Think-A-Minute: What is Responsibility?

It's a good question, and one you're likely to get wildly varying answers to in this day of moral relativism, where everyone determines his own moral truth. The Responsibility Project, by Liberty Mutual, is a series of fun and thought provoking short films that explore this question and try to get the viewers to work out an answer.

From the site:

It all began when we ran a TV commercial about people doing things for strangers. The response was truly overwhelming. Thousands of emails and letters from people all over the country thanking us.

We thought, if one TV spot from Liberty Mutual can get people thinking and talking about responsibility, imagine what could happen if we went a step further? So we created a series of short films, and this website, as an exploration of what it means to do the right thing.

We believe that the more people think and talk about responsibility, and even debate what it means, the more it can affect how we live our daily lives. And perhaps, in this small way, together, we can make the world just a little better.

The way I see it, the Responsibility Project is morally & intellectually superior to the campaign Starbucks started a couple years back. Here's why: the Responsibility Project seems to start from the premise that morality is a good thing, and deep down inside, we all know it. Starbucks campaign, on the other hand, seems to be aimed much more solidly at promoting moral relativism, the notion that all ideas are equal (ie. responsibility and selfishness are equal, depending on one's personal moral opinions). Stand to Reason has a very good take on the Starbucks campaign that we can put to use to further the truth.

Now that I have successfully segued to coffee shop talk, why don't you take a few minutes to check out the video below, from the Responsibility Project, then, Oh, I don't know, maybe talk to someone about it.

Just Why Would You Believe That?

In the sidebar, you'll see I shared a post from the STR blog called Facts vs. Beliefs, which refers to this article from National Review. The NRO article very succinctly summarizes a problem I often run into while attempting to debate people about matters of faith. In short, the skeptic will often resort to blatantly disregarding my arguments from science, logic, or inference, and dogmatically asserting that my Christian beliefs are taken on blind-faith, while his Naturalistic beliefs are based on solid facts of science.

For a good example of this, please refer to the last response to me from Tom Clark in his Naturalism vs. Nihilism thread. I decided not to continue the conversation because he seemed unable to address any of my arguments, but just kept playing the Science vs. Faith card. In fact, he was almost malicious the way he twisted my words in order to make it look like I base my Christian faith on science rather than using science to show that Christian faith is not blind.

I'm learning how to handle this sort of belligerence in a face-to-face conversation (look for a post in the future re: Tactics in Defending the Faith), but online, it's much more difficult due to the nature of the medium. You just can't put someone on the spot and demand that they address your arguments based on their merits, rather than the pre-supposed lack-of-validity of the thing you're arguing for.

It would be refreshing to have a conversation with a skeptic in which he actually considered the validity of my arguments based on their merit of lack thereof.

The Sledgehammer Approach

"Art is not a mirror to reflect reality, but a hammer with which to shape it."
Bertolt Brecht

This quote from Dr. Mardy Grothe's book, I Never Metaphore I Didn't Like got me to thinking about art in general and specifically the "art" that comes out of Hollywood.

It seems to me, genuine artists use small taps of the hammer, then sandpaper, to shape their final image. Think of the great writers you've read and I think you'll find their writings have a common characteristic: they attempt to shape one's thinking through small, gentle nudges. In this manner, some authors have fundamentally altered the way generations think.

Hollywood, on the other hand, seems to prefer to take a sledgehammer approach to force their opinions upon all who view their shows or movies. Used to be, Bogart would passionately embrace his leading lady, and then... nothing. A passionate embrace, that's all. Viewers were left to assume more happened than was shown, or nothing more happened. Or, Bogart would fire his gun and viewers would see a shadowy figure fall down, presumably dead. Perhaps Heston would carry a couple of stone tablets down a mountain. Even Hollywood used to have some art & occasionally supported the Bible. Today, we're treated to, well to graphic depictions of sexual encounters and exploding body parts, and evolutionary dogma assumed as fact. The sledgehammer approach. And what it does is smash down our defenses and open an generation to baseness as a way of life. And fundamentally alters our thinking, because, after all, who has time think when there's so much good stuff to watch.

So what's the answer? Enact laws to force Hollywood to clean up their act? We already have such laws that aren't being enforced. No, I think a better solution is to get rid of the television, as Donna & I did around 10 years ago. Go ahead, cut the cable, eliminate the desensitizing distractions, and spend some quality time with a good book, perhaps even The Good Book. Am I saying it's wrong to watch TV or movies? Absolutely not. Though some TV and movies are clearly immoral and ought to be avoided. Am I advocating taking a sledgehammer to your TV? Not really, though it may be a good idea to sell it if you're addicted to movies. Christians have the liberty to watch TV or movies of any sort, but we also have a Biblical mandate to carefully consider what we allow to influence our thinking.

Philippians 4:8
Finally, brethren, whatsoever things are true, whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whatsoever things are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report; if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things.

Naturalism and Nihilism, revisited

Tom Clark left a response to my quick post yesterday regarding the logical link between Naturalism and Nihilism, point me to his blog post with the same title from back in March. His is an attempt to rebuff the notion that Nihilism is the natural offspring of Atheism/Naturalism. He has a case, but the fact is that those who hold to Naturalism are being inconsistent in applying their faith (philosophy, if you prefer) by living their lives in a moral manner. I suppose a similar case could also be made that we Christians are inconsistent in applying our Christian morals when we sin. The noteworthy difference, of course, is that the Christian's attempt to consistently live in a moral manner is evidence of his faith.

I posted the following as a response to his article, but thought it would be useful to re-post here for posterity.

Tom, thanks for the link. I'm not going to attempt to address all of your assertions in the article, but I'll say that your summary idea that human morality can be easily explained as an evolved survival instinct suffers in the light of others' claims that humanity's war-like nature can be easily explained as an evolved survival instinct. So which is it, are humans moral because it promotes survival of the fittest, or is that why they're war-like? You can't have it both ways. The "hard-core atheists" were much more consistent in the application of their faith by acknowledging that it leads to nihilism.

In regards to whether or not athiesm/naturalism qualifies as a faith, let's look at the surprising discovery of red blood cells and still-flexible blood vessels in dinosaur fossils a few years ago. Why was this surprising? Because the hemoglobin in the red blood cells should have broken down within thousands of years, but it was found in bones claimeded to be millions of years old. But what was the scientists reaction to this discovery? Did they question the evolutionary dogma that dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago? No, by a leap of blind faith, they assumed there must be some way to preserve hemoglobin for millions of years. These scientists demonstrated an amazing knack for ignoring the evidence against millions of years due to their creedal assertion that evolution requires those millions of years. And gives the lie to your claim that "Naturalists’ commitment to science in this regard isn’t a matter of faith, it’s based on experience – the widely shared experience that beliefs about the world based in science are generally more reliable than those that aren’t."

For more on the dinosaur red blood cells story, read this follow-up article that refutes claims that what was found was not actual hemoglobin and red blood cells.