Michael W. Austin

Philosophy Professor. Author. Speaker.

Month: April 2015 (page 1 of 2)

Cultivating Humility

Humility 2How can we grow in the virtue of humility? In this post, I’ll offer some practical suggestions for how to grow in this virtue.

I recently discussed the nature of Christian humility. But of course merely understanding a virtue is not enough. If we are serious about following Jesus Christ, we want to become virtuous, to become more like him. In this post, we’ll look at some ways to grow in this crucial Christian virtue.

Continue reading

What is Humility?

Jesus washing feetMany people are confused about the nature of humility. A common misunderstanding of the Christian virtue of humility is that it means having a low view of oneself. On this understanding, the humble person thinks that neither she nor her accomplishments are worth very much. She will deflect or reject any praise of her character, accomplishments, and talents.

While some philosophers argue that humility is not a virtue, the Christian tradition holds humility in high regard. For those who want to imitate Christ, and grow in this virtue, we must first understand what it is. And for that, we must look to the example of Christ, our moral exemplar.

Continue reading

The Allure of Gentleness

Even though we never met, Dallas Willard played a significant role in my decision to become a philosophy professor. I remember reading his classic book, The Spirit of the Disciplines, when I came across the following passage:

“As a response to this world’s problems, the gospel of the Kingdom will never make sense except as it is incarnated – we say “fleshed out” – in ordinary human beings in all ordinary conditions of human life. But it will make sense when janitors and storekeepers, carpenters and secretaries, businessmen and university professors, bankers and government officials brim with the degree of holiness and power formerly thought appropriate only to apostles and martyrs” (pp. 243-244).

Continue reading

Autonomy and Divine Command Theory

qmarkI am not an advocate of Divine Command Theory, but one objection to it that has some popularity with the new atheists is that following such a moral view is childish. The claim is that such a view is childish because the person who accepts and operates under such a framework is not freely deciding which moral principles to accept and follow. Unlike the mature moral individual, who weighs the arguments for and against accepting some moral principle, the follower of some form of divine command theory just accepts whatever divine commands are present in her favored religion. She does not reason about them, consider their significance, but rather she just blindly and irrationally follows them.

But this view of the divine command theorist is incorrect. A follower of some form of divine command theory can still exhibit moral autonomy and rationality, in the following sense. She may not be imposing a moral law on herself, but she can exercise moral autonomy by deciding which putative divine commands are genuine divine commands, judging which interpretations of those commands are correct, determining the implications the particular commands have, and reflecting upon how best to apply those commands into her specific circumstances. This requires much more than proof-texting to support one’s political, social, or moral views.

The divine command theorist can still be self-governing in the moral realm, by autonomously choosing to be governed in that realm by another Self.

This sort of approach would require the intellectual virtues of carefulness, tenacity, fair-mindedness, humility, honesty, and courage, among others. These are not “childish” traits, but rather are central traits of the excellent mind.

God’s Goodness and Difficult Old Testament Passages

The Story of Isaac

Old Testament passages dealing with slavery, the status of women, and the destruction of peoples such as the Canaanites and Amalekites have seemed morally problematic to both Christians and non-Christians. These passages, among others, are difficult because they portray God as seemingly condoning and even commanding actions that are, at least on the face of it, immoral. They are thought to be inconsistent or at least in tension with the claim that God is omnibenevolent and morally perfect. A variety of responses have been given with respect to such morally problematic passages. One response, the Concessionary Morality Response (CMR), includes the claim that portions of biblical morality are concessionary insofar as they (i) fall short of God’s ideal morality for human beings; and (ii) are instances of God making allowances for the hardness of human hearts and its consequences in human cultures. My purpose in this essay is to consider the plausibility of the Concessionary Morality Response as a biblical and philosophical component of a defense of God’s perfect moral character.[1]

Continue reading

Older posts

© 2017 Michael W. Austin

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑

%d bloggers like this: