Return to story
I do believe that those who live outside of the Christian world view are capable of doing good deeds. The question for me is, on what basis are those good deeds acted upon? To his credit, Wilkins starts out giving a dictionary definition of "good." He takes that definition and creates moral discussion, which is where it gets problematic.
Where his argument falls short is his statement that he will not be judged by a set of arbitrary laws conceived by others' own agendas. I don't think he realizes that all of us are placed under someone else's set of arbitrary laws based upon their own subjective agendas. Look at Nazi Germany, Columbine in 1999, and, in recent days, the 20 schoolchildren and their teachers who were murdered because of someone's arbitrary mandate to play God and end their lives and his own.
The problem with Wilkins' argument is that he absolutely believes in his moral underpinnings and that his morals are relative and not under a set of absolute laws from an absolute moral Lawgiver. This is one of the points in Linda White's editorial. If we have a moral law, we must posit a moral lawgiver. That moral lawgiver is either an absolutely moral, infinite God, or it is a society or an individual. If they are rooted in an individual or a society, then we can see the slippery slope that embraced standard is taking us.
If there is no moral lawgiver, there is no moral law. There is only one source for moral good, but Wilkins rejects that source. If there is no absolute moral law, there is no good and no evil. Wilkins' argument is found wanting because it self-destructs.
Mr. Lundberg is chapter director/apologist for Ratio Christi, a university student apologetics alliance.