The Sean McDowell Show - Bart Ehrman and Sean McDowell Discuss the Moral Argument, Guilt, and the Teachings of Jesus

Episode Date: March 27, 2026

Did the teachings of Jesus actually transform the moral conscience of the West? And if they did… does that point to objective moral truth or just cultural evolution? Today, I sat down with Bart Ehrman to explore one of the most important questions in philosophy and faith: Is morality objective or is it simply a product of human development over time? READ: Love Thy Stranger: How the Teachings of Jesus Transformed the Moral Conscience of the West by Bart D. Ehrman (https://a.co/d/07lDkZiy) *Get a MASTERS IN APOLOGETICS or SCIENCE AND RELIGION at BIOLA (https://bit.ly/3LdNqKf) *USE Discount Code [smdcertdisc] for 25% off the BIOLA APOLOGETICS CERTIFICATE program (https://bit.ly/3AzfPFM) *See our fully online UNDERGRAD DEGREE in Bible, Theology, and Apologetics: (https://bit.ly/448STKK) FOLLOW ME ON SOCIAL MEDIA: Twitter: https://x.com/Sean_McDowell TikTok: https://www.tiktok.com/@sean_mcdowell?lang=en Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/seanmcdowell/ Website: https://seanmcdowell.org Discover more Christian podcasts at lifeaudio.com and inquire about advertising opportunities at lifeaudio.com/contact-us.

Want to keep God's word with you wherever you go? The King James Bible Study KJV app by Salem Media makes it easy to read, study, share, and pray daily with the timeless KJV translation. Enjoy features like offline access, audio Bible listening, smart search, and tools to highlight bookmark and take notes, all designed to keep your Bible studies simple and organize. Best of all, it's free to download in the Google Play Store. Grow in your faith every day. Search for King James Bible Study KJV and download the app today. I'm simply saying if there's one, let me make this point. If there's one.

Okay, but let's not what I said. Okay, then correct me. I didn't want to misstate you. Go ahead. I didn't say that. I said that if you think there are objectively moral facts, why can't you isolate? I didn't say that was a matter of opinion. I'm saying you and I have opinions about things.

What's the objective truth? The objective truth is we have different opinion. We have morally improved since that time. I have no problem saying that, and I think the vast majority people would be with me. We're just going to disagree on this. I'm just saying that my view is as coherent as your view. Bart Orman is one of the most influential atheist slash agnostics today. He's written multiple New York Times bestselling books is recently a retired professor from UNC Chapel Hill and is the author of the new book, Love Thy Stranger, which I found fascinating and enjoyable. There's a ton we agree on,

which is where we will start. Now we're going to get to the heart of the book where I suspect we have some agreement and we're going to have a little bit of fun. Bart, thanks for coming on the show. Thanks for having me. Yeah, so right at the beginning of the book in the introduction, you state your thesis and you say, my argument in this book is that the impulse to help strangers in need is embedded in our Western moral conscience because of the teachings of Jesus. Tell us about that and kind of the heart of your book. I got very interested in why it is that we, when there's a disaster that hits, you know, there's a hurricane or there's a flood, there's an earthquake, and people are in need.

We know starvation in various parts of the world, whatever. We feel this impulse to help. You know, we write a check or we, or locally we visit us, you know, we volunteer at a soup kitchen or whatever. And that's true, not only of people who are Christian, it's true just about everybody in the West. It's not that everybody does it. It's not that everybody has huge, but people have that kind of pull, and many people act on it, regardless of the religious commitments. And I got interested in that because, among other things, I'm an expert on the ancient world generally. And I've been long intrigued with ancient Greek and Roman moral philosophy, as well as ancient Judaism, before Christianity.

And this impulse was not there. And you can demonstrate it was not there. And so my question was, how did he get here that? If it wasn't there, how did it get here? And my thesis in my book is that Jesus had a different idea from moral philosophers of his day and from his Jewish tradition so far as we can tell, that when people are in need, we need to help them whatever their relation to us is, whether we know them or not. whether they, if we don't know them, it doesn't matter what their nationality is, what their ethnicity is, what their religion is, what their gender, anything like that. Nothing matters except they're in need. That this was the teaching of Jesus.

And because his followers ended up taking over the Roman Empire, that became the ethical message that was preached for centuries, so much so that it's just embedded in us if we live in the West. And so that's what the thesis of the book is, that it starts with the teachings of Jesus. Now, what's so fascinating about this to me is I've read some of your books that deal with historical issues, New Testament issues. But this is a book in which you're weighing into ethics and what might even be called meta-ethics, kind of the grounding of right and wrong and the moral transformation that takes place. You might have answered this, but I was really curious if there's more of a backstory to why you wrote this book. Like you're in your lane in some sense.

It comes out towards the end of the book, some of your critiques in the New Testament differences, which is fine. But at some ways, you're stepping a little bit outside of your lane or correct me if you see it differently and weighing into these moral ethical issues, which for me, given that you've had conversations and debate with so many scholars, I thought, this is such a fascinating angle, was in particular fascinating with this book. But does that ring true to you? And is there more of any backstory why you wrote this book in particular? Well, there are two backstories. One is that I've been, it's out of my lane in terms of what I publish for general audiences. but it's not out of my lane in terms of my academic work. When I came to Chapel Hill in 1988, my first semester,

I was teaching Greek and Roman moral philosophy, ancient Greek and Roman religion and such. And so I've been very interested in this code for a long time. The other thing is kind of a more immediate background about what got me interested in writing this particular book. My most recent book was an academic book. So it's one that most people wouldn't know about. It was published with Yale University Press,

and it was called Journeys to Heaven and Hell. I wrote a separate book that was called Heaven and Hell that was a trade book for general audiences. But this Journey's book was written for academics, and it was dealing with this issue that you have in ancient text. You have a lot of ancient texts in Greek and Roman and Jewish circles and then in Christian circles that describe guided tours of heaven and hell, where people are actually, they actually go to the places of the damned

and the places of the blessed. going back as far as we have literature. It's in Homer in the Odyssey, book 10. It's in Virgil in the Aeneid book six. It's in, and you get it in, so those Greek and Romans, you get a lot of in Greek and Romans here, you get in Jewish circles, and then you end up getting in Christian circles.

And my analysis of these things was to try and show that these various, they're called Cotabasies, these various journey traditions, are used not so much to show what the afterlife is really like. the literary function of these is to show people how they ought to behave in the present. You know, in light of like, you know, realities of the life and possibly after the... You ought to act this way. And in that book, I did a comparison of Greek understandings of the afterlife with Christian understanders of the afterlife,

specifically with the question of what's wrong with being wealthy. Because Greek thinkers thought that the problem with being wealthy is it made you a selfish, greedy, unpleasant person. Nobody liked that. And the Christian view was that if you do that, you're not helping the poor so you won't get into heaven. And so in the Greek tradition, it was all about like your character, and in the Christian tradition, it was about helping the poor. And I just thought, that's really interesting contrast. I'd like to write that for a general audience. So the book started off with that as the theme, but then it expanded, as you know, into broader issues of Christian love and forgiveness and as well as charitable giving.

That is fascinating. I don't recall reading that in the book, but that makes sense that would draw you into writing this, given your background and interests. So let's dive in the subtitle the book. Again, the title, Love Thy Stranger, of course, a unique playoff of Love Thy Neighbor, and that our neighbor, you mentioned, is not just our in-group before Jesus. It became the out-group and this universal ethic to care for a neighbor. The subtitle is how the teachers of Jesus transformed. the moral conscience of the West. And you give some specific examples here. You say prior to the spread of Christianity, there were no public hospitals in the Roman world, no orphanages, poor houses, or old persons homes, no government assistance to help those in need or private charities to minister to the poor, homeless and hungry. These are Christian innovations. Now, of course, as a Christian, I'm cheering this thing on, going, yes, there's a lot of other writers that you talk about, people like Tom Holland, who have

attributed these things to Christians, you also indicate that there's this shift, so not only positively helping, but this shift away from a culture of dominance, where fathers could dominate their kids, dominate their wives physically, but also sexually, so from one of dominance to one of service. So the heart of my question is, is when you call this a moral transformation. Is this a change on a horizontal level in which it's just a change like, say, clothing styles have changed over time? Or is this an objectively good transformation that Jesus brought that we ought to live the way that Jesus lived and support things like hospitals, orphanages, and poor houses? I would say some things are objectively good, in my opinion. I think it's good that we

have hospitals. It's good we have orphanage. These are, these are, it's good that we have disaster relief programs. I think these are good. This is my personal opinion. Since it's my personal opinion, I don't think it's objective. But my view is those are good things. I am not claiming in the book that Jesus teachings are fully implemented by Christians or ever have been. I do argue that Jesus had a different ideology of service rather than domination, and that was really quite different from anything you get in moral philosophy in the ancient world. I'm not saying that his followers followed his teachings on this. I mean, it's quite clear that the Christian church throughout history has preferred dominance at many times, and still does today, and that many individual

Christians have not taken on board the idea that you should live a life of service rather than a life of domination. And it's quite clear at every level in our society that hasn't taken on. But the intervention that I think that Jesus made that has stuck with us is that if we want to do good things for other people, we should focus not just on our family and friends, but on those in need, that that's the priority. And I think that did make a radical different in the Western world. not just in the institutions, but also in our conscience. We think that we ought to do that. Okay. So here's where I think some clarity would help us here. You said in one sense that these are objective and then twice you said, but in your opinion. So these are not objectively morally,

moral improvements within themselves. That's a part of my question. And maybe we could, maybe we could clarify what we mean by objective is I pull up a book on meta ethics just to read objective and if you disagree this it's totally fine he says moral realism's basic claim is that some things are right and some things are wrong or good or bad regardless of people's beliefs preferences or attitudes regarding them so just like there's certain historical facts true outside of us. There's certain scientific facts true outside of us. There's moral facts true outside of us. That's typically what's meant by moral objectivism. And so it sounds like you're saying you're a moral subjectivist that the teachings of Jesus, they're based upon somebody's

opinion whether they adopt to them or not. They're not actually objectively good within themselves. Did I categorize that correctly? I think you're doing the two different categories. Some things are objective. It's objective that there are public hospitals. Agreed? Yeah. It's not objective that moral values are either good or bad, usually.

There's lots of subjective moral values. Is it good to kill somebody? Well, it depends. Okay. So I assume you're done there. You said I agree with you in principle that sometimes it depends whether we should kill somebody or not. Maybe you and I would agree in self-defense. That's morally okay.

Not necessarily. In some cases, it's okay. That's the point, though. If it's based on a situation, then it's not objective that it's good or bad to kill somebody. It depends on the situation. Okay. So some moral claims depend upon the situation, but that doesn't make them necessarily subjective. So for example, the claim, I mean, in your book, I mean, we could jump straight to the case as you condemn anti-Semitism and violence against Jews, which you argue led to the Holocaust.

So let's talk about that one. Are there circumstances that would make that okay? or is it universally wrong to do what the Nazis did against the Jews? I don't have any access to any kind of universal objectivity. I'm a human being and I have thoughts and views. So do you. If there were something that was a universally objective moral value, our only access to it would be through our brains.

and our brains are objects. You have roughly 100 billion neurons in yours. I've got a few less in mine. But since our recognition of morality is based on our human perception, even if you want to claim that there's some kind of moral objectivity, we have no direct access to it except through our subjectivity. Okay. So I think there might be a confusion between how we know things and whether or not something is actually true.

So historical claims in the past, which you claim are objective, we have to, we know them. Okay, so let me ask you this. You think some of your views about the New Testament are right and Christians are wrong. Do you hold that view? Yes. Okay. So you know that as a subject. you are the one who studies this.

And so just because the subject analyzes something doesn't mean they don't think they're true, and it does mean they're not true. So if that's true for history, if that's true for science, why would that not be true for morality that just because we're subjects engaging in something doesn't mean there's no objective truth that we can debate and we can discuss and we can kind of analyze? I'm saying if there is an objective truth, we have no access to it as subjects. We only have access to what we think is true. And it's not fair to compare history and science because they're very different.

They have different modes of establishing their truth claims. Historians can only establish the probabilities what happened in the past, sometimes with relative certainty, virtual certainty for most of us, and sometimes with great uncertainty. science isn't about predicting the past or trying to explain the past it's about predicting the future if you do a chemical experiment and it comes out a certain way and you redo it a thousand times it comes out the same way every time you use that experiment as a basis then to do the next thing and so it has predictive value and so looking for a simple way to stay rooted in god's word every day the daily bible devotion app by salem media gives you morning and evening devotionals designed to encourage, inspire, and keep you connected with scripture. Plus, you'll enjoy daily Bible trivia and humor, a fun way to learn and share a smile while growing in your faith.

Get the Daily Bible Devotion app for free on both iOS and Android. Start and end your day with God's Word. Search for the Daily Bible Devotion app in the App Store or Google Play Store and download it today. They're dealing with different things. History is dealing with the past and probabilities. science is based on experimentation for predictive values, different things. Okay, so I agree with you on the last point that you made that how we know certain truths in history is different than how we know certain truths in math, but it's also different than how we know certain truths in morality. So if science we know truths may be by repeating things and having hypotheses and empirically investigating them, the mere fact that we are.

subjects trying to know and analyze something in science doesn't mean there's not a truth. Same thing applies to history. We don't examine and study things in the same way that we do scientifically. There's a different means to it, but the mere fact that we are subjects trying to figure out what is historically true doesn't mean there's no objective truth that is there. So my point is that I agree with you. Let me finish. Hang on.

Okay, so my only point so far, and then I'll come back to that, because I think the point you're making is really important, is that there's different ways we know truth in science, there's different ways we know truth in history, and the mere fact that we are subjects trying to discover something in different means doesn't follow that there's no truth. That's the only comparison that I made between history and between science and then between morality.

And so you said we have no access, to moral truth. I guess I'd say a couple things. I don't know what it means to know moral truth through our brains. It makes sense with science because we're studying physical matter. But moral truths are not physical.

They're immaterial. They don't have weight. So clearly we're going to access them differently than we do science, just like history accesses things differently than science. So my question is you said, correct me if I'm wrong,

you said we have no access to moral truth. How do you know that? It's my opinion. Just as yours is your opinion. Okay. So, yes, we have opinions about things. So let me ask a clear one. So most people would agree with this. They would say, torturing a child for fun or burning a child alive for adults, pleasure is wrong. Now, I have no problem. I'm about as close to being 100% certain as possible that torturing a, a child for adult entertainment is wrong. And we don't know that the way we know science and history.

We know it intuitively and naturally by reflecting upon it. So do you agree with me that burning a child alive for adult entertainment is wrong? Yes. Okay, so I guess I'm confused because you said it's only a matter of opinion, but now you agree that this is wrong. I didn't say that was a matter of opinion. I'm saying you and I have opinions about things. Sure. If you have an opinion, I have an opinion.

What's the objective truth? The objective truth is we have different opinions. But how do you use objective truth in order to establish that you're right about either a historical claim or a moral claim and that I'm empirically wrong? How do I do that? You have to figure out you're doing it by your reason. You're thinking about it. That's right. Other people think about it and have different views.

Not about everything. Most people do agree that when they were seeing me here, they'd agree I was sitting in a chair. I am sitting in a chair. Yeah. Me too. What good does it do to say that there are moral objectives unless you can isolate all of them? Why would we have to be able to isolate all of them? If there's one thing that's morally wrong, that's all we need. Then we have objective moral truth. But the topic is of objectivity. Okay, let me take a step back. I'm not sure I'm following your point. You said we can't know certain moral truths unless we know that all moral truths, like you kind of made a universal statement about the number of moral truths we have to say. I'm simply saying if there's one. Let me make this point.

If there's one. Okay. That's not what I said. Okay. Then correct me. I didn't want to misstate you. Go ahead. I didn't say that.

I said that if you think there are objectively moral facts, why can't you isolate them? I don't know what it means. If they couldn't exist, if they couldn't exist, I didn't say that. I said, if they are there, why can't you name them? Okay, so I certainly don't want to misstate your argument. Thank you for correcting that. But I don't know what it means to isolate them.

I can state them. You can say that you agreed with me that torturing a child for adult entertainment is wrong. That's a universal moral. truth. Oh, no, I don't think it is. Okay. You don't think that's... No, in the ancient world, for example, people who are also human beings, often practiced child sacrifice. He was often very painful. They thought it was the right thing to do. Now, you could claim they didn't understand the objective truth of morality. Or you could say that actually, you know, this moral truth that we thought was objective and available to everybody was not available to them.

Or we could say a third option, they did have a moral sense. And this would get us into Lewis's argument that you seem to agree that there's at least certain universal or commonly experienced, maybe we won't use the word universal, commonly experience moral principles such as for posterity, caring for our kids, such as loving others in a certain fashion. mercy, justice, these seem to transcend culture. So I have no problem, let me make this quick point, I have no problem pointing back to those who sacrifice their kids, practice cannibalism, some of the things that we see in the Old Testament and saying, oh, they were doing what was

morally wrong. And they should have known better because they have access to basic more principles. And we have morally improved since that time. I have no problem. saying that. And I think the vast majority people would be with me, just like our science is better, our history is better. We have made moral progress from that time. Sounds like you disagree. Well, if you're talking about people who are listening to the podcast, yeah, probably so. If you talk to moral philosophers, probably not. So I agree that humans have certain inclinations that absolutely tell us that something is right and wrong. That doesn't mean that there's some kind of objective standard there. It means that this is our inclination as human beings.

Okay. So let me ask this. This is helpful, by the way. I'm going to come back to this point about inclination. But in your book, you make two claims. One, you talk about you embrace your beliefs because you think they're superior. Otherwise, you wouldn't embrace them. And by the way, I'm with you. That's what it means to hold the belief. There's nothing elitist about that. I don't fault you for that. But then in page 76, you talk about progress we have made since our ancient forebears. So if it's all opinion and there's no standard by which we judge, I don't know what superior and progress even means. You don't? You don't believe in progress? Because earlier you said we progressed in terms of history and science. Okay, so that's not my point. I said I don't believe in it.

Let me clarify again. I'm saying from your perspective, and correct me if I don't explain this right, there's not an objective moral standard outside of us. We've been wired by evolution to have certain inclinations that feel absolute to us, but they're not actually absolute. That's the explanation formality I see in your book. And yet twice in the book, you talk about, you embrace your beliefs, because you think they are superior. And then on page 76, you talk about moral progress we've made since our ancient forebears. I believe that certain morality is superior.

I think the morality of Jesus is superior because I think we do have an obligation to care for the poor. I think people are made in God's image. And I think we've made progress. So moving beyond slavery, moving beyond cannibalism, moving beyond these kinds of things, is progress. But from the ethic you've laid out insofar as I understand it, I don't understand what superior or progress means any more than I've made progress in the kind of ice cream flavor that I like. If it's all subjective, what does superior in progress even mean?

So this seems to be an issue that you're very intent upon. You and I share a human DNA that has been transformed over the centuries because of the way culture developed. If you yourself think you have access to moral absolutes, which I think you believe you do have access to them, is that correct? Do you think that you have access to them? Yeah, I would use the term objective moral truth, but I'm with you in general. Go. As opposed to, what did I say?

I thought I said objective. I'm quibling. sorry, I tend to not use the term absolute for an issue you raised earlier that I think murder is wrong. You think your objective moral truths, right? Yes. And you admit that in different cultures, they have different views of what those absolute, what those moral truth, objective moral truths are. Different cultures have different views of moral objective truths. I think different cultures have common moral principles that transcend culture.

these are principles that are universal or near universal, even though the practices may vary, which is what we would expect. Okay. And so all I'm asking, go ahead. One of my top moral priorities is to help people who are hungry and homeless. Okay. And I think that for me, that is a very kind of core moral value. and I try to act on it.

That moral value was not in evidence for the vast majority of the 300,000 years that Homo sapiens have been in existence. And so if you want to say that we all have those moral values, I think history would show you that you're wrong, that in fact those moral values have been around that particular moral value is being like a high, Importance to help those in need has been around for about 1,800 years. Out of the 300,000 years, the humans have existed. So I don't think we all have the same moral code. Okay, so a couple of things. You said your moral value is to help the hungry and the homeless, and that's when you deeply hold. By the way, I applaud you for that.

I think that is an objectively good moral thing to do. And if I understand correctly on your own blog, you give away the proceeds of people who am I correct on that? You give away the proceeds of people who subscribe to your blog. You give away to the poor, to the needy, etc. Am I right on that? Yeah, the last three years we've given a million and a half dollars to charities dealing with hunger, homelessness, and disaster relief. Amazing. I love that. And I would say good for you because you're helping people who can't help themselves. I love that.

It is where you and I can have common cause. I mean, it's absolutely. I mean, and with just anybody who has that kind of moral sense. My point in my book is that moral sense was a sense that nobody had in the ancient world. And to claim it as some kind of objective moral value is, I think, a historical. It's not recognizing the realities of the human race. Okay, so I do agree with you that things like hospitals and orphanages and nursing homes and charity and forgiveness, caring for the poor and the weak

came in terms of a universal ethic it came through Jesus that doesn't mean that all morality is therefore subjective and it doesn't mean that Jesus' teaching isn't more objectively right than previous teaching I don't think that follows from it so part of my question for you would be

is I applaud you we have common cause because I say hey the poor that you're giving money to are made in the image of God. They have value and they have dignity. And so we ought to those of us who have power and privilege, etc., ought to care for those who don't. But it seems to me, if you're saying this is just your subjective value and you do it, and it's not objectively true, you could have said, I'm going to take the proceeds from my blog,

and I'm going to give it to advance racism or sexism. and that's just my personal private subjective feeling. And by your standard, if I hear it correctly, that's not actually wrong. You don't prefer it. You don't like it. But that's not really wrong in itself. And one thing before you say this is you said I'm hung up on this at the root of your book is about the moral transformation of the West.

And you dismiss the moral argument, which is fine. You're totally welcome to do so. I'm enjoying this give and take. but part of this question is what describes reality can evolution a natural selection in the way you take it if i understand correctly describe morality and the rest of our beliefs or is there something in the world that points beyond itself to a god and an objective moral code that's the question so part of your blog it seems to me you're saying yes it's your private inclinations but it would follow that if you used it for anything else, there is no moral distinction,

which makes me raise a question, why are you doing it then? If it's not objectively good, does it make you feel good? Is it virtue signaling? I'm not saying you are. I'm just saying it raises the question. I'm Kirby Kelly. And in my new book, The Fabric of Hope, I want to walk you through seasons of suffering, uncertainty, and waiting.

I remind you of this truth. God is never absent. and he is never far away. When life unravels, hope can feel impossible or out of reach. Maybe today you're feeling like things are falling apart, and you're wondering if you can trust God's good plans for your life. But what if, even here, God is still working to create something beautiful. Through honest stories and encouragement,

the fabric of hope invites you to see your story through a new lens, one where your hard seasons have purpose and your waiting isn't. empty. If you're longing for hope that will never unravel no matter what comes your way, the fabric of hope is for you. Find it wherever books are sold. This is not objectively good. Why choose A over B? Just because you like it? I think part of the problem I'm having with this conversation is that you're raising so many points when you talk that each one needs to be dealt with separately. And so it's very difficult to have a conversation about any of the single points. I mean, to begin with, you agreed that throughout the vast majority of human history, people have not felt this need to help

those who were hungry and thirsty. If they weren't friends and families. That means that most people did not have the moral inclinations that you have, but then you claim that your moral inclinations are objective. And either that means that you have greater access to objective of truth than 99.99% of the human race since it's existed, or it means you're not, or it means you're contradicting yourself. And so, you know, you're making a lot of other points about how you have to have objectivity in order, because otherwise you could just, it could be random, or that objectivity proves that there is a God, and, you know, those are other points. My point here is that you've agreed that your inclination to help,

those in need is based on the development within the human psyche. You said that you agreed with my sense that Jesus transformed the moral conscience of the West. If he transformed it, that means the moral conscience now is different from what it was before, which means that people haven't always had access to this objectivity, which should raise questions for you about what you even mean by anybody having access to it, including your example about torturing a child, which of course I agree with. But if you can list that as an example of what's morally objective, why not list everything? Okay, so this is helpful, and I'm certainly not trying to pile on too many objections. We can take them one by one. That's fair and the right thing to do. So I don't want to do that.

Let me take that back, but let's focus on the one that you made, namely that Jesus transformed the moral teachings of the West. Well, conscience of the West. The conscience of the West. Thank you. So I agree with that insofar as it goes. I would say Jesus expanded the moral conscience of the West. So there still was, and this is Lewis's argument, that I think you agree with, some basic moral principles that people have across cultures. There's a sense that right and wrong exist. And I ought to be a good person, even though maybe culturally it's defined different. in culture A versus culture B.

I ought to love people, even though love looks differently in culture A versus cultural B. I ought to care for my children on posterity, although that looks differently. So the point is not the practice, but there are moral principles that we find, this is Lewis's argument in the abolition of man, that are across cultures, these common basic moral principle commitments, although the practice changes. So that moral objectivity has existed from the beginning, and I would argue is in the scripture, which is a separate question. And so I'm not saying Jesus introduced this idea of moral teaching, and it didn't exist before. I'm saying he expanded a certain moral belief that existed before then in terms of globally he expanded it,

But he also expanded it to include the disenfranchised, include the poor, those in the outgroup. So I don't think there's any inconsistency in saying Jesus expanded our moral teachings because we do see common moral teachings before the time of Jesus. So there's no inconsistency in the argument that I'm making, which is why Christians applaud things like books by Tom Holland and I thought your book was so great. I was like, yeah, hospitals, orphanages, this is the teachings of Jesus because he expanded these truths that we have to those who couldn't experience it in the past. So does that make sense or should we keep going? No, it's the thesis of my book.

But, I mean, that's the thesis of my book, that Jesus transformed something that was already there. People have a moral conscience. I mean, I talk about moral discussions that go back as far. as we have literature and trace them up to Jesus Day and up to today. So there are transformations. I think the point is that you see kind of common moral values across cultures. For example, parents love their children and take care of them across cultures. Virtually every culture thinks that in some instances it's wrong to murder somebody. You can go down a list of things that are broadly shared, even as you agree, the practices are quite different so that we think that child's

sacrifice is a heinous idea and other people thought this was a really good idea. Okay, so there are differences and similarities. You're saying that the similarities across cultures demonstrate, as C.S. Lewis argued, that there must be some, it must have been given to us by some superior being and that there's some kind of objective morality. I'm disagreeing with that. I'm not, this is not a big point for me in the book. And so I just want people to know that, you know, I do think that Christians will appreciate many parts of this book. They'll like you. They'll disagree with other parts. I think many Christians will disagree with, the most Christians I know will disagree with parts other than the ones you're trying to focus on in terms of objectivity. But there are

other explanations for what Lewis identifies in several of his writings about people having a shared moral sense. There are other ways to explain it that in my opinion, that don't affect my thesis, but in my opinion are superior to his view. Okay. So let me see where we go from me. I agree there's a ton more in your book that we haven't talked about here, which is in part why I sent a note to your team and I said, here's what I'm interested in exploring.

Is this okay with Bart? They agreed. I was like, great. So we can't cover everything in the book. There's some New Testament critiques about Atonement and forgiveness that are fascinating. Yeah, I didn't think you'd like that. Well, those are very interesting points. and that's another time for it's another time we can debate that but partly i'm i'm not actually

making the argument that there's commonality across culture and that proves that it comes from god that's not my point i was simply pushing back and saying responding to the what you said was an apparent contradiction in my belief that jesus is the one who brought this moral teaching to the world. And I'm saying there's actually commonality before this time that exists across culture. C.S. Lewis pointed that out. The follow-up question. Okay. I agree with that. Right. And the follow-up question is, I think, where we differ in the sense of what best explains those common beliefs across culture. That's where I think we differ. And to me, That's what's most interesting about the book, even though there's plenty of other interesting stuff.

And we are disagreeing on certain issues. You're right. There's plenty of other stuff here. That's why I said I find your book fascinating. I was intrigued by it. There's plenty of other stuff. We have more common ground in this book than we do difference. But to me, when I read a book like this, I'm trying to find what is the best explanation?

Because if evolution, as you laid out, can sufficiently account for our belief in morality, then that doesn't mean there's no God. That just means that this argument doesn't point towards God. That's right. I don't argue whether there's a God or not. My book has nothing to do with whether there's a God or not. You're talking about, yeah, that's a subline text. Now, you tell your story a little bit of having questions about God becoming an agnostic,

at least for a season, and then still having a moral code. So kind of underlies it. But maybe, you know, part of this ethic of Jesus, could you tell us what exactly do you think is unique about the teachings that Jesus gave? I think there are a couple of things. And you mentioned them. You mentioned one of them anyway. It was, it's been throughout the human race.

Every since there's been a species that humans take care of others within who are genetically and socially related to them. that's always been the case. It's true of every species. It's true of honeybees. It is true of chimpanzees. It's true of snakes. Any species that does not have some sense of altruism would not survive as a species. Because if it's every individual for themselves, they're too easily picked off by their enemies.

And so, every species has that. Darwin recognized that. Darwin didn't know about genes yet. But before they knew that their genetic explanations for this, Darwin recognized that survival of the fittest does not mean every individual for himself. It means that the group has to have coherence. That requires cooperation and on some level, then that requires altruism. So that was there. And in Greek and Roman moral philosophy, Jesus is born in the Roman world,

within Greek philosophical traditions that Romans inherited, they go back, we can trace them definitely. back through Aristotle to Plato to Socrates, and there certainly were pre-Socratic philosophers who held these views. In the views that are advanced there, the idea is that you absolutely have to be loving towards other people and caring for other people and helping other people, but it was always within the group that is socially and biologically related to you in some way or another, not the outsider. My argument in the book is that Jesus universalized this so that it would be apply to anybody in need, whether they were in your social group or not, whether they part of your family, your friends, whether they shared your nationality, your race, anything else, didn't matter

if they were in need. Those are the people you're supposed to help. But I argue my book is that that is different from what you get in Greek and Roman philosophy, and it's different from what you get from the Hebrew Bible. And it's a different. So I'm not saying that he's against Judaism. I'm not saying against Greek and Roman philosophy. He would have agreed with a lot of Aristotle. I mean, he would. have but but i'm saying idea of just of the priority being people in need no matter what is i think is the major innovation okay and that's that's what's transformed our conscience that's transformed our conscience because the idea that you know if your if your brother gets you know uh run over by a car you should take care of them every everybody has that it's part of our DNA but the idea that you

should worry about somebody in sedan who's starving to death that was not a thing in the ancient world And it wasn't just because of communication issues he didn't know about this is Dan. It's because that was somebody else's concern. Our concern is our group. Okay, that makes sense. So I think in some ways, if I understand you correctly, we have an answer to the question I started by asking you in the sense of, is this an improvement morally to use your terms that you used progress, or is this just a change and a shift that's not actually

morally better. That's the heart of the question that I want to ask because you're right, I agree with you. This is, we can use terms like revolution and transformation for the teachings of Jesus, how they've been spread around the world. It's that significant. But part of my question is, is this actually a genuine improvement? Do we have obligations to care for the poor? Or are these just inclinations that bubble up because of our culture or because of evolution. And it sounds like you're saying just for clarity that these are just inclinations that bubble up because of culture, we don't actually have those obligations. I mean, I think the problem is that you're, in your, in your worldview, if you don't have objective reality that we can access, that there are no grounds for

for what we think, what we believe, how we behave, that you've got to have some kind of objective grounding for it. And it's very difficult for you to understand a world in which people have very distinct beliefs and understanding of what's true and how they want to behave if they don't have it grounded in these kinds of objective anchors, if you want to call it. I'm not sure what you would call them, but you've got to have these objective truths. You know, and so it's very platonic of you. I mean, you know, this is, you know, this goes back to Plato. and it's completely understandable. It's what I used to think.

And now I realize it doesn't make any sense. So you don't need objective groundings for feeling like you need to help somebody in need. It's part of how you are wired. It's not because, like, you don't have, it's not like you have a 10 commandments written on the law. And you see this one, oh, don't steal. Okay. There it is. That's the objective thing.

I cannot steal. Therefore, I won't steal. it's it's that you have certain you have certain inclinations that are built into you and you shouldn't say that that's just why you feel it or it is merely because you have a subjective view or you have a feeling it's not like merely or just it's it's what it means to be a human being and so that so we have different views and it's rooted in your sense there has to be some kind of objectivity or there are no grounds for faith belief understanding of truth behavior or anything else And I think that's completely and demonstrably wrong. And that's fine.

You call the moral argument blindingly flawed. That doesn't bother me at all. I appreciate your clarity on it. Yeah, look, that's totally fine on me. I appreciate when someone doesn't dance around it and they say exactly what they think. I don't think maybe I'm wrong that I'm failing to understand this. I've read tons of evolutionary ethics, atheist. I'm Kirby Kelly.

And in my new book, The Fabric of Hope, I want to walk you through seasons of suffering, uncertainty, and waiting, and remind you of this truth. God is never absent and he is never far away. When life unravels, hope can feel impossible or out of reach. Maybe today you're feeling like things are falling apart and you're wondering if you can trust God's good plans for your life. But what if, even here, God is still working to create something beautiful. Through honest stories and encouragement, the fabric of hope invites you to see your story through a new lens, one where your hard seasons have purpose and your waiting isn't empty. If you're longing for hope that will never unravel no matter what comes your way,

the fabric of hope is for you. Find it wherever books are sold. Ethics had a lot of conversations. I'm simply asking the question, what best explains this deep belief we have in moral rights and in moral duties and in our obligation to the poor. What best explains that? And it seems to me, if I'm failing to understand something, I would push you back and say you're failing to understand this. And again, maybe this is just bringing clarity for folks. But you write in your books.

I'm just saying that it seems like that you're, it's because you say it's just based on subjectivity. if that's like a lower criterion of truth, because that's what you generally think. It's a lower criterion of truth. And so I'm saying that's – I don't think you understand it if you think it's a lower criterion of truth. I think when it comes to morality, then you can't escape a relativistic morality. That's my point. So again, back to history and back to –

You can escape it. Okay, so that's where – let me read this, and then you tell me how you think. you can escape it in a meaningful way. Okay? So you write this in the introduction, page 14. You said, some evangelical Christians tell me this makes no sense. And by the way, let me take a step back and you can correct this story. You're talking about how this is chapter two, the ancient quest for happiness.

And you described that you left the faith for what I know, would I know how to behave without any direction from above, would I have no more? would I have no moral compass, would I fall into meaninglessness, nihilism, anarchy, and despair? Would I be drunk in, would it be drunk in revelry every night? Well written, by the way. You said, despite these concerns, I felt driven to fall where I thought the truth led. In the end, I didn't see an alternative for reasons unconnected with biblical scholarship. I began to recognize that I had become an agnostic. And of course, that's your book, God's problem and the problem of evil, an important book in its own right. One of my biggest surprise was that my deconversion had almost zero effect on my daily life. Anarchy and wild living never did arrive. Today, all these years later, I'm no less ethical than I was

before. I'm not much more ethical either. I appreciate your candor as it turns out, but I do seem to have a more refined sense of what it means to be a moral person. And I do work hard, often without much success, to do what is right, both for myself and for others. And then we get to the key point. Now I'm just reading as for context so people understand and get it stated correctly. You said, some evangelical Christians tell me this makes no sense, that unlike believers in God, I have no reason to be moral. They think I'm deceived when I insist I feel a deep commitment to other members of a species that originated through time, matter, and chance.

Without divine guidance, they say, I have no grounds for deciding what is right and wrong, and no incentive to behave well. So when I read this, my thoughts were a few things. I don't think you're deceived at all when you feel a deep commitment to other members of your species. I don't know why any Christian would tell you that you're deceived in that. I think without God, somebody could have some means or reasons to decide what is right and wrong, and they could have some incentive to behave well. But when this says, I feel a deep commitment, you keep pointing back again as far as I understand you correctly,

to inclinations and feelings and beliefs, and it says this originated through time, matter, and chance. So these beliefs that are deep-seated, in your own words, emerge through time, matter, and chance. So given that evolution is a contingent process, and it could have resulted in a different outcome, Darwin himself said, why does a process that creates feelings in us through time, matter, and chance, have any authority? Why is one feeling better than another feeling if time, matter, and chance, are the driving forces behind it? That's the question for me, and I think that's where we're differing. I don't see why that subjectivity results in, it answers the question of why we should be

moral. Right. I know. I know that's your view. And you have a lot of feelings for a lot of things. not sure what you're drinking now. Is that coffee? You know what? It's a think biblically mug, Bart. If we meet in person, I would give you one. It's literally just water. Yeah. Okay. Well, okay. So, you know, why do you like to drink water? You know, you've got this inclination and you just, you know, you want to drink water and you like water. I'm drinking, I'm drinking a combination of tonic and juice here. And, you know, I like that. And it's, it's what I drink because it's what I like. And I prefer drinking that, and I think I ought to drink that.

And the fact that I feel that way and that I really love this mixture that I'm drinking, this is this emotion of love toward it and its inclination to make me want to make this thing and drink, it does not prove that there's a God. It proves that I'm shaped in a certain way to have inclinations, and I try to follow them. You could argue that the inclinations were given to me by God, which is your view, C.S. Lewis's view. my view is that you can explain this without appealing to God, that there are other problems in believing in God

that we're not getting into here, obviously, but I have no problem with believing that we've developed in certain ways so as to prefer certain things to others and to feel so firmly committed to those beliefs that we act out on them, we base our entire lives on them. And it isn't because there has to be some kind of objectivity

or we shouldn't feel that way. I mean, I'm going to like this thing, whether, you know, there's an objective value up there in the sky that says the tonic and this juice mixture is good. It's good because I think it's good. You might find it repulsive. I find human sacrifice repulsive. Other people found it good. So, and, yeah, so, and if it is an objective value that's been given to us, you still have to explain why for the vast majority of human history, most people I haven't shared your moral values. So on the last part, that's obviously where we differ.

And you're right that people don't share my particular moral values. But it is interesting, the commonality again across culture on basic moral principles. I think that's what requires explanation. But that's a secondary point we've gone back and forth on. But I will just point out that every species has this. It isn't just humans who can think and believe in God. every species has shared moral values. I mean, it doesn't matter whether you're talking about chimpanzees or honeybees.

They all do. And so the fact we have it, I mean, do you think that the fact that you have guardian bees that protect the hive by killing themselves in order to keep an invader out, is that a proof for the existence of God? I don't think so, but it's a universal honeybee view. So we're just going to disagree on this. I'm just saying that my view is as coherent as your view. So it's not, yeah, it's not just, you know, some kind of subjective like I'm choosing. Like, it's not like that.

It is just as coherent because I think it's written into us because of our evolution. Okay, so I'm actually not trying to persuade you to believe differently anymore than you're probably trying to persuade me. One of the things I do in the show is I want clarity for people listening exactly what's at stake, what morality entails, and then people can decide what they think that's part of the goal. So I'd say a couple things back, and then I'll certainly let you respond if you want to, but I have one last question for you. You want to respect your time. But the example that you gave about drinking water or juice and tonic is it's a feeling, it's an urge, it's an instinct. So I agree with you, we drink and we act biologically because of instinct. The question is, are our moral beliefs akin to instinct?

And this is where Lewis also argued separately. He said, we have instincts to help people and we have instincts to hurt people. So just like you have instincts to drink water or drink tonic, if there's no human value, if there's no standard outside of us, then one is really not any better than the other, morally speaking, although it might be better biologically, that's a separate issue. And so your example seems to show that all the things you rail against in the book, racism, genocide, sexism, in fact, there's a point in your book where you seemingly condemn Christians for forcing their morals on other people.

if morality is all instinct, I don't even know how to make sense of those kinds of moral condemnations in the way that you do. So you said that I have some inconsistency earlier. Fine, I'll leave it to our viewers and listeners to decide if I think there's inconsistency there. But I think there's an inconsistency

in just saying morality is a matter of inclination and preference, but then favoring and choosing to give to the poor in a way that seems to be morally superior and then in your book condemning things like Christians who weaponize the Bible against others. So I think there's an inconsistency there. Tell me why there's not, and then I have one last question for you, if that's okay. I think there's only an inconsistency if you think there has to be an objective value that you're subscribing to. I still think you really don't understand the idea of how subjectivity and our inherent human nature guides us in action so that it's not

Just that. It is that. That is how we are. Of course, and drinking juice is an analogy. It's not a moral act, although it can be a moral act. I agree. You know, if I were drinking cyanide, you would probably say, that ain't good. That's immoral because you're killing yourself. So, but, you know, so I have just as strong moral impulse as you have, but I don't think that saying that it's rooted in some kind of objective morality. simply makes any sense if you look at the history of the human race. And if you look at cross-cultural anthropology and other things. So we're just going to disagree on that. I think that the idea of objectivity provides people with a kind of sense of satisfaction, that their views are rooted in ultimate reality, and that other people are just making stuff up.

And I get that impulse, is what I had for a long time. I don't agree with it anymore. I think that it's just wrong. It's not why we behave. If we all did have an objective sense of morality, the world would not be in the mess that it's in right now. So it's in, oh, man, I have so many questions for you. When you said a kind of satisfaction, it depends on what we mean by satisfaction.

It's not a feeling of satisfaction for me. The question for me is, what is reality, what is true? And I think that's your same question. You make that very clear. And so I think part of the question to clarify is this, belief that we have and the majority of people today hold a view of moral realism. I would argue throughout history, such as burning a child alive for entertainment is wrong. I think that tells us something about the nature of the world, the value of a child, our obligations to one another,

how we should behave and not only love our neighbor, but love thy stranger. I think those are clues to the way reality is. Sounds like you are satisfied to use the same term in kind of a bottom-up evolutionary explanation that gives us certain inclinations. So we can choose to adopt the teachings of Jesus or not choose them, but that explanation seems to adequately capture our moral beliefs. Is that fair? Would you land there?

Is that a fair summary? I mean, under your system, people do choose to follow Jesus' teachings or not, too. everybody chooses. So whether you believe in objective reality or not, everybody chooses. Agreed. Yeah. And of course the question is, are there better choices and worst choices, morally speaking? That's the rude to question. Many people who deny that subjectivity can be like a compelling argument say, well, you have no reason to think this then. Why do you think that's better? And you think it's better because it corresponds to something objective out there that somehow you have access to, but throughout history, most other people have not had access to.

And so that's why I mean it's kind of comforting because you think you've got the access to the objective reality. Well, okay. All right. We'll leave psychological motivations aside. I think we've gotten a point where we've at least clarified for our viewers where we differ, why we differ, which is the goal of this. Again, there's a ton more we did not get into. I thought your section on walking through Epicureanism and Stoicism. and the third one, cynicism was really interesting, people trying to make sense of the good life.

That was fascinating. We didn't get into your chapter on altruistic behavior, which I'm still thinking through in my own mind. Like, can there be any truly, purely 100% morally motivated acts, or is there always some egoism? I don't have that perfectly answered, but your chapter there was really thought-provoking. That could be an entire discussion in itself.

not to mention some of the New Testament challenges that anybody familiar with your work would expect. So we didn't get there. But I think from my perspective, we have a lot of clarity on this. So the last page of your book, one more question if this is okay. And I think this also might clarify how we diagnose morality is going to shape what we think the good. Spring is full of special days. Easter, Mother's Day, graduation and Father's Day. and Crosswalk has made it easier than ever to find the perfect faith-filled gift for every one of them.

The Crosswalk's Spring Gift Guide is your one-stop destination for meaningful gifts your loved ones will treasure. From Bibles and Devotionals to books that inspire, it's all right there at crosswalk.com. Visit crosswalk.com today and find a gift that speaks to the heart. Life could be. But you wrote this at the end, and again, I just thought this was so interesting. You said if we choose not to do much or anything at all, and this is in terms of caring for the poor, showing charity, et cetera, the way you've described, if we choose not to do much or anything at all, we sometimes feel pains of guilt and regret. Why is that? Now, I think you know the answer of why I feel that way. I would say we feel guilt because we actually are guilty. There is a real moral code. there's right and there's wrong that exists in the world. And I would argue that we intuitively and naturally know this differently than history, differently than with science. And we live our lives

as if there's a real moral code. Hence, we need forgiveness for sin. So when I read the end, I was like, this makes sense from my perspective. Tell me why you think we feel guilt and what you think we should do about it. Well, I do, you know, and I, I, I, uh, we do feel guilt and it's built into us. I mean, you, as you said, you've read a lot of evolutionary biology and so it's not difficult to explain this from evolutionary biological, evolutionary biological grounds. The, the, uh, the sense of guilt comes to us because we're doing things that might harm ourselves or others.

And that's a problem evolutionarily because if you harm others within your community, you may destroy your community. And it's not that we've evolved the sense of guilt so that we don't destroy our communities, is that people who have this sense of guilt, this idea that they're acting wrongly, people who have that tend to survive better than others, and their genes survive better than others. And so it's within our genetic code to feel this. I have no problems with saying some actions are right and some are wrong without an objective standard.

Yes, I think that is right. I know that sounds like people believe in objectivity, you have no grounds for saying that. But I'm just telling you, yes, you do. Because it's written into what it means to be a human being. And if you are a human being, that's how you feel. So it's not written in there because God gave it to, in your opinion. Let me just emphasize as well.

For people who are listening to this, this debate of objectivity and subjectivity is like not the point of my book at all. I mean, the point of the book is about a transformation of our ethical sense. And the argument, I think, as you're saying, Sean, that it would work whether you're a believer or not in terms of the argument of my book, about the historical transformation. But objectivity and subject is not something I really, other than like in the introduction to a couple chapters where I explain why I don't think you have to believe in God to be a moral person. So I totally agree with you that you make more arguments in the book than the question of objectivity and subjectivity. But I thought it's fascinating the way you dealt with a moral argument, how you weighed in an evolution claimant our morality. If we have this huge moral transformation, it raised the question what best explains it.

You have very well, yeah, you have very well stated your argument very clearly. Appreciate you taking time to come on. I love this back and forth. Thanks so much, Bart. And I would commend to our listeners. There's other stuff we disagree on. which is totally fine, but your book, Love Thy Stranger. I was fascinated by it.

I was intrigued by it. And just so you know, there's a few times I was like, amen to your book. So I hope folks will pick it up and wrestle with more of what's in it than we cover here. Thanks for coming on. Well, thanks for having me. Hey, friends and faithful listeners. My name is Jen, the host of the Bible explained. And I believe that reading the Bible shouldn't be a chore.

It should be fun. Each weekday morning, you're going to hear me dive into scripture, sharing insights from cross-references, ancient history, and even Hebrew and Greek, all in a simple, approachable way to help you see the Bible like never before. Grab your coffee and join me on The Bible Explained. Now available on lifeodio.com and your favorite podcast app.