I read a lot of financial postings and there’s one that came to my inbox a little while ago that was completely dismissive of Christianity.
To be fair, the writer dismisses all religion as being ridiculous. But he decided to “dis” Christianity in particular. Our writer/atheist in point is financial guru, Doug Casey. Casey is a very, very bright guy. He’s extraordinarily well-read and more often than not he’s been right about stock market direction and asset classes to be invested in. He calls himself a libertarian and does not like “utilitarians” or “pragmatists” because their philosophies are too fluid and situational.
Now, I am tempted to try to argue with Casey on a point by point basis but many years ago, an older co-worker taught me that there’s no sense in discussing any of the down-stream matters if you disagree on the premises.
To illustrate, suppose someone presents the following argument:
- All men have blue eyes;
- John is a man;
- Therefore John has blue eyes.
There is no sense in discussing the shade of blue in John’s eyes when the premise of the argument is wrong. There is no sense in refuting what Casey sees as those old worn out “contradictions” in the Bible or the genocidal tendencies of God when I disagree with the premise of his argument.
The ethical system Casey espouses as ideal is a two-point program:
- Do all that you say you’re going to do.
- Don’t aggress against other people or their property.
Actually, these are pretty good as far as they go. They correspond to principles Christians recognize:
- Let your yes be yes and your no be no.
- Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.
But they don’t deal with the underlying problem that all extra-biblical ethical systems run into, which is: SAYS WHO?
Because Casey has decided that life has no meaning except what the individual makes of it, he feels free to pronounce his own rules for living as “sound” and producing “the greatest good for the greatest numbers.” He even distills his two-points to a single composite:
Do what you will, but be prepared to accept the consequences.
Doesn’t this sound frighteningly close to “Might makes right?”
For something to be true, for something to be “right,” it must be true and right outside of human opinion. One plus one is two – it is not a social construct. The universe exists – it is not an idea that a majority can agree on.
Similarly, to be correct or true or right, morality and ethics must come from outside of man’s opinion. It takes pronouncement from a perfect being to reveal perfect morals and perfect ethics.
For Casey to be “right,” Casey must be God – which is the premise of his argument – with which I disagree.
I will posit another syllogism:
- All men have sinned and fallen short of the glory of God;
- John and Doug are men;
- John and Doug have fallen short of the glory of God.
P.S. To read the interviews with Doug Casey click on the links below:
~ John Bingaman