DOCSLIB.ORG

Does Morality Require God?

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Does Morality Require God? Does Morality Require God? © 2010 James Gray About This Ebook Almost everything in this ebook originally appeared on Ethical Realism, my philosophy website.1 These are my personal notes. I am not an expert of religious philosophy, but I have spent a great deal of time studying philosophy, ethics, metaethics, and moral realism. Many religious arguments concerning ethics appear to require ignorance of the actual ethical arguments that philosophers are currently concerned with. Although there is currently a popular debate concerning God's relevance to morality, almost no contemporary philosophers of the acedemic world are part of the debate. Contemporary philosophers are almost unanimous in the opinion that God is not necessary for morality. In order to know if God is required for morality, we need to know both sides. The atheistic worldviews offer alternatives to the traditional Christian worldview that many people have assumed to be true. Even if atheism is false, the atheist view that morality does not require God could be correct. If you are not familiar with “”intrinsic values or metaethics, then I recommend that you take a look at my ebook, “Is There A Meaning of Life?” This ebook has not been sufficiently edited and there are probably many grammetical errors that I missed. 1 Ethical Realism is found at <http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/> Table of Contents Chapter 1: Should We Want Morality To Require God?....................4 Recent Meta-Ethical History.....................................................5 Why we shouldn't want intrinsic values to require God or the Forms......................................................................................7 Conclusion...............................................................................9 Chapter 2: Does Morality Require God?.........................................10 Introduction...........................................................................10 Plato's Forms..........................................................................12 God........................................................................................13 The world of natural science....................................................14 Now what?..............................................................................17 Conclusion.............................................................................18 Chapter 3: A Moral Argument for the Existence of God Based on Skepticism.....................................................................................19 Three More Objections...........................................................22 Conclusion.............................................................................24 Chapter 4: Practical Arguments for the Existence of God.................26 Conclusion.............................................................................29 Chapter 5: William Lane Craig's Argument from Morality...............30 Craig's Argument....................................................................30 How Plausible is Craig's Argument?.........................................31 Some Additional Constructive Criticism..................................33 Conclusion.............................................................................35 Chapter 6: Everyday Arguments that Morality Requires God...........36 Ray Cotton's Arguments..........................................................36 Marvin Olasky's Argument .....................................................40 Luke Pollard's Argument.........................................................41 Conclusion.............................................................................43 Chapter 7: Kant's Argument for Faith in God.................................44 Free will.................................................................................45 God........................................................................................46 Conclusion.............................................................................49 Conclusion....................................................................................50 Chapter 1: Should We Want Morality To Require God? Plato might have been the first philosopher to suggest that ethics requires a "foundation," which ended up being his theory of the Forms: A realm quite unlike the physical world (eternal, unchanging, perfect, and so on). An action is virtuous if it resembles the nature of the perfect human being. The Stoics and Epicureans did not agree with Plato because they only believed in the physical world. They found the Forms to require unnecessary commitments concerning reality. The physical world seemed sufficient to explain ethics. Then for a couple thousand years Christians dominated meta-ethical philosophy and agreed with Plato that a special foundation is necessary for ethics. In particular, God must exist (which, like the forms, is eternal, unchanging, and perfect). An action is virtuous if it resembles the nature of God. The Christians argued that if God doesn't exist, then nothing really matters. The question is, "Do we need a foundation for ethics?" (Is Plato's Forms or God necessary for anything to really matter? If we reject the Forms and God, will we then have to reject intrinsic value and become nihilists?) I will argue that we should prefer that the answer be, "No." We should prefer to believe in intrinsic values even if the Forms or God doesn't exist. It is preferable to believe intrinsic values can exist without the Forms or God for at least three reasons: 1. The simplest explanation is preferable. 2. We don't want to be required to accept unproven facts about reality. 3. Not everyone accepts the existence of the Forms or God. I am not arguing that the Forms don't exist, or that God doesn't exist. Even if we reject that intrinsic values could exist without the Forms or God, these parts of reality might exist. 4 I am not even currently arguing that we don't need the Forms or God in order for intrinsic values to exist. I am merely arguing that "if it is possible to rationally accept intrinsic values without the Forms or God, then we should prefer to do so." I will discuss the recent history of Meta-Ethics and then I will address why all things equal, we should prefer that intrinsic values can exist, even if God or the Forms don't exist. Recent Meta-Ethical History Nietzsche's saying, "God is dead," reflected the fact that atheism was growing in respectability. An atheist would no longer be tortured or executed for heresy. In fact, God's existence was not proven, so it was quite rational for people to question his existence. Unfortunately the dogma of the time was that "God exists, or nothing really matters," so atheists could no longer justify morality. Thousands of years of Christianity (and the taboo of atheism) left atheistic ethical philosophy in shambles. No atheistic justification for morality was available. Of course, Nietzsche was only discussing facts about society. Just because people think God is necessary for morality doesn't mean it's true. So, "God is dead" means that we are all used to relying on God, but some people of Nietzsche's time wished to no longer rely on God anymore. Science seemed to be the most fruitful intellectual activity, and the idea of God was not helpful to it. Nietzsche did not prove God doesn't exist. The fact is that it is natural to question God's existence just because it hasn't been proven to exist. People aren't certain that God exists, but we still want them to be certain that human life has intrinsic value. Therefore, it would be preferable to find out that God isn't necessary for intrinsic value. 5 Even Christian philosophers at this point almost unanimously agreed that discussing God was not fruitful to philosophy precisely because of the practical considerations already mentioned. In particular, God's existence is uncertain and disagreement about God's nature could not be resolved through experience or argument. The temptation to reject intrinsic values and believe "nothing really matters" became acceptable. It didn't take long for many philosophers to officially reject intrinsic values. Hobbes, Nietzsche, Hume, Ayer, and Hare are among the most respectable philosophers who gave up on the idea. We can still see the effects of "God's death." People often doubt whether or not anything really has intrinsic value. Some people even suggest that a rabbit or mouse might have just as much worth as a human being. Why? Because it's all just meaningless, isn't it? We just say human beings are more valuable because we are human beings and we want to have the right to eat and exploit other animals. But all of this talk is really little more than skepticism towards intrinsic value. Such skepticism doesn't amount to much when given by someone with no understanding of meta-ethical philosophy. Moreover, the metaphor "God is dead" does not refer to rampant immorality from atheists, as some Christians seem to argue. The best way to make sure we treat other people well is to understand meta- ethical philosophy. To learn about intrinsic values and our experience of morality. Persecuting atheists and forcing Christian dogma upon the masses didn't succeed in creating virtuous citizens because we can't replace a philosophical understanding of intrinsic values with obedience to a church. The terrible crimes and wars waged by Christians during the middle ages is a good reason for us to doubt that their kings and priests could really believe that people have intrinsic
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Chapter Two Religions and Ethical Value
    Chapter Two Religions and Ethical Value 57 2.1 Philosophy and Religious Belief Introduction What should be the role of philosophy with respect to religious belief? The question is hard to answer since people have different ideas as to what constitutes philosophy and religion. A traditional answer, however, is that philosophy can help us to see whether or not religious beliefs are worthy of acceptance'. The idea here is that philosophers can single oi;t particular religious beliefs and ask questions like Ts this belief rationally 4efensible?’ or ‘Can this belief be supported by argument or appeal to evidence?’ lying behind such questions is the assumption that religious beliefs ar^ either true or false and that their truth or falsity can be settled or discussed at an intellectual level. Is there any relationship between ethics and religion? Is there any substantially based objective ethical code or not? Does God exist? How about the view that God’s Will determines what is morally obligatory? To an outside observer, .these, debates, among.. Western philosophers, and theologians concerning the relationship between religion and morality may seem culture-bound. The emergence of ethics as a separate fieldl of inquiry, the effort to distinguish morality from religion, and the countervailing effort to reassert a place for religion in human life all arise from a very particular cultural and social context. Nevertheless, the fact that systematic thinking about ethics emerged in the West, and that it generated a series of divergent explorations of the relationship between religion and morality, does not mean that this thinking or aspects of these views have no validity across 58 cultural lines.
    [Show full text]
  • Philosophy of Religion
    Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion INTRODUCTION TO PHILOSOPHY: PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION BEAU BRANSON, MARCUS WILLIAM HUNT, TIMOTHY D KNEPPER, ROBERT SLOAN LEE, STEVEN STEYL, HANS VAN EYGHEN, BEAU BRANSON (BOOK EDITOR), AND CHRISTINA HENDRICKS (SERIES EDITOR) Rebus Community Introduction to Philosophy: Philosophy of Religion by Beau Branson, Marcus William Hunt, Timothy D Knepper, Robert Sloan Lee, Steven Steyl, Hans Van Eyghen, Beau Branson (Book Editor), and Christina Hendricks (Series Editor) is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, except where otherwise noted. DEDICATION To Roger Branson — the best dad I ever had. For all the sacrifices I know ouy made. And for all the ones I don’t. CONTENTS What is an Open Textbook? ix Christina Hendricks How to Access and Use the Books xi Christina Hendricks Introduction to the Series xiii Christina Hendricks Praise for the Book xvi Acknowledgements xviii Beau Branson and Christina Hendricks Introduction to the Book 1 Beau Branson 1. The Intertwining of Philosophy and Religion in the Western Tradition 7 Beau Branson 2. Reasons to Believe – Theoretical Arguments 18 Marcus William Hunt 3. Non-Standard Arguments for God’s Existence 30 Robert Sloan Lee 4. Reasons Not to Believe 49 Steven Steyl 5. Debunking Arguments against Theistic Belief 62 Hans Van Eyghen 6. From Philosophy of (Mono)theism to Philosophy of Religions 74 Timothy D Knepper Glossary 87 About the Contributors 91 Feedback and Suggestions 94 Adoption Form 95 Licensing and Attribution Information 96 Review Statement 98 Accessibility Assessment 99 Version History 101 WHAT IS AN OPEN TEXTBOOK? CHRISTINA HENDRICKS An open textbook is like a commercial textbook, except: (1) it is publicly available online free of charge (and at low-cost in print), and (2) it has an open license that allows others to reuse it, download and revise it, and redistribute it.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 Heaven Is for Real John 14:1-3 / 10-28-20 / Wed I. Why
    1 HEAVEN IS FOR REAL JOHN 14:1-3 / 10-28-20 / WED I. WHY DON’T NON-RELIGIOUS PEOPLE BELIEVE HEAVEN IS REAL OR THERE IS AN AFTERLIFE? A. For us Baptists and other Christians the Bible is proof enough. But what about people who don’t accept our Bible? B. There are at least six non Biblical arguments for the existence of God, heaven and the afterlife. 1. The Argument From Design also called the “Teleological Argument”. 2. The Argument From Anthropology. 3. The Argument from Cause-Effect also called the “Cosmological Argument”. 4. The Argument From Ontology. 5. The Argument From Morality . 6. Pascal’s Wager. II. WHAT DOES THE BIBLE TELL US ABOUT THE REALITY OF HEAVEN? A. There are many people who have said they had a “near-death” experiences then went on to write books and make movies about them. B. Although such movies tickle our curiosity, Billy Graham once said “GoD may give some people a glImpse of heaven, although I belIeve such Instances are rare and need to be treated with caution.” (Answers Dec. 6, 2012). C. Let’s consider 7 things the Bible says about heaven. 1. First, Jesus is in heaven right now—1 Peter 3:21-22. 2. Second, Jesus is preparing a place in heaven for Christians—John 14:2. 3. Third, there millions of angels in heaven—Heb. 12:22. 4. Fourth, our ultimate residence as Christians is to be heaven—Phil. 3:20-21. 5. Fifth, heaven is a place where there will be no more sorrow or pain—Rev.
    [Show full text]
  • 1 UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION to THEISM Contents 1.0 Objectives
    UNIT 1 INTRODUCTION TO THEISM Contents 1.0 Objectives 1.1 Introduction 1.2 Types of Theism 1.3 Kinds of Theism 1.4 Let Us Sum Up 1.5 Key Words 1.6 Further Readings and References 1.0 OBJECTIVES Is there a God? God is one or many? Do celestial beings (gods, angels, spirits, and demons) exist? Is there life after death? Is religion a need for modern human? If there is a God then why evil exists? Can man comprehend God? Can the human communicate with God? Does God answer prayers? There are many existential questions raised by humans in the realm of religion, spirituality and metaphysics. Theism is a philosophical ideology which answers the questions arose above in its affirmative. In simple words theism is an ideology that propagates belief in the existence of God or gods. The term ‘theism’ is synonymous to “having belief in God”. In the broadest sense, a theist is a person with the belief that at least one deity (God) exists. This God can be addressed as The Absolute, The Being, Ground of Being, The Ultimate, The World-Soul, the Supreme Good, The Truth, The First Cause, The Supreme Value, The Thing in Itself, The Mystery etc. Theism acknowledges that this god is a living being having personality, will and emotions. Theists believe in a personal God who is the creator and sustainer of life. The answers for the questions ‘Who is god?’ ‘What is god?’ are attempted by the theists. In discussing theism there arises another important question. It is like when was the human mind started to think about God? Many theistic theologians believe that “God consciousness” is innate in the human mind.
    [Show full text]
  • Creation: God Makes
    CREATION: GOD MAKES Mark Driscoll & Dr. Gerry Breshears CREATION: GOD MAKES In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. GENESIS 1:1 hen I was a little boy, before my four siblings were born, my Wdad worked out of town a lot. My parents were married at a young age, and birthed me when they were just over twenty years old. To pay the bills, my hardworking construction worker dad had to sometimes take some jobs out of town, sleep in his truck, and send the money to me and my mom. For fun, my mom would load me up in an old Chevy car and take me up to the mountains to explore God’s creation. She often told me, “Marky we need a Jeep.” Many years later, as we started to have five kids of our own, the seed planted in my imagination by my mom came to mind and so I bought a Jeep. Today, I am driving my second Jeep around Scottsdale, Arizona where we live and minister. During the winters, the weather is spectacular with big blue skies, warm sunny weather, and jaw dropping sunsets exploding with color. It is life-changing to have the top off the Jeep all winter to enjoy God’s creation, and take the Jeep up into the mountains to find hidden places of beauty that God created for us to explore and enjoy. Since moving to the desert, my life has drastically changed. For most of my life, I suffered from a bad case of Seasonal Affective Disorder (S.A.D.).
    [Show full text]
  • I. Richard Swinburne's Theism
    UNIVERSITY OF NAVARRA ECCLESIASTICAL FACULTY OF PHILOSOPHY Alex Mbonimpa The Providence of God according to Richard Swinburne: A Critical Study under the Guidance of St. Thomas Aquinas. Thesis for a Doctorate supervised by Prof. Dr. Rev. Enrique Moros Pamplona 2016 TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ................................................................ 11 Method.............................................................................. 15 Biographical Note............................................................. 19 Acknowledgements .......................................................... 24 I. RICHARD SWINBURNE’S THEISM ............................ 27 1. Justification and Knowledge ............................................ 29 1.1 Subjective Justification ............................................. 30 1.2 Objective Justification .............................................. 32 1.3 The Quest for an Ultimate Explanation .................... 35 a) How Explanation Works ........................................ 37 b) The Truth of an Explanation .................................. 41 c) Candidates for an Ultimate Explanation ................ 46 1.4 The Justification of Theism ...................................... 47 a) The Simplicity of Theism....................................... 47 b) The Limit of Scientific Explanation ....................... 50 2. The Attributes of God....................................................... 53 2.1 What Swinburne
    [Show full text]
  • The Existence of God: a Debate
    Abilene Christian University Digital Commons @ ACU Stone-Campbell Books Stone-Campbell Resources 1948 The Existence of God: A Debate James D. Bales Woolsey Teller Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/crs_books Part of the Biblical Studies Commons, Christian Denominations and Sects Commons, and the Christianity Commons Recommended Citation Bales, James D. and Teller, Woolsey, "The Existence of God: A Debate" (1948). Stone-Campbell Books. 574. https://digitalcommons.acu.edu/crs_books/574 This Book is brought to you for free and open access by the Stone-Campbell Resources at Digital Commons @ ACU. It has been accepted for inclusion in Stone-Campbell Books by an authorized administrator of Digital Commons @ ACU. -1-ALES·TELLER ,DEBATE ' THE EXISTENCE OF GOO The Bible "Last we I paused beside 11 bl11ck.smith's door Ana ht11rd the 11nvil ring the vesper chime, Thtn looking in, I saw upon the floor Old h11mmers worn with beat­ ing ye11rs of time. " H<JW many anvils have you had," said I, "To we11r and batter all these hammers so?" "Just one," he said; thtn with 11 twinkling eye, "The 11nvil we11rs the h11mmers out you know." And so, I thought, tht anvil of God's word For ages skeptics blows h11ve be11t upon; Yet though the noise of fallinG bl<JWs was htard, The 11nvil is unharmed- tht h11mmers gone!" Millennial Harbinger The Old Paths Book Club is reprodm:ing Alexander Campbell's great paper, the Millennial Harbin­ ger, which was begun in 1830 and ran for many years. It is the finest repository of the Restoration litera­ ture, dealing with all the great que.
    [Show full text]
  • 174 David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls Good God: the Theistic
    Philosophy in Review XXXIII (2013), no. 3 David Baggett and Jerry L. Walls Good God: The Theistic Foundations of Morality. Oxford and New York: Oxford University Press 2011. 304 pages $99.00 (cloth ISBN 978–0–19–975180–8); $24.95 (paper ISBN 978–0– 19–975181–5) Authors David Baggett and Jerry Walls have two main goals in Good God: to defend a version of an argument for the existence of God from morality and to rebut objections to their argument based on the Euthyphro Dilemma. The authors expressly intend to carry out their discussion on these topics for a much wider audience than professional academics. The reason for this, they contend, is that their subject is “far too important to be confined to the relatively narrow circles of scholars and academics” (6). While this goal is perhaps commendable, readers will not get very far into Good God – perhaps to the application of Goldbach’s conjecture to conceivability limits (59–60) – without recognizing the benefits of some formal training in philosophy (and perhaps theology, for later chapters) for a full appreciation of the discussion. While the authors have made a laudable effort to restrict more complex philosophical discussion to appendices and footnotes, the best audience for this book is still probably upper-undergraduate or graduate students and professional academics. While the authors promise to present both an argument for the existence of God from morality and a defence of this position against Euthyphro Dilemma objections, only Chapter 1 of the book is devoted to the first objective. Chapters 2 through 7 are devoted to the latter goal, Chapter 8 to the problem of evil, and Chapters 9 and 10 address the application of their view of morality to issues in traditional Christian theology (e.g., how to know God’s will, the afterlife, the resurrection, the Incarnation, and the Trinity).
    [Show full text]
  • Morality and the Personhood of God: a Moral Argument for the Existence of a Personal God
    LIBERTY UNIVERSITY JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVINITY MORALITY AND THE PERSONHOOD OF GOD: A MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A PERSONAL GOD A DISSERTATION SUBMITTED TO THE FACULTY OF THE JOHN W. RAWLINGS SCHOOL OF DIVIITY IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT FOR THE DEGREE DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY IN THEOLOGY AND APOLOGETICS BY STEPHEN S. JORDAN GOODE, VIRGINIA MARCH 26, 2021 Copyright © 2021 Stephen S. Jordan All Rights Reserved APPROVAL SHEET MORALITY AND THE PERSONHOOD OF GOD: A MORAL ARGUMENT FOR THE EXISTENCE OF A PERSONAL GOD Stephen S. Jordan Read and approved by: Chairperson: ____________________________________________ David Baggett, Ph.D. Reader: ____________________________________________ Marybeth Baggett, Ph.D. Reader: ____________________________________________ Ronnie Campbell, Ph.D. Date: March 26, 2021________________________________ DEDICATION To my beautiful bride, McKenzie, and our children. Without your love, prayers, and encouragement, this project would not have happened. Thank you for all of the ways that you have supported me throughout the PhD journey. Disney World, here we come! iv ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Not many worthwhile things are accomplished in life apart from the help of others, and a project such as a dissertation is certainly no exception. For this reason, I have several people that I would like to thank below. First, thank you to my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ. Without Your transforming love, I would be lost and without hope. Second, I would like to thank my wife, McKenzie, for her encouragement to pursue a PhD, and for her unwavering support of my doctoral studies over the past six years. I have said it before, and I will say it again, apart from the grace that made my salvation possible, you are the most vivid representation of grace I have experienced this side of heaven.
    [Show full text]
  • European Journal for Philosophy of Religion
    EUROPEAN JOURNAL FOR PHILOSOPHY OF RELIGION Volume 2 Number 1 Spring 2010 ARTICLES Richard SWINBURNE God as the Simplest Explanation of the Universe 1 John HICK God and Christianity according to Swinburne 25 Timothy CHAPPELL Euthyphro’s “Dilemma”, Socrates’ Daimonion, and Plato’s God 39 Linda ZAGZEBSKI Th e Rule of St. Benedict and Modern Liberal Authority 65 Louis CARUANA Is Religion Undermined by Evolutionary Arguments? 85 Graham OPPY Epistemological Foundations for Koons’ Cosmological Argument? 107 Evan SANDSMARK & Jason L. MEGILL Cosmological Argument: A Pragmatic Defense 127 Michael TOOLEY Time, Truth, Actuality, and Causation: On the Impossibility of Divine Foreknowledge 143 MICHAEL ROTA Th e Eternity Solution to the Problem of Human Freedom and Divine Foreknowledge 165 DISCUSSIONS AND REPLIES Jerome GELLMAN On God, Suff ering, and Th eodical Individualism 187 Stephen MAITZEN On Gellman’s Attempted Rescue 193 Jacek WOJTYSIAK Morality, God, and Possible Worlds 199 BOOK REVIEWS AND NOTICES Volker Dieringer, Kant’s Solution to the Problem of Th eodicy. A Reconstruction Reviewed by Christian Hengstermann 209 Christian Kummer, Th e Case of Darwin. Th eory of Evolution versus Belief in Creation Reviewed by Jasmin Hassel 215 James Beilby. Naturalism Defeated? Essays on Plantinga´s Evolutionary Argument against Naturalism Reviewed by Oliver Wiertz 1 GOD AS THE SIMPLEST EXPLANATION OF THE UNIVERSE RICHARD SWINBURNE University of Oxford Abstract. Inanimate explanation is to be analysed in terms of substances having powers and liabilities to exercise their powers under certain conditions; while personal explanation is to be analysed in terms of persons, their beliefs, pow- ers, and purposes. A crucial criterion for an explanation being probably true is that it is (among explanations leading us to expect the data) the simplest one.
    [Show full text]
  • Problem of Evil 1 Problem of Evil
    Problem of evil 1 Problem of evil In the philosophy of religion, the problem of evil is the question of how to reconcile the existence of evil with that of a deity who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent (see theism).[1][2] An argument from evil attempts to show that the co-existence of evil and such a deity is unlikely or impossible, and attempts to show the contrary have been traditionally known as theodicies. There are a wide range of responses that have been given to the problem of evil. These include the explanation of evil as the result of free will misused by God's creatures, the view that our suffering is required for personal growth, the denial that God is omnipotent, omniscient, or omnibenevolent, and skepticism concerning the ability of humans to understand God's reasons for permitting the existence of evil. There are also many discussions of "evil" and associated "problems" in other philosophical fields, such as secular ethics,[3][4][5] and scientific disciplines such as evolutionary ethics.[6][7] But as usually understood, the "problem of evil" is posed in a theological context.[1][2] Detailed arguments Numerous different versions of the problem of evil have been formulated.[1][2][8] Logical problem of evil One example among many of a formulation of the problem of evil is often attributed to Epicurus[9] and may be schematized as follows: 1. If an all-powerful and perfectly good god exists, then evil does not. 2. There is evil in the world. 3. Therefore, an all-powerful and perfectly good god does not exist.
    [Show full text]
  • Who Is God? a Book You’Ll Actually Read Also Available in the Series
    Who Is God? A Book You’ll Actually Read Also available in the series: Church Leadership The Old Testament The New Testament Who Is God? Mark Driscoll Who Is God? Copyright © 2015 by Mark Driscoll All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopy, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher, except as provided for by USA copyright law. Scripture quotations are from The Holy Bible, English Standard Version®, copyright © 2001 by Crossway Bibles, a publishing ministry of Good News Publishers. Used by permission. All rights reserved. All emphases in Scripture quotations have been added by the author. ISBN: 978-1-942464-24-2 Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Driscoll, Mark, 1970– Who is God? / Mark Driscoll. p. cm.— Includes bibliographical references (p.) 1. God (Christianity) 2. God. 3. Christianity and other religions. I. Title. II. Series. BT103.D75 2008 231—dc22 Contents Introduction 1. Knowledge about God 2. Perspectives about God 3. Nature of God 4. Incarnation of God 5. Worship of God Appendix: Books for Further Study Endnotes Introduction “In God we trust”—that’s what our money says. However, if you were to randomly ask the people handing their money to the checkout clerk in your local grocery store, “Who is God?” it is doubtful they would be able to clearly articulate who this God is. Our predicament is not unlike the experience of Paul when he walked into the great city of Athens only to discover that it was littered with memorials to an unknown god.1 We would say that they were very spiritual people.
    [Show full text]