Gooding, David: 2 - Is Anything Wrong?

Well, hello everybody. Thank you for coming again. The organizers of these talks have told me that I may be as provocative as I care to be, and that is a relief because it allows me to say arbitrary statements that you may wish to question, and rightly to question, and there is, we hope, to be a question time. The topic today is, is anything wrong? So, being provocative, I'm going to start with an unproven assumption that every one of us here present has a deep-seated moral awareness. By which means we know that certain things are wrong. We know it without their having to be proved to us by philosophical discourse. We know, for instance, that it would be wrong to take a little child and cut it to pieces for fun. There is a gruesome such episode mentioned in Dostoevsky's, in Dostoevsky's novel, is there not? We know more elaborate things. We know that it would be wrong to bribe a judge to get him to pervert the course of justice and acquit the guilty and condemn the innocent. It goes on in many places, of course. I'm merely saying that according to our deep-seated moral sense, we know such a practice to be wrong. Given those presuppositions, I want to ask today, what is the basis and authority of our moral sense of right and wrong? After all, in this topic, we are setting out on the question of ethics. And ethics has to do not with telling us how people normally behave, but rather how they should behave. Ethics is not just descriptive, it is prescriptive. It says thou shalt jolly well do this, and you oughtn't to do that. But if I were to come to you and say, look here, old fellow, you should do this, you should not be behaving in the way you are behaving, you might well inquire, and who says so? In other words, what authority have you to tell me how I ought to behave? And if you came to me and said, now look here, old chap, I have certain rights to see, and you have a duty to respect my rights, I should smile and say, oh yes, glad to hear you have some rights. Where did you get them from? And incidentally, please tell me why I should respect your rights. You'd need to give me some reasons, wouldn't you, if you are imposing on me a duty. So I ask about the authority of our moral sense, the authority behind ethics. And then I want to suggest another question. Are there some things that are objectively wrong? Meaning that they are not merely wrong in our subjective opinion, but objectively wrong. Whether we think they are or not, whether we like it or not. Are there any things objectively wrong? Now, as last week, I confess I approach these topics as a Christian, and I shall yet argue that the authority behind our moral sense is none other than God, our Creator. But you may well reply to me, but I don't believe in God anyway, so what am I supposed to do? Which brings to mind a funny little story about the university invigilator of an e- of an exam, you'll see. And before the students, uh, sat down, he said, now look, ladies and gentlemen, you ought to leave a space between each student and the other student, uh, you know, so as the good book says, we shall avoid all appearance of evil. And one student put up his hand and said, but I don't believe in the good book, as you call it. What shall I do? And the invigilator replied, you better put two spaces between you and the other student, because he, just in case you should be tempted. So I'm going to start by thinking of a number of different, uh, groups of f- uh, ethical systems, and to ask on what they are based. There's one group that will claim that you can deduce ethics from the sheer facts of the physical universe. That isn't a very promising suggestion, it seems to me. Let's just remind ourselves of what Professor Richard Dawkins says. He is very much à la mode in the present time, isn't he? He says, in a universe of blind physical forces and genetical replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is at the bottom no design, no purpose, no evil, and no good. Nothing but blind, pitiless indifference. DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to it. Surely not a very encouraging basis for ethics. Dancing according to our DNA? Were the lads in Germany and again in America who entered their school and shot dead teachers and students just dancing to their DNA. Is there no more to it than that? Or let us remind ourselves of what Charles Darwin himself said on one occasion. The more civilized so-called Caucasian races have beaten the Turkish races, that is, hollow in the struggle for existence. Looking at the world at no very distant date, what an endless number of lower races will have been eliminated by the higher civilized races throughout the world. Not very encouraging, I think, for the view that, uh, ethics can be deduced from nature. Hitler's J- Hitler himself got that idea into his head. He had no doubt who was the superior race, that was the Aryans, and proceeded to eliminate millions who were not of his race and whom he regarded as subspecies. But there are more serious thinkers that, uh, suggest we can deduce ethics from the facts of nature. James Rachels, for example, says it's a question of reasoning, and if we reason, then protecting Protecting ourselves ourselves is is a according to nature. Reasoning about what to do, therefore, is at bottom, reasoning about how to satisfy our interests. He gives an example. If you are in a room, he says, and I come in and tell you you ought to get out, that will seem a very arbitrary command to you. But then if I explain that the house is on fire, that will give you a good enough reason to get out. And the reasoning is based on nature, so to speak, and that is sufficient reason for your action. Therefore, ethics and reasoning is about how to satisfy our own interests. Well, yes, there are some things that we can do- do from nature, are there not? At least here the Bible would agree. It says that some sins that some people do are against nature, are a perverse use of the members of a human body. Therefore, they are by definition wrong. But just to say that we can deduce a whole range of ethics from nature, if we consider our own interests, sounds to me very superficial. Here is a man and wife, and they have a half a dozen children, and they're very hard up. It's in their interest to get some money somehow. Along comes a drug pusher and invites them to join in pushing drugs. That's a great temptation. He will make a lot of money. It's in the interest of his, uh, wife and children to have the money and to have food to feed them with. Is that for s- sufficient reason? For his pushing drugs and thereby blighting the minds of his victims. We are to consider our reasons. Socrates held the view that you should not do wrong. Why not? Because if you do wrong to others, it hurts you yourself more than it hurts others. That that last bit he didn't get from nature, he got that from his ethical theory. So let's go on to the second group of, uh, of, uh, ethical theories, and they tell us that, um, ethics is ultimately a matter of taste. That sounds very odd, because taste is a somewhat arbitrary thing, isn't it? If John likes beetroot and Mary likes asparagus, you can't say one is right and the other is wrong, can you? No good saying, John, you oughtn't to like beetroot. What reason would you give? And, uh, you ought to like asparagus like Mary. Well, there's no question of ought or ought not, no question of right or wrong of old. How could you suppose that ethics is simply a matter of taste? And yet, of course, there are a number of postmodern theories of ethics that seem to me to say the very same thing. Leo Tard, the late Leo Tard, French philosopher, told us there are no criteria of justice. Professor Fish of America says that because, uh, it's no good, says he, raising the question of what is just or not, because people have very different ideas of what justice is anyway. So it's no good asking. So how do you decide things? Well, they tell me that eh eh values, all values, and hence ethics dependent on the values, uh, c- are, uh, are decided, determined by social, uh, social practice. Each social group decides its own values, and hence the ethics that, uh, depend upon them. They add, of course, that this social group, number one, perhaps it has decided that this and this and this are right, and so the social group is happy with the decision of the group. But they add that because there are no criteria of justice, no absolutes, if you come across another society that holds absolutely different values, diametrically opposed to yours. You mustn't say that they are wrong and you are right. Or that, uh, uh, uh, uh, you are wrong and they are right. Why not? Well, ultimately, it's a matter of your choice. A young gentleman came to see me not so long ago, uh, and informed me that he had been converted to this kind of postmodern philosophy, and that is your society that, uh, determines your values and your ethics, and you mustn't say any other society that disagrees with you is wrong, you must be tolerant. I said, but what about cannibalism? He said, yes, by all means, if that's their, if that's their, I nearly said taste, but no, I better not say that. Do you see? If that's their decision, you mustn't say it's wrong, do you see? Because on this ver- on this assumption, Hitler might say to you, you don't like gassing Jews? Well, don't gas them. I like gassing Jews. Why shouldn't I? Difficulty is, of course, that the view contradicts itself. It says we must be tolerant. We mustn't say anybody others, any other body's view is wrong. We must be tolerant. Tolerant is the one, presumably absolute virtue, according to them. Okay. But then let me mention Pol Pot of Cambodia. He had unusual tastes. He didn't like intellectuals, and anybody that wore spectacles were liable to be intellectuals and therefore had to be eliminated. He eliminated hundreds of thousands. Will the postmoderns say he... was all right? That was his taste? And these things are socially determined? Will their version of tolerance say, well, you mustn't even condemn Pol Pot? But if you say that, you are saying that his intolerance is okay. That is a muddle, isn't it? There are some things that are right, ladies and gentlemen, and other things that are wrong. And it is not merely a matter of taste. But there is a third group I'd like to mention. It's a much more serious group. It likens an ethical system to a game. For instance, if we're going to play a game, say it's going to be soccer, then we come together and agree on the rules. And while the game is in play, we all have to keep the rules. Even if we think some of the rules are silly, but for the sake of the game, we must forego a little bit of our own personal freedom and keep the rules. But of course, we can come to the conclusion that some of the rules are wrong. We can change the rules. They're not set in concrete. And of course, we should recognize that there are other games. In soccer, for instance, you mustn't handle the ball, unless you're Madonna or somebody. Uh, in, uh, in rugby, of course, it's okay to handle the ball. Well, they're just two different games, that's all. If you sign up to play football, you'll keep its games, and every, uh, its rules, and everybody keeps them. In this sense, then, people argue as follows, that originally man was crude and lived in the forest and fought the apes or something, and this life was nasty and brutish. And then a man, as man emerged out of the forest, eh, he began to come together and sought the benefits of living together in a society. That, of course, meant agreeing on the rules, so to speak. And once you agreed, you all had to keep them. Now, that is an exceedingly good principle, isn't it, in practice? Most democracies are founded upon that. Socrates, uh, praised it. He, he said that he had lived all his life in Athens, accepted the rules of the state, and had benefited from its provisions and protections. So when that same state condemned him to death, he forbade his followers to bribe the jailers to let him out of prison. He said, no, I, so to speak, have signed the contract. I've agreed with my fellow citizens. I keep the rules, and if now they go against me, I will submit to them. A good social contractarian was Socrates. Now, of course, the theory has its weakness, doesn't it? Suppose, uh, I have the power, authority, and money, and I refuse to join your Contract. contract. Can you give me any good reason why I should? And then, of course, there comes before us a whole range of reformers and martyrs that have stood up and had the courage to say that the rules of the contract are defective in this and that, and for truth's sake, they cannot submit. So even moral contractarianism has its weaknesses. So I come now to what my Christianity teaches me. In answer to the two questions, what is the basis and authority of our moral sense? Christianity proclaims that it is God, our creator. He made our moral sense. And he wrote on our deep hearts his laws, so that we all know in our heart of hearts there is a creator, whatever we say to the contrary. And we know in our hearts that certain laws are true, whatever our practice might be. That is the biblical position as I understand it. And therefore, because, uh, these things are determined by the Creator, there are some things that are objectively wrong. Of course, if I say that, I shall be immediately, uh, accosted with a number of objections. Are you not, um, propounding a very dangerous idea? Hasn't history showed us that when people get it into their heads that their moral system is authorized by Almighty God, then they can do some terrible things. Well, that is perfectly true. I can only speak as a Christian, of course, but it is the fact that Christendom, imagining on times that it was doing the will of God, was guilty of atrocious massacres, like the Crusades against the Turks. My, uh, response to that is to say that while they who did it professed to be Christian, they were acting in downright disobedience to the explicit commandment and prohibition of Christ, who prohibited his disciples from using violence or the sword, either to promote his kingdom or to protect it. In the second place, of course, people will say, but you can't be right. Because we, we learn our morals from our parents, do we not? And our teachers. How can you say they come from God? Well, let me take an analogy. What about arithmetic? Johnny learned that two and two make four from his dear mama. And when he grew up a bit and went to school, he was told by the authority of the mathematics teacher, no less, that the square root of nine is not four and a half, but is three. um Johnny learned it on authority. But if you ask the aforesaid Johnny today, why do you believe that the square root of nine is not four and a half, but three? He won't reply, will he? Oh, but my teacher says so. He'll say it is so because he sees it for himself. The teacher didn't invent the laws of mathematics as she taught her pupils. She just passed them on. The great and famous professor of mathematics and physics in Oxford, Sir Roger Penrose, holds that the great laws of mathematics are not invented by the scientists or anybody else. They are discovered. They are there, so to speak. And the moral authority that God has put into our hearts and subsequently expounded in the Ten Commandments, in the Sermon on the Mount, in the Christian apostles' teaching. These come not to us as something taught to us by our immediate family merely, though they help to point us in that direction. These laws are God's laws. They exist. We discover them. We see they are true. You say, but that can't be right, because if these laws in our hearts, so to speak, these moral laws come from God, they would be universal. And they're not. People hold all sorts of different views. But that's not altogether exact, is it? C. S. Lewis, in one of his books, write at length upon this, on this topic. And among other things, he quotes the Egyptian Book of the Dead. This comes from, uh, two or three thousand years ago in Egypt, a non-Christian country, of course. They believed that when a person died, they eventually had to face a final judgment. And thinking that whether they passed the judgment or not depended on their good behavior, they wrote out a statement as it was by the dead person, of all the wicked things that he had not done, how that he had kept the moral law. And this is a typical list. And as I read it, I ask you to think whether it is still valid. I have not committed evil. I have not stolen. I have not been covetous. I have not robbed. I have not killed a man. I have not damaged the grain measure. I have not caused crookedness. I have not told lies. I have not been contentious. I have not practiced usury. I have not committed adultery. This is not a Christian speaker, nor a Jewish speaker, nor for that matter an Islamic speaker. This is ancient Egyptian, showing the same moral awareness. I've never heard of any nation, in fact, who would hold that it is a good thing not to be questioned, that you should bribe a judge to a- uh, uh, acquit the guilty and condemn the innocent. I don't know of any. Many practice it, of course, that's another story. But whether you ever could meet a- a- a- a nation that believed it was a very good thing to do and openly said it, that's another thing, isn't it? We can exaggerate the differences in these matters. But finally, I am aware of other criticisms of the Christian position that come from the humanist tradition, and by humanist I mean secular humanist. And they object to the laws of Christianity, so to speak, because it inhibits human freedom. Let me quote one of them to you. This is Blanche Sanders. A humanist has cast off the ancient yoke of supernaturalism with its burden of fear and servitude, and he moves on earth a free man, a child of nature, and not of any man-made gods. Reading that as a Christian, at least the first bit, I want to applaud Blanche Sanders and say, very well said. Marvelous that man should have cast off man-made gods. The Bible is all against man-made gods. Read the ancient prophets and the New Testament combined. The tendency man has to invent gods of one kind and another. But when she includes, in her rejection of supernaturalism, the God of Bi- of Bible, our Creator, on the grounds that following him will make us free, it seems to me distinctly odd. If you bought a new car, be it a Rolls-Royce or whatever, and you received the maker's handbook, and it said, thou shalt put petrol in this car and not diesel, would you say, I'm not going to be held down by that kind of restriction on my liberty? I bought the car, haven't I? I will put in diesel if I want to. Who's he to restrict my freedom? So you put the diesel in, with inevitable results. Foolish to go against the makeup. Why should we think that the laws of our maker are against us? Christ will say, if you follow me, you will know the truth, and the truth will make you free. Paul will urge us, for freedom did God set us free. This is the claim the Bible makes for daring to trust God and obey him. Of course, another thing comes from the humanist. They don't like the idea of a final judgment. Because it hangs over us, our heads, you'll see, breathes down our neck, that there could be divine sanctions. On the other hand, if you read their mature thought, they will tell you that merely setting people free is not enough. We do need some sanctions. Every club in society, if it's going to work, has to have its sanctions, they say. And therefore, it is right that there should be some sanctions. Says Will Durant, we shall find it no easy task to mold a natural ethic strong enough to maintain moral restraint and social order without the support of supernatural consolation, hopes, and fears. It is a trifle illogical, isn't it, to say that we do need sanctions in life, and then to deny that there shall be a final judgment, when all sins shall be dealt with fairly. The final objection is that embracing this kind of Christianity is psychologically unhealthy. Professor Walters sa- Bot- Waters says, a true Christian must always be in a state of torment, since he or she can never really be certain that God has forgiven him or her for deeply felt negative feelings. The Christian is brainwashed to believe that he or she was born wicked, should suffer as Christ suffered, and should aspire to a humanly impossible level of perfection. Nonetheless, and so forth. My reaction to that is to confess I'm breathless. What is this good professor talking about? The Christian must always be in a state of s- torment, since he or she can never really be certain that God has forgiven him or her. Really? Seems to me that the good professor hasn't recently read his new Testament. Let me quote you just one passage. The Holy Spirit witnessed to us who trust Christ of God's absolute guaranteed promise, their sins and iniquities I will remember no more. God can say it because God has not swept sin under the carpet, but provided a savior by whose sacrifice paid the penalty of our sin so that we can be forgiven and accepted by God and know it here and now. For while we were still sinners, the Bible says, God commended his love in that Christ died for us. My final appeal, therefore, is that if we have been inclined to use such superficial arguments against Christianity, then it would be a wise idea, before we continued with our criticisms, actually to read what the New Testament says. I end my case. I don't have a bulletproof vest, but I am to invite you, if need be, to ask questions. Go ahead. Professor, if we can establish that there are, there's an objective case for objective right and wrong, uh, in our Christ- coming from a Christian perspective, is it therefore logical or reasonable to argue that Christian religions, uh, churches within Christianity rather, need a consensus on, uh, moral issues within Christianity? Oh. Yes, interesting question. If one argues, uh, that on the basis of our moral sense that God has put in our hearts and on the, uh, uh, uh, uh, the ex- explanations and additions to it in the Ten Commandments and so forth. Can we then say that we must get a Christian consensus on what is right and wrong in practical living? Is that how I got you? Well, yes. Um, I've argued that God has put his laws on our hearts. He's further expounded those laws in the Ten Commandments and in the New Testament. Yes? There is to be observed a growth, a moral growth in this respect, just as you would teach a little child certain practices, but then when he grows up, you will teach him a rather more advanced system of ethics. Yes, there is growth. So that when it comes to l- life in society or amongst ourselves, we should not suppose that we as individuals have the last word on interpretation of the rules as given us. And therefore we need to seek, in all humility, the help of all fellow Christians, uh, from the inside to help us understand God's rules, and not only understand his rules, but how they are to be applied in actual circumstances. And we ought to listen to the critics from the outside as well, for they sometimes can point us to our inconsistencies and our irrationalities. Does that make sense to you? Good. Can I ask you if you would believe? Sorry, speak up just a little bit so everyone can hear. Can I ask you if you would believe that we inhabit a fallen nature, a universe which is fallen, and if so, perhaps we shouldn't be surprised if our DNA is indifferent, and any other explanation, uh, that a loving God would create a world with death inherent, surely is incomprehensible to a moral human being. Ah. Uh, well, your first part of your question, do I believe that we inherit a fallen nature? Uh, my answer, my personal answer is yes, I do. I believe what the New Testament says, that by one man's disobedience, uh, sin entered into the world and death by sin. I think we are in some sense damaged goods, if you don't mind the expression, you'll see. I myself think that that doctrine is a very kindly doctrine. It tells us straight that we are not personally responsible for our weaknesses. It also tells us that if we have been damaged through what our forefather did, then we can be saved not by our own effort, but by what somebody else did. That is, that somebody is Jesus Christ our Lord. To quote the New Testament verse, if by, uh, by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so shall the many be made righteous by one man's obedience, that is Christ. So that I hold yes. And I've no doubt that when man sinned against God, his state of reference to the universe around him was changed. Uh, I do see. The one thing I would question with you, perhaps, and that is for a bigger discussion on other times, I would certainly welcome it. When God created the universe, he said it was good, all of it very good. Does that necessarily mean that everything was safe? For instance, we all enjoy electricity since it has been discovered, but electricity isn't safe, and discovering it has caused, uh, a number of, a large number of deaths, has it not? And if it's not used properly, it still does. Do you see? It wouldn't be electricity if it didn't. And therefore, when God says he made everything good, I don't think, uh, that that necessarily means that everything was safe. That is my provisional answer to you, for the rest would require another half an hour. Yeah. Um, my understanding of social Darwinists is that they relate everything back to evolution. Yeah. So our minds and our choices have been conditioned by that to this point, Mm-hmm. where we are intellectually free to make different choices, perhaps. Is that sustainable? That view? Let me make sure I've understood you right. Social Darwinism says that we've come at our present minds by evolution, and therefore, by definition, since evolution is a chance process and not purposeless, uh, not p- not purposeful, it is purposeless, uh, then our, uh, um, moral sense is broken, it's wounded, it's injured. That our, our morals and our ethics have evolved up to the point where we recognize now that it was because of evolution, and we can now make choices because we're intellectually superior. Oh yes, uh, I see what you mean. Yes. Well, Dobzhansky, the great, uh, uh, Russian born, Russian born, uh, scientist and ethicist, would not accept social Darwinism at any cost. He held that it was, uh, as we evolved, mankind eventually evolved language, and being able to talk to one another, they were able to reason together in what I have called social contractarianism, and uh, uh, made their own rules, and that's how it should be, do you see? And evolution in that sense has, uh, e- and ethics in that sense has evolved. I should not want to question the fact that, uh, mankind has gone through its childhood stage, the New Testament says so, and has come to adulthood. But the basic principles, I think, remain the same. They are not things that we evolve to, as far as I, uh, understand it. Thou shalt, uh, uh, not lie. Thou shalt not give false, uh, uh, witness. How could that have been the result of chance progress? In thinking it through, is it an invention, I want to ask myself? Is it an invention that this or that philosopher invented? If that were so, why should I accept it? I would need another reason for accepting it. Unless you say I- my position is so rational that you couldn't possibly disagree if you wanted to be rational. But then I look around all the ration- rational people I know and have read of in this world, and the rationalists disagree among themselves on ethical things. Therefore, it seems to me that our reason on ethical things are based on something far more fundamental. And that is not the result of evolution. It is the result of God, the creator's law, being written on our heart. At least that is how I would understand it, sir. May I just add, you see, uh, I start, as I've told, said, from a biblical position. And as I understand it, early on God told his people that his rules were an expression of his character. And he being a personal God, summed up the rules like this: Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, mind, soul, and strength, and thy neighbor as thyself. Ethics according to Bible is ultimately a question of a love relationship with a personal God. In the full sense of the term love, you might say I love a landscape, meaning you like it very much, but you, in that sense, you can't love impersonal things. This, as I understand it, is the heart of ethics. A personal relationship with a personal God whose rules, whose laws are an expression of his character. And if you love me, said Jesus Christ, you will keep my commandments. I don't think that, uh, mere, uh, uh, thinking about these things ethically, uh, would necessarily have brought us to that view. Do you see? That we should be kind to one another, yes. But I think the Bible's scheme of ethics is at a higher plane. Mm-hmm. Just go ahead. Nice and loud, please. Can I just pick up on two things that you said? Mm-hmm. Firstly, that the Crusaders were acting in disobedience to God. Pardon? The first thing, that the Crusaders were acting in disobedience to God? Yeah. Do you mean that they actually knew that what they were doing was wrong, but chose to do it anyway? Secondly, um, that do you believe that everybody knows there's a God, and some people choose to ignore that? Do you believe in atheists, to quote the, the book title? What did I say? The second, the second part, if I, if I heard right, was, um, whether or not everyone believes there is a God. Do you believe in atheists? Is it the title of whose book, I'm sorry, did you say? Okay, that's all right. Just to know if I missed it. John John. What? The first thing? First about Crusader, the Crusades. Um, oh, I see. Yes, yes. Just to restate your question, to make sure I've understood, uh, you're asking, did all the Crusaders, so to speak, when they went to slaughter Turks, did they know they were doing wrong? Is that your question? Well, uh, this is not meant to be a get out or cynical. I can't tell you what was in their minds when they did it. I think a lot of them had been persuaded by people that should have known better, that somehow or other use of the sword to promote Christianity was justifiable. You got that kind of thing with Constantine, didn't you? When he had the sign of the cross put on his military banners and said, in this, in this sign I conquer. Do ze. Um, whether they knew it was wrong or not, the, the, the knights and others, the footmen that went, I don't know. Some of their leaders should have known if they read scripture. Do ze. And it remains today that our Lord taught, uh, uh, forbade his apostles to use the sword, either to protect or to promote his kingdom. So is the Bible the absolute reference then? We all know what's right and wrong. What's the role of the Bible? I think the Bible reveals to us, yes, the mind of God when it comes to this and that particular in actual practical life, you'll see then, of course, we have to think that through in the light of our basic biblical principles. Just like, I met me use an analogy, the old Hippocratic oath that doctors until recently were required to swear in order to practice their profession. It goes back to pre-Christian times, of course. Its first provision was the basic one. A would-be doctor had to swear an oath by the gods that he would never do anything to harm his patient. Do you see? That was the basic thing. When it came to the several rules, the major rule is he should do everything positively for the benefit of his patients, to preserve their life. He must never do anything to end their life. Thirdly, he must never reveal the, uh, secrets of his patients' illnesses to anybody else, you see. Now those, uh, base- that basis, as you see, they appeal to the gods as the basis and the authority behind their medical ethics. They then have a general principle to do everything to promote the life of their patient and negatively not to harm or end the life of their patients. But of course, there are beyond that many practical situations, as every doctor will know. When given the actual practicalities of a situation, you have to to discuss, and with your colleagues, what is the best way now to apply those general principles in this particular case? And I would hold the same thing is true of Christianity. We are, uh, the, the authority is God behind our ethics. The general principle, we are to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul, and strength, and our neighbor as ourselves. That leads to specific l- rules, uh, and prohibition. Honor your parents, don't, uh, uh, uh, tell lies in court, adultery is wrong, and so forth and so on. Then there's a whole lot of things in life, aren't there, in practical situations where the Bible doesn't la- lay down any particular rule, so we have to make up our minds. Yes? The Bible's answer to that is, yes, by all means make up your mind. And if Bible itself doesn't say anything explicit on this, whether it be right or wrong, then be easy on the conscience of your fellow Christian, who might disagree with you in this particular. But do remember that you and he must one day appear before the judgment seat of Christ, when we shall be asked to give account of ourselves. Why did you do that? Why did you do the other? It would be good at that stage if we were able to answer Christ. I did it because thinking about it carefully, I thought this is the thing that would please you. Sorry if I did it wrong. Yeah? Does that make any sense to you? Some sense, perhaps. A little. The second half of your question was, if I remember right, do you believe that everyone believe or knows there is a God, and some just choose to reject that knowledge? Oh, I, I believe, yes, that deep down in the human heart, there is the knowledge that there is a God. The Bible says, Romans chapter one this is, that the invisible things of God from the creation of the world are visible, knowable, from the things that are seen, namely these two qualities. His Godhead is, uh, that there is his Godhood, that there is an almighty God, all powerful, his divinity and his power, both beyond man, and so forth. God has made it known in the creation around us, and what is more, he has made it known to us and in us, says the Bible. There is deep within the human heart, even though many deny it, a knowledge there is a God. As Kant, the great philosopher, said, two things moved him. That is, when he went out of a night time and looked at the starry heavens, overwhelming sense that there must be a creator. When he looked within and found the moral sense that stood against many of his otherwise evil. So, yes, I would hold that in that sense, everybody knows there is a creator. But I want to add another very big thing. There are many people in life that have suffered such pain and disaster and disappointment, that they find it very difficult to believe that if there is a God, this God is all-loving and all-powerful and all-wise. If there is such a God, why would he allow so much suffering? And why such an unequal distribution of suffering throughout this world? That I take to be a serious question. And, uh, I cannot discuss it now, of course. If you have any influence with the organizers of this series, uh, uh, do see, uh, you could suggest that one day they, they, they have a lecture or so on this problem, because it is a very, very real problem. Problem that has to be met at two levels, at the emotional level, and then at the intellectual. Uh, I would welcome the o- opportunity one of these days to, uh, deal with the question. It is a very, very real question. I will merely state one thing. I was in Moscow once, having dinner with a certain professor who was the head of the psychiatric institution in Moscow. Things came up about the question of belief in God. And leaning over the table, he said with a generous smile on his face, not being aggressive at all, but how can you believe in God when there is so much suffering? He'd seen a lot in his lifetime, of course. My reply in general, in in first principle, it was a long reply, but in first principle was this: Yes, sir, I have a problem. How can I believe in a God that is all-loving, all-powerful, all-wise, when he allows such suffering? So there is a problem. I said then to him, you can get rid of that intellectual problem very easily. He said, how? I said, why, giving up all faith in the existence of God. So now you won't have a problem, will you? Like Dawkins says, pain, evil, disaster, they just are. And if there's no God, there's no problem. But then I added, you can get rid of the problem, you don't thereby get rid of the pain. For you now take away all hope, for if there is a God, there is a hope, isn't there? That somehow, in ways that often go beyond what we can understand, there is hope that our pain is not just sheer meaningless, but can be turned by God to eternal benefit. There is hope. Of course, I went on to say a lot of other things. But in my personal experience, when I have suffered pain, and I've suffered my share of it, it is hope that has kept me going, and hope in God and in his love expressed to us in Jesus Christ, and in his character as a faithful God. There is hope. Well, I, hi, oh, you must stop me, you must protest, you must stamp with your feet, because I have amongst my multitudinous weaknesses a tendency now and again to go off preaching when I shouldn't be, but forgive me for that.