The Persuasive Power of the Moral Argument (Podcast ft. David Baggett)

Frm the SAFT Podcast:

Ever wondered why we can't find any human who has kept the moral code to the letter? Where do we get the sense of guilt and shame from? And why is it that the most rational thing to do is not the most right thing to do? Wondering how these observations add up? Join us as the world's leading expert on the moral argument walks us through on how to use these realisations about morality to point towards God.

The Case for a Personal God from Morality: Guilt

The Case for a Personal God from Morality: Guilt[1]

 The universe and everything contained within it is either the result of a personal God (or gods) or a non-personal essence, force, or set of natural processes. Ultimate reality is either personal or non-personal, and everything within the universe flows from one or the other. This leads to the question: What best explains the observable data in the universe, such as cosmological constants, DNA, human personality, and morality? Are these things the result of a personal God or a non-personal essence, force, or set of natural processes?

 Although this article cannot reasonably tackle all of these data points (cosmological constants, DNA, human personality, and morality), it does look at one particular component of morality—namely, guilt—as evidence for the existence of a personal God. In what follows, we will examine the personal nature of guilt, how guilt points toward a personal God, and the connection between these matters and Christian theism.

 

The Personal Nature of Guilt

 Guilt is a nearly universal experience that involves painful feelings of remorse following a moral failure of some sort. What about the nature of guilt: is it personal or non-personal? Generally speaking, non-personal rules and principles, such as mathematical formulas, do not elicit feelings of guilt within individuals; only when one human person has wronged or harmed another person (or group of persons) in some way does guilt arise. As John Henry Newman avows, “Inanimate things [such as rules and principles] cannot stir our affections; these are correlative with persons.”[2] Similarly, H. P. Owen posits, “Why should the failure to enact [values] engender guilt? I can betray a person and I know that I deserve the guilt I feel. But I cannot see how I could betray values if they are impersonal.”[3] Likewise, R. Scott Smith notes,

 [W]hen we experience moral failing, we often feel guilt or shame. However, it does not make sense to feel that way in light of some nonspatial, timeless abstract entity with which we cannot even interact. Instead, we have those feelings in the presence of a person. This view does not make sense if morals are just abstract principles that do not have some connection to us.[4]

Presumably, as Newman, Owen, Smith, and others suggest, it would be odd to feel guilt before an abstract, impersonal moral code.[5] Therefore, there is reason to think that the moral code is personal.

 

How Guilt Points Toward a Personal God

There are many occasions where guilt can be explained solely in relation to human persons. However, there are times when no human person is in view and one still feels guilty. For instance, individuals sometimes feel guilty for failing to use their talents and abilities properly, and other times when persons experience guilt when they sense that they have wasted their lives.[6] Additionally, there are times when the person who has been wronged is no longer around to confer forgiveness, and still other occasions when the wrong seems to be so grievous[7] that no human person seemingly has the authority to offer forgiveness.[8]

In situations like these, before whom is one guilty? It becomes increasingly understandable that many would suggest nothing less than a personal God who bestows such talents and abilities to human persons. As J. P. Moreland says, “[I]f the depth and presence of guilt feelings is to be rational, there must be a Person toward whom one feels moral shame.”[9] Moreover, who is in a position of authority (besides God) to offer forgiveness in moments like these? For these reasons, if the cause of conscience and the One before whom humans are ultimately guilty cannot be completely accounted for in the visible world, then perhaps when individuals fall short they have not merely broken a rule, but rather, as A. E. Taylor claims, “insulted or proved false to a person of supreme excellence, entitled to whole-hearted devotion.”[10]

 

Christian Theism

In a previous article, I suggested that the moral value of justice gestures in the direction of a personal God, and that on the Christian view, God is intrinsically personal and therefore accounts powerfully for the personal nature of justice (and the personal nature of morality in general). In this article, I claim that the personal nature of guilt provides further evidence not only for the existence of God, but of a God who is personal. Here, the beauty of Christian theism is that God does not leave us floundering in our guilt; rather, he makes a way (through his Son, Jesus Christ) for us to be forgiven (of our sins and guilty state), restored (in right relationship to him), and ultimately transformed not only into better people, but into new people (2 Cor. 5:17).


Stephen S. Jordan (Ph.D.) is currently the Campus Pastor at Liberty Christian Academy in Lynchburg (VA), where he previously served as a high school Bible teacher for nearly a decade. He is also a Bible teacher at Liberty University Online Academy, an Associate Editor at www.moralapologetics.com, as well as a Senior Research Fellow and curriculum developer at The Center for the Foundations of Ethics at Houston Baptist University. Prior to these positions, Stephen served as a youth pastor in North Carolina for several years and taught courses at a local Seminary Extension for a year. He possesses four graduate degrees (MAR, MRE, MDiv, ThM) and a PhD in Theology and Apologetics. His doctoral dissertation was on the moral argument, where he argued for the existence of a personal God from morality. Stephen and his wife, along with their four children, reside in Goode, Virginia. In his spare time, he enjoys spending time with his family, being outdoors, fitness, sports, reading, and building relationships with people over good food.  


[1] Portions of this article adapted from my unpublished doctoral dissertation at Liberty University.

[2] John Henry Newman, An Essay in Aid of a Grammar of Assent (London: Burns, Oates, & Co., 1874), 109.

[3] Interestingly, immediately after this quote, H. P. Owen boldly claims, “Personal theism gives the only explanation by affirming that value-claims inhere in the character and will of God. In rejecting them we do not merely reject an abstract good; we do not merely reject our own ‘good’ (in the sense of our ‘well-being’); we reject the love which God is in his tri-une being.” Admittedly, this may be moving a bit too fast here, but it is interesting to consider how Owen invokes the Trinity in order to explain the personal nature of value-claims and the guilt one experiences when failing to keep them. H. P. Owen, The Moral Argument for Christian Theism (London: George Allen & Unwin, 1965), 80.

[4] R. Scott Smith, In Search of Moral Knowledge: Overcoming the Fact-Value Dichotomy (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2014), 317. More directly, H. H. Farmer claims, “[Sin] is something through which a man is set against God, the word God standing not for an impersonal Moral Order or Creative Life Force, nor for a man’s own Better Self, nor for the Totality of Social Ideals, but for the Eternal as personal will which enters into relation with the will of man in a polarity or tension of personal relationship.” H. H Farmer, The World and God: A Study of Prayer, Providence and Miracle in Christian Experience (London: Nisbet & Co., 1933), 173.

 [5] Paul Copan, True for You, But Not For Me (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 1998), 62.

[6] This usually occurs later in life or when one is on his or her deathbed.

[7] Similar to the way A. E. Taylor describes the indelibility and dirtiness of guilt, Lewis explains one’s response to grievous actions in this way: “Much, we may feel, can be excused to human infirmities: but not this—this incredibly mean and ugly action which none of our friends would have done, which even such a thorough-going little rotter as X would have been ashamed of, which we would not for the world allow to be published. At such a moment we really do know that our character, as revealed in this action, is, and ought to be, hateful to all good men, and, if there are powers above man, to them.” C. S. Lewis, The Problem of Pain (New York, NY: HarperCollins, 2001), 51.

[8] David Baggett and Marybeth Baggett, The Morals of the Story: Good News About a Good God (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2018), 180.

[9] J. P. Moreland, Scaling the Secular City: A Defense of Christianity (Grand Rapids, MI: Baker, 1987), 88.

[10] A. E. Taylor, The Faith of a Moralist (London: MacMillan and Co., 1951), 207.

Squid Game as Anti-Gospel Lecture Series

It has long been argued that everyone is a theologian promoting through their actions, words, products, and attitudes something about whatever god(s) they either do or don’t believe in and that god(s)’s relationship to the world and those in it.  If this is true, then some of the most influential theologians today are not lecturing in the academic commons of universities or seminaries; instead, they are those directors and creators of viral videos and/or tv/streaming series that enjoy wide acclaim, accumulate countless views, and are reiterated by cultural memes, satires, commentary, and popular discussion. Believers living among such voices must not only be aware of such implicit and explicit theologies that are celebrated and revered in our culture, but they must also be prepared to point people who don’t even realize they are being lectured to toward true biblical theology by correcting where competing theologies get it wrong and communicating in compelling ways what is right concerning the Lord God and his relationship to the world.  

Enter Squid Game—an immensely popular new (though now considered only relatively new) Netflix series that secured the record for the biggest series launch when it eclipsed 111M views shortly after its release. What have over a hundred million viewers taken their time to observe? The answer is a nine-episode Korean thriller that follows Seong Gi-hum—a desperate man who has hit rock bottom—and hundreds of others who are equally destitute as they compete in an extreme series of games for the equivalent of about 38 million dollars (US currency). What becomes clear early in the series is that only one person can win the prize money and those who lose any of the competitions end up paying with their lives. For a host of reasons, I cannot warmly recommend viewing this series to those reading this. However, assuming some will and don’t want to have anything important exposed, I must mention that I will be revealing things about this show in the remainder of this discussion that might spoil elements of the story (grim and uninspired though it may be).  

Given that hundreds of millions of people around the world have watched this series and have also, no doubt, been introduced to, if not, influenced by the implicit and explicit theology that it consciously or subconsciously promotes, I could not help but seek to expose its narrative for what it is (at least in part)—an anti-gospel message—with the hopes of directing people to a vastly superior story.  

The Gospel Narrative 

Before one can understand how Squid Game portrays what might be described as an anti-gospel narrative, she must first come to grips with important elements of the true gospel of Jesus Christ. The gospel message begins with a perfect world that God created. In this world, the Lord’s most special creations—human beings—were uniquely designed to relate to him personally and gloriously. However, shortly after God completed his creation and established proper boundaries to keep it that way, mankind disobeyed God, allowing sin to infect everything about the human person and the world that he/she inhabits. As a result, the creatures that were made to relate meaningfully to God were separated from him (both in life and in death), became indebted in their own iniquity, and were rendered woefully incapable of achieving, working, winning, or paying their way back into the Divine’s good graces. It was in this desperate situation that the benevolent Creator of the universe decided to enter the broken world in a most special way—through his Son Jesus (God made flesh). This Jesus lived a perfect life, was punished for the sins of others when he was crucified on a cross, and rose again three days later, paying the sin debt that humanity owes and defeating the power of death for all who would trust in him. Placing faith in Jesus’ person and work results in reconciliation with God and eternal life (where wrath and punishment because of sin once ruled). All this is made possible through grace for those who believe. One day, the same Jesus who came to die will return to reign with his people in a new heaven and a new earth for all eternity. This is the greatest story and it communicates an accurate understanding of God, the human person, sin, redemption, and hope found in Jesus Christ.  

The Anti-Gospel Narrative of Squid Game 

The gospel narrative and Squid Game’s narrative begin in much the same way. Both depict people in over their heads in immense debt (the gospel involves debt to sin and for the game participants it is mostly monetary debt to creditors or loan sharks). The theme of resulting desperation rings true in both stories also as we see people seemingly unable to have their very real issues fixed in their own strength. However, something intervenes to provide an answer for the sorry figures in Squid Game in the form of an opportunity to win liberation from their problems in a series of games. Throughout these games, it is the cleverness and ability of the players that takes centerstage and their personal strength is awarded with opportunities to advance closer to victory. Along the way, those who can’t compete well die (with the kind of violent efficiency that seems to undervalue human life altogether). The main character—who I guess you might call a protagonist—is thrust into this scenario and ends up as the last man standing, winning the vast sum of money and “freedom” from the crippling debt he owed. However, though victorious, Seong Gi-hum can’t enjoy his winnings as he remembers what he and others were made to go through to earn it. He wanders for a year or so and finds himself in much the same position he was when the story began—bitter and depressed. As time progresses, the viewer and Seong Gi-hum learn that the game’s creator had entered the competition as one of the contestants—not to save the contestants, but to observe the competition firsthand. This creator is eventually taken out of the game in a clandestine way, sparing him the pain of a violent death in the dystopia that he himself created. It is also revealed that the creator of the game is terminally ill and desired one more cheap thrill at others’ expense before he died. The games have become a tradition in which the creator invites the super-affluent to make large wagers on players and the outcomes of individual events throughout each year’s competition. This tradition appears poised to continue even after the creator dies. The show is a pessimistic look at humanity that glorifies horror and exalts the human capacity to work his way out of trouble. However, even when such a victory is attained, viewers also see that it cannot be enjoyed by the one who has worked so hard to win.   

Two Narratives Collide 

By now I’m sure you have already identified some of the ways Squid Game serves as a sharp antithesis to the gospel message of Jesus Christ. However, in case you missed some of the important parallels between these two stories, here is a helpful list.  

Benevolent Creator Vs. Selfish Sadist 

In the gospel story the Creator is an all-powerful and benevolent God who desires to share his love for his Son in the Spirit with others—namely, human beings (Neh. 9:6; 1 John 3:1). This is why he creates them in the first place and is highly interested in redeeming them when they go astray (John 3:16). In Squid Game, the creator figure is a selfish sadist who has near-absolute control over the domain of the competition and its competitors which he manages for cheep thrills and personal gain.  

The Image of God in Man Vs. Expendable Game Pieces 

According to the Bible, human beings are fearfully and wonderfully made with great purpose, originally equipped with the capacity to reflect the Creator’s glory (Gen. 1:26-27; 2:7; Psalm 139; Eph 2:10). In fact, even after the fall, God repeatedly reiterates that human life, even in its broken condition, is not only highly valued, but loved and should be treated as such (Gen. 9:6; James 3:9). In Squid Game, humans are portrayed more like expendable pieces on a diabolical board game. They are there simply to entertain those who are watching from the outside placing their bets as they would in a horse or dog race. Characters come and go with such great frequency and violence that it is easy to become desensitized to what one is seeing as human life is snuffed out with gruesome efficiency.  

Salvation by Grace through Faith Vs. Salvation by Works 

The gospel of Jesus Christ teaches salvation by grace through faith and reveals that men and women are totally incapable of doing anything in their own power to be reconciled to the Creator and repay the immeasurable debt they owe because of sin (Eph. 2:8-9). Salvation is offered as a gift from God to those who place their trust in who Jesus is (God made flesh) and what he accomplished (redemption through the cross and empty grave) (Rom. 10:9-10). The anti-gospel of Squid Game teaches that freedom from desperation and debt is achieved by personal performance in the series of competitions that have been laid out for them. It is their cleverness, agility, and effort that will see them through to the end. However, even in this series, all but one proves they were up to the challenge. The majority learn that even their best efforts aren’t enough to bring them salvation.  

Savior Sacrifices himself Vs. People are Sacrificed for a Chance 

The narrative of God reaches its climax when God sacrifices his only begotten Son to redeem people from their sin (John 3:16-17). This willingness to send Jesus and see him killed for undeserving sinners reveals the immeasurable grace and love of this benevolent Creator (Rom. 5:8). The narrative of Squid Game involves people sacrificing themselves for a chance at redemption and everyone, save Seong Gi-hum, coming up short. In fact, when the creator of the games is due to lose his life by losing one of the competitions (after inserting himself into the games as one of its contestants), it is later learned that he escapes unscathed, only to die a year or so later. In this show, people, not the creators, make the sacrifice and this they do for the sick pleasure of those betting on the action.  

Saved to Life Abundant Vs. Saved to Guilt and Heartache 

The biblical gospel teaches that those who are saved by grace through faith in Christ are given eternal life and this in abundant supply (John 10:10; 11:25). This realization brings hope and peace amid a broken and fallen world as believers anticipate a preferred future with their Lord and Savior in heaven (1 Thess. 4:13ff). The anti-gospel of Squid Game paints a grim picture of the victory it offers as the winner of the competition is plagued with grief and guilt, unable to enjoy his winnings and the security it provides. As soon as he begins to finally turn a corner, he is so riddled with the desire for revenge for what he experienced, that he seeks to reinsert himself into the games to destroy those who are keeping it going. In at least this last observation, it should be noted that the creators of Squid Game do get something right—any salvation that can be earned in one’s own strength does not last and does not ultimately satisfy.  

These observations/comparisons between the true gospel and the anti-gospel of Squid Game are important to identify given the international popularity of this show and the anticipation many have for its second season. Believers would do well to recognize that many millions of people who are viewing these episodes are not only being entertained by a provocative new show, they are also being lectured to in ways that are diametrically opposed to Scripture and what it has to say about who God is and his relationship with mankind. Now that the subversive theology of this series has been exposed, may we be ready to meaningfully engage those who have seen this popular new show and share a better, more compelling story: God’s story of Jesus Christ, the Savior of the World.  


Jeffrey Dickson, PhD studied Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University where he now serves as an adjunct professor of Bible and theology. Dr. Dickson is also the senior pastor of Salem Baptist Church in Sabot, VA, where he lives with his wife Brianna and their children.

Jeffrey Dickson

Jeffrey Dickson, PhD studied Theology and Apologetics at Liberty University where he now serves as an adjunct professor of Bible and theology. Dr. Dickson is also the senior pastor of Crystal Spring Baptist Church in Roanoke VA where he lives with his wife Brianna and their children.