and/or am I searching for something more?  For those of us who are insecure and/or tend to be loners, are we looking to fill the void of something?  What are we missing from our lives?  Or, perhaps we are not missing anything but we just like experiencing the process of going through being entertained.  What is it about these experiences that we like?  Is it because it takes us to a world we would like to be in but we cannot be a part of?  I am not entirely sure, but I know there have been times where I have watched a specific movie that made me feel this emotional anguish, which came over me as if I were missing something in my life.

...

Could it be that I miss God?

The Meaning of Prophet?

I did a search on the word "prophet(s)" on my Logos Bible Software and it gave me 2,455 results in 2,265 verses. These results included: prophet, prophets, prophetic, prophetically, and prophetess.  Here are the definitions of prophet: man of God (2 Kings 4:9) and seer (1 Samuel 9:9 and 2 Samuel 24:11). The word prophet contains the idea that the individual has been called (Jeremiah 1: 4-5) by God. Thus, you have "man of God" literary meaning God’s man. Keeping the suggestion of a prophet being God’s man we must remember the proposal that a prophet is also a "seer." The meaning of seer assumes the prophet has some sort of new power. Let us consider the following:

In Hebrew, as in English, the ordinary verb "to see" is used also of understanding ("I see what you mean") and of the power of perception into the nature and meaning of things ("He sees things very clearly"). In the case of the prophets, their powers of "perception" were raised far above normal because the Lord inspired them to become vehicles of his message.[1]

Let us consider Matthew 3:3.  The word prophet in Greek is (προφήτης) and it means: "An interpreter or forth-teller of the divine will."[2]  Let me even go further and quote what my digital commentary states:

A fixed feature of the early Christian tradition, Isa 40:3 is quoted in all four Gospels (John lacks the last line) to describe the function of John the Baptist. All four Gospels identify the words as those of Isaiah the prophet. The use of the quotation by Matthew is consonant with his stress on fulfillment; although he does not here employ a characteristic fulfillment formula, he does make use of a pesher-type formula ("this is that"), which points to fulfillment (cf. Acts 2:16). Of the Synoptics, however, Matthew most emphatically calls attention to the identity of John as the one spoken of by Isaiah with οὗτος γάρ ἐστιν, "this is the one."[3]

John the Baptist was considered the prophet which Isaiah wrote about. And, John the Baptist also brought forth the "good news" (see Isaiah 52:7 & 61:1). Therefore, John’s role as a prophet was composed of prophecy and the proclamation of God’s good news.

As I stated in class I believe the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament. Moreover, the church believes Jesus holds three offices (prophet, priest, and king) as we can read about these different offices throughout Scripture. Further, Christ is the pinnacle of each office which includes prophecy (Ephesians 2:20). Since Christ is the fulfillment of the message of the prophets, and because the New Testament is the fulfillment of the Old Testament; I have no reason to suppose there is or will be some sort of prophet who "prophesied" or will "prophesy" to the point where he or she would add anything new to the Bible. The canonization of the books of Bible assumes God’s revelation is "closed." Else, why canonize and close the canon of Scripture?

Now, I am certainly not going against the New Testament when it claims that some bear the fruit of prophecy. Indeed, God gave/gives the gift of prophecy to some, but this prophecy cannot add to what has already been revealed, rather, it confirms what has already been revealed. In fact, in thinking about what an office of prophecy might entail now we should consider Ephesians 3: 5-7:

Now this secret was not disclosed to people in former generations as it has now been revealed to his holy apostles and prophets by the Spirit, namely, that through the gospel the Gentiles are fellow heirs, fellow members of the body, and fellow partakers of the promise in Christ Jesus. I became a servant of this gospel according to the gift of God’s grace that was given to me by the exercise of his power.[4]

Please note that verse 5 claims the "secret" has been revealed revealed here means to "uncover." Meaning, the revelation has already happened or has been fulfilled. So, while I might be able accept there are people who [currently] hold the office of a prophet; I would be wise to question anything that is or seems outside of Scripture. For further references I point to 1 Corinthians 14:29, 32, 37-40. Is it possible the role of the prophet [now] is mainly to proclaim the good news that has already been revealed?

_______________________________
[1] Walter A. Elwell and Philip Wesley Comfort. Tyndale Bible Dictionary (Wheaton, 2001), p. 1085.
[2] Robert L. Thomas, New American Standard Hebrew-Aramaic and Greek Dictionaries: Updated Edition (Anaheim, 1998).
[3] Donald A. Hagner, Word Biblical Commentary : Matthew 1-13, Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas, 2002). 48.
[4] Biblical Studies Press, The NET Bible First Edition; Bible. English. NET Bible.; The NET Bible (Biblical Studies Press, 2006; 2006). Eph 3:5–7

On Purpose

*If* we are here by accident or for reasons other than being brought about without the intent of usefulness, do we really have a purpose? 

For example, if I make a robot for a specific function (i.e. cleaning my house) the sole purpose of the robot is to clean my house.  Now, I suppose I can use the robot to hang my wet clothes on, thus, one can say the robot has another purpose because I used it for such.  However, when I made the robot I specifically made it for the sole purpose of cleaning my house.  It seems apparently clear to me that when I originally made the robot my original plan was for it to clean my house, but along the way (as time passed) the robot was additionally used with a different purpose from the one initially intended.  So then, the robot's purpose was and still is to clean my house.  The very fact that the robot's purpose changes or broadens to something bigger does not overthrow the fact that the robot has a purpose.  I already acknowledged the fact that my purpose for the robot changed from my initial concept when I made the robot.  If I had foreknowledge[1] of the fact that I would also end up adopting an additional purpose for the robot; the robot would have been built for the purposes of cleaning my house and hanging my clothes.  One then could and should conclude that the robot serves a purpose because it was made for a specific reason.  However, one cannot conclude the robot gave itself purpose, because it served an additional purpose to what it was otherwise intended for.     

Now, suppose the robot had made itself (at face value such an idea seems absurd) or somehow through time the robot came to be (again, such an idea seems absurd) it cannot just decide that it was made with intention, because it was not made for a specific purpose.  Rather, the robot has/had the ability to not be and be at the same time or came about as an accident of nature, but it certainly was not made for a specific purpose.  Should the robot assume to itself it can give meaning or purpose to whatever it wants?  I guess the robot can give meaning to different things, but let us keep in mind the robot itself was not made with intention.  So how can the robot assume it serves some sort of purpose?  I do not think the robot can conclude that it was made with a purpose since it seems it came about accidentally/absurdly.  Therefore, anything the robot gives meaning to is just as absurd as its existence.


_____________________________
[1] While I as the maker of the robot am limited in terms of knowledge God is not.  Therefore, God has facts that allow Him to make non-arbitrary decisions as He has the broadest of information available.

The Fight Within

Sovereign Lord,

The more time passes, the more I understand that I need You.
Every time I strive to live on my own, I fail and fall on my face.

You know my heart, and that kills me daily.
My heart is filled with despair, anguish, hopelessness, anger and things that others do not see but do not escape your eye.

Oh Father!
Oh God!

I know what I want to do and what I do not want to do. Yet, what I want not to do is what I do, but what I want to do is not what I do.

I cringe at the thought of what You think of me; but I know if I believe, I stand justified by faith alone in Christ.
In You I trust, but I show You not!

Some friend I am! Maybe, I am not a true friend to You, but You are to me.
You carried the cross and died for me. Please forgive me for taking You for granted—it’s just that I do not fully understand the grandeur of what You have done.

In the end what matters is only You and solely You. So, I plea for your pardon for failing so miserably with my life even after You came and showed us how to live.

Here I stand with only my belief in Christ, and I hope that is good enough for You.

God and Time

What is time? Does time exist or is time an invention of man? There is no doubt we use time as a measurement of things/events of a less than greater than relationship(s). Things that we can perceive as timeless might be numbers. Time as far as I understand does not cause 1 any changes, thus we might be able to suppose that 1 has the attribute of "timelessness." Numbers then can be categorized as immaterial. We can see numbers and assume (i.e.) 1+1=2, and as time passes 1 will always be 1.

When we examine things that are material it seems that time can and does affect them. As time passes things tend to go through some sort of change. This could be tied to the entropy, but I am not sure if entropy affects everything that is material/matter. However, I am inclined to think that physical things, which are part of our perceived reality, allow us to posture time causing changes to those things.

If God does exist, can God be immaterial? If God does exist, does that mean God remains timeless? But if God is immaterial how can God relate to mankind? Can it be that God was timeless but after creation God is now enduring time? The very possibility that God is in time does not mean that God changes or has changed, but rather God endures time with God's nature remaining intact. Of course there is that possibility that there is no such thing as God. If that is true can we suppose that the universe and everything within is explainable because it is that way, or do we have to come to the understanding that we just made up concepts and presumed things are that way? I think that if there is no God then we most likely would have to take the latter position.

An Interesting Flight (Part 2)

The conversation shifted towards morality, which he believed did not exist. He "reasoned" from what we observe in nature there is no difference between animals and humans. Since the theory of evolution points to gradual evolution (which assumes a probable link between animals and humans) then there is no morality. Is there morality when the lion eats the gazelle? No. The lion eats the gazelle to survive, because that is the lion's nature. Since humans are animals (according to him) and survival of the fittest is real—then morality is only an illusion. He talked about all the killing done by mankind in order to rise to power, which comes from only the strong survive mentality. Unfortunately for him he cannot account for ethical epistemology, and it is something he even denied (he said morality was an illusion). Yet we find the notion of ethics in the likes of Richard Dawkins as he writes:

Firstly, it is the most important element in the explanation for our own existence and that of all life. Secondly, natural selection is a good object lesson in how NOT to organize a society. As I have often said before, as a scientist I am a passionate Darwinian. But as a citizen and a human being, I want to construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it. I approve of looking after the poor (very un-Darwinian). I approve of universal medical care (very un-Darwinian). [1]

What? So we are to "construct a society which is about as un-Darwinian as we can make it." Based on what? We are to care for the poor and so forth, but all this is based on what? To my mind these people have nothing to ground their ethical propositions other than illusions, which they themselves have set up by their own conclusions. Yet, my new found acquaintance supposes he can tell me that we are to be regarded the same as animals. What? If we (humans) are at the top of the food chain according to his own worldview, how can we be or should be compared as equals? He implied that we should have some regard for animals. Huh? Why should we have any regard for anything other than ourselves under his worldview? I am not sure how he can ground his premises on epistemological grounds that are non-fallacious.

Nevertheless, the conversation continued, though, I really did not want to continue, since no progression was happening. The topic reaches its peak when he tells me, "There are no absolutes!" I told him that such a statement is an oxymoron, because such a statement is an absolute statement. There is a difference in humans being limited and producing theories that are incomplete with claiming there are no absolute truths. Even if absoluteness eludes us it makes practical sense to me that we seek truth because it is there to be found, and not because there is none to be had. The latter supports an infinite loop which leads to truth never being found. It very well could be that there are no absolutes and we are children of the absurd. I told him to read Richard Swinburne as he could do a better job than I could in the realm of philosophy for proofs for the existence of God. And so, we went our marry way onto our lives...

__________________________
[1] Richard Dawkins

An Interesting Flight (Part 1)

On 03/05/09 I embarked on a journey to visit one of my best friends. I do not have a lot of people I tend to call best friends, but he is indeed one of the few. Anyways, I had to take a plane in order to see my friend. On the last flight I would have to take I met a stranger that would come to challenge my thinking and my worldview. Out of all the people I could have met, this individual was the one I was destined to encounter on that day. He politely started the conversation on how his fishing trip to Florida had been ruined due to the storm that most likely killed two NFL players. He continued to tell me about how he loved to travel and see the world. We both came to the agreement that seeing the world enables you appreciate other cultures and different people. At that time I thought the conversation was over since we both became quiet, and so I pulled out one of my books.

He glanced over and saw that I was reading a book about philosophy. He proceeded to talk about existentialism and the works of Soren Kirkengaard. I acknowledged his statements and told him that I knew about Kirkengaard who in fact was a Christian. He showed skepticism towards Kirkengaard really being a Christian. He went on to tell me about the abuses of the Church and how powerful they were and still are. I pointed him towards any philosophical encyclopedia and/or philosophical resource(s) can verify to the fact that Soren Kirkengaard was a Christian philosopher. Yet, he still refused to accept the reality of Kirkengaard being a Christian. He went on to assert that Bacon, Newton, Galileo, etc. were really not Christians but were in fact victims of the Church.

I did not deny or cannot dismiss that the Church did actually hamper the scientific revolution that was brewing and taking place. However, some (in fact a lot) of these individuals were in fact documented as being Christians. If one wants to make assumptions on things that have no validity, then one can surely propose that position but it is something without substance (I explained). I also stated that I cannot deny that the Church did not have any abuses and/or that abuses do not happen; rather, I understand human nature will tend to show brokenness in things that it touches, which of course includes the Church. Do I then take the position in concluding that God does not exit, because the Church committed acts of evil? That would seem to be an emotional deduction, which at the very least puts burdens that we cannot fathom. We would have to prove that God has no business in allowing evil in the world and/or that freewill does not exist. Moreover, the assumption of evil actually existing means just that—evil exists. He on the other hand took the position that evil does not exist. Even more damaging to mankind is that postulation that morality is also not real which he actually accepted willingly. (The moral discussion continues later as the conversation shifted to faith.)

The conversation moved to the topic of faith. I told him that he had exercised some sort of faith when he got on the plane. He however did not agree that he had. He proposed to actually having confidence in the reliability of the plane being able to fly. My new found acquaintance postulated the ever fallacious position that gravity's testability is as solid as a plane flying. Now, I do not have a problem in accepting that planes have demonstrated to fly every time they go up, but this is assuming no malfunction or other possible contingencies will not affect the plane's flight. I can accept that humans have proven they can make planes that are able to fly; however, it has also come to pass that planes have crashed. Therefore, it can be said that I accept the reliability of planes being able to fly, but I refuse to accept notions which claim getting on planes does not require faith since at any given time the plane can crash given the right circumstances. So, his refusal to accept my proposition about him having faith does not hold water, I don't think.

cont.

Reflection and Supplication

I have brought shame to your house,
though I claim to know You.
I have doubted Your Son,
though I have felt and seen his essence in my life.

Please, help my past, present, and future NOT be a shameful memory to You.
Please strengthen my faith and reason so I can go forth in Your name.

Let You be my focus!
Only in giving up self and selfish wants will I fully give myself to You.
So please help me! I cannot do it! I cannot bear it!
Please take not Your hand from me.
Help me seek You now and always.

Use me, touch me, embrace me, cleanse me, love me…

In You things are possible!
Help me move mountains in Your name.

Jesus is real and only through Him shall I know You!
Jesus I beg Your forgiveness.
I urge my inner being to know You.
Guide and shine my path.

By example shall I teach my children?
Help me attain their souls for You.

Lead me to oneness with my wife.

I love Thee!
You are worthy of worship and praise.
May I do so forever and ever. Amen!

Christmas

Christmas is approaching quickly. People are buying presents and planning for the company that will be coming over for dinner. I have been thinking; where does this leave God? Truthfully speaking December is not the month of Jesus' birth. It is calculated that Christ was born around spring time. However, the Church has adopted to celebrate the birth of the Savior in the month of December. The Church adopted the month of December for several reasons, which I will not delve into here. Back to my question, where does all the buying of presents and holiday planning leave God? I am afraid that the meaning of why the Church celebrates Christmas has been forgotten. The Church does not celebrate Christmas just to show we care by buying things for other people. Rather, the Church celebrates Christmas, because God came as a child in order to relate with His creation, as well as the restoration of man in the eyes of a Holy God. Is that not the good news?

The Rain

As I woke up this morning I peered through my window shade only to find out that it was raining. Usually I get disappointed whenever it rains, and in fact when the hard times come it appears that things keep hitting us from different directions—sort of like rain drops falling all over the ground. Sometimes, life throws us unexpected contingencies that are not in our plans; thus, at times we feel the phrase "when it rains it pours." My life has definitely been a rollercoaster ride, but life is so special sometimes I miss the very essence of life. We take some many things for granted, because we fail to understand our mortality until it sets in to lead us into the reality of things, but some people do not even get that chance. I have found that when it does rain it most likely will pour, but out of the pouring I would like to think that I have become better—though I fall at times. We fail to see that our lives are guided by the invisible hands of God. Though bad things may have happened we do not and may never understand how these bad experiences could perhaps be the seeds for the better in the future. It is either that everything has a purpose including the bad, or that life is a meaningless endeavor and we must accept some illusionary mechanism to attain meaning. So then, after the rain the sun will come up, but what matters is what you do after the rain, because the things that you do affect other people especially yourself.

God and Nature

The claim of what nature is and what God is has become a battlefield that the believer and the unbeliever face when inquiring about what is around us and why/how. As we consider the certain claims let us keep in mind that truth cannot change, for if it did, the essence of what made something true could evolve to an entirely different “thing.” By necessity, something that is true MUST be true. For example, we assume nature inherently predisposes something to certain characteristics. It should not astound us then that when studying animals or humans in an empirical model, the model ought to highlight the native attributes of what is being studied.

Keeping this line of thinking in our process of examination let’s look at the following premises:

It may come as a surprise that belief in a beginning does not requite belief in a Beginner. The laws of nature allow the creation of the universe without the need for a creator. Quantum uncertainty, an aspect of physics known as quantum mechanics, allows the small but finite possibility of something coming into being from nothing.[1]

It very well could be that the universe came to be from nothing, but we must note that it is implied that the laws of nature were the cause of something coming out of nothing. So, before I proceed, let us establish the fact that there is no claim that something came out of nothing by nothing; for if it did, it would be an absurd universe. In an absurd universe it would be hard to find answers with an empirical system, because one would have to yield to the reality that the universe is of an absurd nature. It then logically follows that anything is possible including non-ordered/irrational events which would be almost impossible to follow or analyze. I also would like to point out that the writer talks about a finite possibility. If the possibility is finite then it is a possibility with limitations, but what are those limitations?

Can we consider the following?

There are, however, basic problems with the concept. First of all, quantum fluctuations are phenomena that relate to the laws of nature within our universe. The beginning of our universe marks the beginning of time, space, and matter. There is every indication that the big bang also marks the beginning of the laws of nature. If this is true, then prior to the existence of the universe there was no nature and therefore there were no laws of quantum mechanics by which to engender the needed quantum fluctuation.[2]

If this theory is correct then logic demands that the possibility of God is likely. If I were to presuppose that the laws of nature existed prior to the big bang (before matter, space, and time) I would still have to yield to the theory that there is something that transcends the current state of the universe. It may very well be that we will never know such a truth within our limited understanding. Even if we cannot know we should still attempt to know what we can know, and use the tools that we have at our disposal. It is my opinion that theology can give a reasonable complement to science, as well as provide life to teleology. Even if I was able to harmonize the certain transcendent makeup of nature I would have no basis in assuming that we are here out of purpose. Rather, the laws of nature existed prior to the big bang and somehow proceeded to predispose the state of our universe. But even if this is true, it behooves the inquirer to wonder how laws were “just there.” Here, those who adhere to naturalism should yield to the certain fact that they have no purpose. Indeed, nature to my knowledge has never been observed and tested to show any elements of emotional/rational attachment to those things that are made from it (nature). On the other hand the Christian has Jesus Christ who shows us how much we matter to God. I am sure this is not a satisfying answer to some, but it might be a possible and reasonable answer none the less.


_________________________
[1] Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God (New York, Broadway Books, 1998), pp. 23-24.
[2] Gerald L. Schroeder, The Science of God (New York, Broadway Books, 1998), p. 24.

Morality

The exploration of morality is a very interesting endeavor. It shows the complexity of the challenges we face as a human race. My focus will mostly be on the ontological aspect of morality. The ontology of morality can be defined as:

Ontological: Moral knowledge is about moral reality. How is that reality constituted? Three general possibilities present themselves. (a) Moral reality might be theological in nature, pertaining to (say) the will of God. (b) It might be a non-natural realm that is neither theological nor natural, but sui generis. (c) It might be comprehensible as a part of the natural world studied by science. Each of these possibilities, however, is beset with difficulties, and no viable fourth alternative has been conceived.[1]

Upon reflection on what has been stated one has to realize the predicament of the being of morality. However, it is important to note or understand that if (a) is not true then morality in the final analysis has no meaning. To have a relativistic worldview and give morality some sort of meaning without the concept of God is pure nonsense. For if there is no God then you have no ultimate judge that is incorruptible, omnipresent, omnipotent, and thus true justice will never prevail. So, then we are left with suppositions that are relativistic to specific individuals and situations. If moral knowledge is possible how can it be known under a relativistic worldview? It would be impossible, let us consider the following:

An argument of David Hume provides a more direct threat to the possibility of moral knowledge based on the fact that morals excite our passions and motivate us to act. If morals are based on reason so that they consist in true or false ideas, they would have to be in themselves incapable of having this direct influence on our actions (Hume, Treatise, Book III, Part I, Section I, Paragraph 6.) As he famously said, it is not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of a finger (Book II, Part III, Section III, Paragraph 6). The argument can be rendered for our purposes as a valid deductive argument from three premises: (1) If moral knowledge is possible, then some moral judgments are beliefs. (2) Our moral judgments by themselves necessarily give us some motivation to act, even without the accompaniment of already existing desires. (3) A belief by itself, unaided by already existing desires, can never give us any motivation to act. Therefore, moral judgments are not beliefs. Therefore, moral knowledge is impossible.[2]

So, Hume leaves us in a world of skepticism and seemingly in a void with no way out. Interestingly enough one cannot have it both ways. If moral knowledge is not possible then, how can it have value? How can the significance of moral knowledge be defined? If moral knowledge is possible and is of importance then surely the oughtness that is part of our being has value. What drives our desires? Nothing? What is guilt? Is guilt a mechanism of mere cultural experiences? These are weighty questions that ultimately define whether human existence has meaning or is insignificant.

If morality is meaningless then why should I try to attain perfection? For morality to be a rational endeavor it must have value. If it has no value it should not be pursued. In order for morality to have significance there must be Ultimate Righteousness. For a more in depth analysis of the significance or the insignificance of morality see the following:

The Moral Argument(s) For God's Existence

Only God gives meaning to morality, and thus I remain rational in believing that there is a God that gives meaning to the being of my moral existence.

_______________________
[1] Ontology
[2] Hume