Are Atheists really just as Moral as Christians?
Are Atheists really just as Moral as Christians?
One of the complaints that I often hear is that “Atheists are just as moral as Christians are”. The response is usually made when I present the Moral Argument. Well I always try to clarify that I never said or meant that atheists ARE immoral, just that they have no rational basis for their morality. And this is partly because we can always argue that expedience is always better, e.g. killing all the weak is actually better for society; stealing when no one will ever find out, will help preserve your genes; lying when you can’t get caught will help you make headway in society (and if YOU are better FOR society than all those other fools, then it will be good for society if YOU get ahead) etc.
On the contrary, Christians say character is based on “What you do when you know that you will never be found out,” regardless of the expediency.
But now suddenly there’s a glitch. Researchers in 4 independent and separate studies have found that conservatives are indeed much more “honest” and “moral” than “progressives.”
He actually phrases it as a question, but the conclusion is that conservatives ARE more honest. (click on the link).
Now as you read it you’ll realize that he’s not talking about atheists or Christians specifically, but if you are out there and are an atheist and not a liberal/progressive, I want to talk to you. I’d be very interested in picking your brain. I don’t run into too many of those (I did once, i.e. a conservative atheist, but he became a Christian within 6 months of me meeting with him on a regular basis and giving him “The Case for Christ”).
As I see it, atheists are a subset of the superset of secular progressives. And while Christians are indeed a subset of conservatives, we all know that they are a majority of them in the United States where these surveys were taken. (Correct me if I am wrong).
Now don’t get me wrong. This doesn’t mean that I will stop trusting my atheist friends. I know them too well. I just had lunch with one of them last week and he’s a guy I’d trust with my life and fortune. I say this lest you think I actually think all atheists are not moral.
But point 1 is that:
It does seem to indicate that there may now be some statistical validity to the fact that if there really is no rational basis for your morality, one tends to be less moral. What say you?
Is this a valid conclusion?
This also lends itself to the second point/question:
- If it is true that morality is “good,” for society (and I surmise this from even the atheists’ vehement claim that they are also moral – so presumably morality is a plus for society even in their eyes)
- And it is true that conservatives and Christians are much much more moral than atheists and liberals
Does this not mean that the more GENUINE (and I emphasize that on purpose), the more genuine conservatives and Christians we have, the better for ALL of society?
In which case, shouldn’t even atheists encourage the Christians to continue what they are doing (including evangelizing) so they improve society for all of us?
Just wondering. Naturally next week a new study could come out that refutes these 4 studies, but since that hasn’t happened and we are scientists and philosophers that work with the facts that we have at the moment (and not hope for a future “revelation”), if these studies are true what does this mean? I could be wrong but it does seem to imply something along the lines of the two conclusions I’ve argued for.
Neil Mammen
June 6th, 2008 at 9:09 am
It would have been great if the author of the Examiner article had provided a link to the actual studies. His link to “Pew Research” was a link to another examiner page which showed all examiner articles which referenced Pew Research, of which this article was one. I found the Pew Research Center’s website and searched it for the study in question and could not find it. I suspect that there may have been a study done by the Pew Research Center and the author of that article is grossly misinterpretting the findings. I will reconsider if someone can find a Pew Research Center article on the study.
June 6th, 2008 at 9:32 am
“It does seem to indicate that there may now be some statistical validity to the fact that if there really is no rational basis for your morality, one tends to be less moral. What say you?”
I agree. I have a rational basis for my morality. Survival of the human species depends on it. Christians, on the other hand, have an irrational basis for their morality. “My imaginary friend demands it” Therefore Christians tend to be less moral than atheists.
“If it is true that morality is “good,” for society (and I surmise this from even the atheists’ vehement claim that they are also moral – so presumably morality is a plus for society even in their eyes)
And it is true that conservatives and Christians are much much more moral than atheists and liberals
But it is false that Christians are much more moral than atheists (I’m leaving conservative/liberal out of the equation because it is a figment of your imagination that there are no conservative atheists, there are millions, in fact I would go so far as to say that a majority of atheists are conservative).
“Does this not mean that the more GENUINE (and I emphasize that on purpose), the more genuine conservatives and Christians we have, the better for ALL of society?”
Conservatives, yes. Christians, no.
June 6th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“I agree. I have a rational basis for my morality. Survival of the human species depends on it.”
That’s an incoherent argument. It only makes sense if every moral decision you make is also the most beneficial one for the survival of society at large. How is it beneficial for society at large that we spend time and resources keeping defective infants alive and healthy? (In the case of premature births, birth defects, etc) Yet there are few people who would argue that letting these infants die is the moral course. (Not surprisingly, the only ones I can think of who make such an argument are, in fact, atheists.)
Or what about cheating on a spouse? If you can guarantee with a large degree of certainty that they won’t find out, and also protect yourself to a large degree of certainty from STD’s, where is there a societal benefit in refraining from adultery? In fact, from an evolutionary standpoint, you should be attempting to spread your superior DNA over as wide a spectrum of women as possible. Wasn’t it Richard Dawkins who recently wrote an article claiming that monogamy was, in fact, a relic of a primitive bygone era. Remind me, if he a believer or non-believer? The fact is, your morals, assuming they fall in line with those of the majority of the population, are an artifact of the society’s Judeo-Christian values system. Just because you keep them out of habit doesn’t mean you have a rational reason for doing so.
June 6th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
“Survival of the human species depends on it.”
Read up on the eugenics movement of the early 20th century to see the kind of morality this foundation leads to.
If survival of the species is truly the basis of your morality, then allowing the weak to survive/reproduce is actually an immoral act, as doing so lessens the survival chances of humanity.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
I hope that some of the Christians on this blog can answer this question for me.
Where do your morals come from?
June 6th, 2008 at 3:39 pm
The overarching thesis for this article is a good one. It is evocative in the that fact that it makes you think about what morays really are. But the question is:
1) Do morals make you Christian?
2) Can you have values and morals without Christianity?
3) Can the Atheist or Agnostic have the same system of effectiveness
in their belief strata?
Asking those question will dig deeper into what fuels the standard, is the standard vanity driven therefore won’t convict your behavior, and requires a system of projected negative reinforcement to admonish those who aren’t in sync with the “value” of the day - or is it principled and will check you when crossed or thought out to its natural conclusion? These are the thoughts that should come to mind in basic consideration when granting an audience in our hearts and minds in considering the validity of the social flavor-of-the month of the law written on hearts.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
There are a few sources, but one of the primary sources is a set of documents that we can historically and rationally argue came from the Supreme Moral Authority.
Naturally you will reject that these documents are from the Supreme Moral Authority, but that is our source. Note we can argue that fact on a separate blog entry if you wish.
There are other ways to determine moral absolutes. But even before we get there the first requirement is to agree that there are moral absolutes, otherwise trying to determine what they are seems a waste of time. How can you argue about preferences? e.g. I prefer pepperoni, you prefer chicken pesto. I prefer saving lives regardless of its effect on the race, Hitler prefers killing to purify the race.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:48 pm
As to Conservative Atheists:
Kendenny you implied you were conservative and that atheists are conservative. I’m not talking about economic conservatives (nor was the article) we are talking about moral conservatives. Does that change your statement? Would you consider yourself a moral conservative?
e.g. where do you stand on: Sex outside of marriage, abortion, gay marriage, getting drunk, cussing, etc.
I’d be very interested to find more morally conservative atheists.
June 6th, 2008 at 3:50 pm
MikeH, my morals come from four places.
1. My personal interpretation of Biblical Scription as it applies to my life today (many of the Old Testament laws are only applicable to life before Jesus Christ, though there is much to learn from them)
2. The Holy Spirit, who communicates to me through thought and prayer. You may call it a concience.
3. Biblical interpretation from wiser, more scolarly individuals, whom I trust to advice me in the truth. (A mentor, parent, pastor, etc.)
4. Previous personal experiences, based off of rewards and consequences.
When all four of these support a moral decision, I know I am acting morally. If any one of them is in conflict, then I have additional seeking to do before arriving at the correct moral decision.
Notice I did not place society on my list. It is unimportant to me what today’s fashion trend is. If society says it’s morally ok, it still has no bearing on my moral compass. Even if it puts me in great harm, personally, financially, in my career. If I believe it to be wrong, I do not concider it moral behavior.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Niel,
I agree and pardon my typos - I meant to say at the end “over the law written on our hearts” I used a spell checker and didn’t catch that lol! Sorry - Yes, I agree that there are natural moral absolutes, just as there are mathematic absolutes, such as 1+1 will always equal 2, there is a reason mathematicians call the part of the equation that predicts the sum the “value” - it cannot be diluted by circular reasoning or moral equivocation, you either submit to the reality of what is before you, or you simply can’t count! It is a value or held valuable because it guarantees the outcome of that equation… so the reality becomes there is an immutable characteristic to it. The same with moral absolutes - there are just simply somethings that will be morally right or wrong any way you slice it. Our currency is valuable when we cannot guarantee its worth, we cannot go around smelling our own fumes in the most vain and narcissistic way somehow insisting that our values are important because we feel they are. Values are to be judged upon presentation, if upon presentation there is something that tarnishes that stated value - it is worth less or in some cases worthless than what was esteemed or professed, it is that residual remainder that is the Lefts bain - they don’t want that conviction deficit… they would rather tell you what to value and force you to accept it at whatever the costs than to have to feel that are wrong in any way - they call call that unmititgated, rank nnarcissism.
The same with these progressives insistence that somehow a deviant sexual proclivity should hold the same status with those with innate ethnic backgrounds. They saying the same thing and waging the wrong argument and dragging people’s color down on the same level as their taudry sexual engagements. This is a morally affront to common sense and must be stopped or our nation will cease to exist.
June 6th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
Chad,
“1. My personal interpretation of Biblical Scription as it applies to my life today (many of the Old Testament laws are only applicable to life before Jesus Christ, though there is much to learn from them)”
You might choose to becareful with the “I” word… Interpretation is a very dangerous road to walk on. Interpretation is selective engagement over submitting to what is clearly laid before you. The “I” word the very mantra of the left. Understanding is what we should be seeking, this is why we have rank speculation of law and scripture over submitting to what is plainly laid before us; in some ways interpretation is sheer rebellion as it reveals an unwillingness to accept simple truth over convenience based interventionism.
This is why the Church and our courts are under siege… because people won’t submit to common understanding over a complex matrix of denial geared at alleviating the conviction of sinful behavior because a line is so clealrly drawn… this is exactly why the left wants no part of moral clarity, because just a little of God’s Word goes along way - Just an FYI there my brother.
June 7th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Thank you for your word of caution. I was leaving a short answer to a more complex question. I think there are two levels to my statement regarding “my interpretation”. While I understand that my comments could be misconstrued as moral relativism, by someone who is not guided by the Holy Spirit, I do believe there is an absolute Truth to the universe.
But without divinely led interpretation of scripture by individuals such as Martin Luther and John Wesley, we would not have the wide range of prodestant denominations that we do today. Though, I do not claim to be so bold as to start my own movement by diverging from standard teaching, my interpretation of scripture has lead me to chose to be a member of the Wesleyan Denomination rather than Baptist, Episcopalian, or even Catholisism because the core values and teachings of the Wesleyan Denomination are most inline with my interpretations.
I want to thank all of you for your valuable comments on this blog. I’ve truly enjoyed reading and learning from them.
June 7th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
Neil Mammon: “the first requirement is to agree that there are moral absolutes”
Chad Valentine: “many of the Old Testament laws are only applicable to life before Jesus Christ”
Now, can you see how an atheist might be a little confused by this? Here you have one christian arguing that there are moral absolutes and another that says certain moral laws have changed. How can Old Testaments laws not be appliable now, but still be moral absolutes?
June 7th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Remember you can’t love both God and MammOn : )
My name is actually MammEn so luckily my wife can love both me and God. Whew…
OK that was just a bit of fun. On to the serious stuff.
I won’t try to defend or explain what Chad said, I’m sure he can clarify his meaning. But I will clarify some of the OT laws.
First a little skit:
BARTLET: I like your show. I like how you call homosexuality an “abomination!”
JACOBS (Dr. Laura-like radio psychologist seated nearby): I don’t say homosexuality is an abomination, Mr. President. The Bible does.
BARTLET: Yes it does. Leviticus!
JACOBS: 18:22.
BARTLET: Chapter and verse. I wanted to ask you a couple of questions while I had you here…Here’s one that’s really important, because we’ve got a lot of sports fans in this town. Touching the skin of a dead pig makes one unclean. Leviticus 11:7. If they promise to wear gloves, can the Washington Redskins still play football? Can Notre Dame? Can West Point? Does the whole town really have to be together to stone my brother John for planting different crops side by side? Can I burn my mother in a small family gathering for wearing garments made from two different threads? Think about those questions, would you?
The West Wing script from The Midterms
Well how do we respond to this?
Before we start remember Moral laws are there not because God is capricious, but because those laws actually protect us. Like a seatbelt law. We didn’t come up with the seatbelt law because some fools wanted to stop us from having fun while driving. They came up with it because statistics seemed to show that seatbelts save lives.
OK now let’s look at the OT laws.
We first notice that the Old Testament laws can be divided into four groups, ceremonial laws, judicial laws, regulatory laws and moral laws .
The Ceremonial Laws
One breakdown of the description of the difference of the laws can be found on the Southfield Reformed Presbyterian Church website, here is their description of the ceremonial laws:
“The ceremonial laws refer to the sacrificial rituals: the priesthood, the sacrifices, the Levitical holy days (i.e., the feasts), the temple, the music, the utensils, circumcision, ritual washings, and so on. The ceremonial laws strengthened the faith of the Jews in the coming Messiah, by typifying both Him and the redemption from sin that He would bring. The ceremonial laws were directed to those in Israel. They were restorative, for they reflected God’s mercy and salvation. They were anticipatory, for they looked ahead to the perfect, final salvation wrought by the Messiah. And they were temporary, for as types and shadows they could not really remove the guilt of sin and bring perfection. God always intended to supersede the whole ceremonial system by Jesus Christ .”
Thus, we see that the Ceremonial laws described to the Jews rules and ordinances that were to be observed in the worship of God. Many of my orthodox Jewish friends observe them out of tradition, yet none of them believes that those ceremonial laws should be the laws of the land. Why? Because we are not the theocratic nation of Judah. Moreover, these laws also don’t apply to Christians because Christ has decreed that we do not need to worship at the Temple anymore. He has also told us that we already have a high priest who supplants all other high priests (Himself). And we have an advocate who represents us before God the Father (the Holy Spirit). So the Ceremonial laws do not apply to Christians and they certainly don’t apply to non-Christians.
The Ceremonial laws do however have symbolic value. Many times these rules and regulations reminded the Jews that they were a chosen people, blessed by God and they were not to mix certain things together as an example of their uniqueness. And part of this was God’s plan of how He was going preserve the Jews as a unique group from which His great love would be shown to all mankind centuries later. Many are the races and groups that merged and lost their identities as time went by. But not so with the two main tribes of Israel (Judah and Benjamin).
Yet do note that while many of these ceremonial laws like the ritual dietary laws, are healthy for us to follow, we certainly don’t want the punishments associated with all those laws to be imposed on people– if people ignore these laws they will automatically suffer the physical consequences of their own actions. So, while it would be wise for all of us to use them as advisories I don’t believe that it makes sense to mandate everyone of those that apply to health as laws . There are those however, that involve the health of others, and these in a public service setting do make sense to mandate into law. For instance there are some ancient ceremonial laws that we have made into a US civil laws and with good reason.
The Judicial Laws
Next, we have the Judicial Laws. These laws described ordinances for the government of the Jewish commonwealth and the punishment of offenders. Note that this is where most people get mixed up.
Besides specific laws for the Jews in Israel under a theocracy, the Judicial Laws indicated the punishments that the people of Israel were to use on those who broke the other types of laws. It does not indicate what we non-Jewish nations should do. For us non-Jewish nations, we are to determine our own punishments for laws that are broken. Since we are representative democracy, our representatives are the ones to decide the punishments for us.
So, sorry President Bartlet, we don’t need to or get to stone our neighbors or our rebellious teenagers.
The Regulatory Laws
The Regulatory (also could be called Civil) laws are the laws that God gave to his people as guidance for running their nation. After being slaves for 400 years, very few knew a lot about farming or a building a free society. So God gave them certain laws, like how not to plant two crops next to each other (this also had Ceremonial value), how to build homes with terraces that had a guard wall so that people would not roll off the edge while sleeping. And so on. Despite what “President” Bartlet said in his rant, the punishment for violating these laws were not severe, and were certainly not death.
Think of these laws, like the laws that require your staircases to have banisters of a certain height and width (so kids heads won’t get stuck between them). While these laws have great advisory value, no one in their right mind (except ignorant TV writers) would imagine that these were laws that we would have to punish by death. It certainly never proscribes that in the Bible.
The Moral Laws
Finally, we have the Moral Laws. These are the Ten Commandments and other similar laws. We can all agree that the Moral Laws remain as a primary moral guide and a basis for our natural laws and that there is value in having them taught publicly. But remember the Moral laws while absolute teach us principles that we can extrapolate to other laws.
However, I would go a step further. I think every Christian need to be able to publically defend the VALUE of the Moral Laws and for that matter any of the laws if we intend to impose them on others.
Why?
Because we live in a post Biblical nation. Most people don’t know what’s in the Bible, don’t care what’s in the Bible and don’t agree with what’s in the Bible. Thus, the burden of proof is upon us to be able to rationally and statistically defend the value of the moral laws that are in there.
How do we do this? We do this by utilizing the exceptional work that organizations like Family Research Council (FRC) have done to bring such research to the forefront. FRC has published numerous studies on the effects Divorce, Gay Marriage and so on. We aren’t against these because God capriciously said so. We are against these because they have physical consequences.
Summary on the types of Laws
So let’s quickly summarize what we know about the laws:
We can take the Ceremonial and Regulatory laws as advisories when they apply. They are not moral absolutes.
We should adhere to the Moral laws because they are good for us. These are moral absolutes but follow a hierarchy.
We can ignore the Judicial Laws concerning punishments since the punishments listed there were for the people of a theocratic Israel, and not for our republic. The punishments if any for not adhering to our civil or moral laws in our nation are to be determined by our own legislature. Naturally there are few if any punishments for Ceremonial laws except perhaps for shame or shunning.
But some may ask, “Why should there be any punishment for violating the moral laws? Isn’t there a physical consequence and isn’t that punishment enough.
Well in answer to that: Yes, there is a physical consequence. However, the physical consequence may not occur for generations and in the meantime, many “innocent” people will suffer. Or the physical consequence may not occur every time and like seatbelt laws a punishment maybe good negative reinforcement.
In addition, if an immediate physical punishment is meted out, the one who committed the offense may learn their lesson quickly and perhaps others will see the punishment and be dissuaded from going down the same path. This is also, why it is important that justice be quick and not delayed by years. However, do remember that it is up to our own legislature to determine which moral laws are to be punished and what those punishments should be (i.e. the Judicial consequences).
So are there moral absolutes: Absolutely. Is every law in the Bible a moral absolute. Absolutely not. Some are, some are not. Is that an arbitrary decision? No. Look at the context and you can determine if it is or isn’t. Context and experience is king. Do rational people disagree on some of the peripheral laws. Yes they do, but they agree on the main ones. Do the disagreements indicate there is no Absolute Morality? Not at all. Just because we do not know ALL the moral absolutes does not mean there aren’t any. It just shows that we should be willing to discuss it and show the pros and cons of it, like ANY law and determine the truth. But I would say it is better to err on the side of caution at all times.
Frank also has a lot more to say on this in his book “Legislating Morality”
(c) Neil Mammen from the forth coming book: Jesus WAS involved in Politics! Why aren’t you? Why isn’t your Church.
June 7th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Neil,
Very interesting perspective to respond with - but the issue with non-believers is their ignorance of scripture. In essence trying to explain trigonometry to someone who can’t add… but knows number exist and are relevant somehow - all the while let one dollar end up missing from their heir paycheck and their scream ethics and fairness; kinda one-sided huh? It is a) convicting because they should know but don’t b) over their head, therefore over their knowledge table c) don’t care anyway. So I usually engage in discussing things in a panorama they can draw into their reality, therefore make sense of. Scripture is completely foreign to them so I try to make analogical connections to Scripture though things they can connect to therefore draw home on, and can digest.
June 8th, 2008 at 2:11 pm
“We aren’t against these because God capriciously said so. We are against these because they have physical consequences.”
“It just shows that we should be willing to discuss it and show the pros and cons of it, like ANY law and determine the truth.”
Well, if you don’t just blindly follow biblical law, but use reasoned thought to determine morality, then why would a Christian be more moral than an atheist? That is, if both are using reason to determine right and wrong, then we are getting our morals from the same place.
p.s. Sorry about the name last time.
June 8th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
Mike H,
“Well, if you don’t just blindly follow biblical law, but use reasoned thought to determine morality, then why would a Christian be more moral than an atheist? ”
Mike it is where the heart is - as God [ultimately] judges the heart. The unregenerate heart doesn’t have the impetus to see a clearly drawn line between iniquity and self-serving interest. A regenerate heart has the conviction amplified by the Holy Spirit within, guiding the heart according to Scripture:
John 14:26
“…But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all things that I said to you.”
So, that all being stated… if the everyday believer was in the Word, the Holy Spirit will give guidance to the heart, and recollection to the mind when crossing a moral no-no… this being [now] a regenerate, innate characteristic of the renewed mind. The believer should very quickly be able to discern the difference between broad-based religiosity arguments and a Christ centered relational question.
Eph: 4:23
“…and be renewed in the spirit of your mind”
this cannot happen to the unregenerate mind therefore naturalistic thinking becomes the replacement theology as their bedrock - remember God tells us what he thinks about our “religiosity” and “righteousness” before Him:
Isaiah: 64:6
“…But we are all like an unclean [thing], And all our righteousnesses [are] like filthy rags; We all fade as a leaf, And our iniquities, like the wind, Have taken us away. ”
This happens when Christians are weak in the Word; and without the knowledge of His Word in their hearts… the Spirit cannot recall what has not been entered into the mind, therefore weakness sets in and guessing as well. More damage is done that way than any other thing I can think of. There’s an old axiom that goes something like; “garbage in - garbage out, good stuff in - good stuff out” - it is the very same principle… the Holy Spirit cannot help one recall what one is clearly not ingesting spiritually themselves.
The secular will almost always retreat the the comfort of consensus to battle with spiritual conviction over what is perceived to be right or wrong, they will almost never take individual responsibility for their actions therefore accountability as the use tactics like moral equivocation to attempt to make level the importance of their deviance to them over the standard of knowing when enough is enough. Watch how quickly secular minds will scurry to the safety in numbers response when confronted with arguments being presented in a stark contrast such as right vs. wrong, or good vs. evil - then the debate becomes clearly resolved.
Conviction without the benefit of introspection through the purifying light of Scriptural accountability, means no moral integrity… therefore no moral authority - which equals not moral at all because the system used to supplant Scriptural integrity is humanistic which means it is mailable and convenience based and too flexible to be called principled, as principles are inflexible - so then things become a system of selective engagement to what feels individually comfortable to introduce into ones sphere for practice - this is existential tom-foolery and nothing more.
Resolved.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
MikeH,
no worries on the name. It happens often and is not a big deal. It just allows me to repeat a dumb joke over and over again. : ) My wife groans on cue at that point.
As to your valid question. Let me clarify lest you misunderstand me. The origin of the moral values are STILL God, the only issues are
1. God said so because there are physical consquences. However often the consequences won’t be seen for generations. So when possible we should gather that evidence and show it. But we can’t always do so (e.g. the consequences of No Fault Divorce or the Sexual Revolution weren’t apparent for 40 years).
2. When we get into interpretation and extrapolation issues with other Christians we need to be able to explain how we came to that conclusion based on the text. So the source is still the Bible.
3. When we need to try and convince people who don’t hold the Bible as an authority why the laws are indeed moral it makes sense to take those laws that we can show have been wise and extrapolate it to why it is wise to uphold those laws that we may not have the data yet but came from the same Bible.
The comparison to other laws to determine the truth was in reference to how secular laws are arrived at: e.g. wear seatbelts, or use child carseats. They evaluated the data and arrived at the truth. But this is to convince non-believers. I see no problems with believers accepting in trust the laws in the Bible as long as they are sure they’ve interpreted correctly.
June 8th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
Hello Neil, how are you today?
June 8th, 2008 at 9:26 pm
Chad,
“…But without divinely led interpretation of scripture by individuals such as Martin Luther and John Wesley, we would not have the wide range of Protestant denominations that we do today. ”
King Solomon in all his God inspired wisdom had it right, we are told in Proverbs not interpret the things of the Lord in:
“…Trust in the LORD with all your heart, And lean not on your own understanding; In all your ways acknowledge Him, And He shall direct[fn1] your paths. ” Proberbs 3:5
Sorry buddy, but I wasn’t correcting you but thank you for your reply however I would like to challenge you the following consideration? Based on Scripture noted above - it is clear that leaning to one’s own understanding is equivocated with interpretation which is an act of will, over submission and a willingness to let the Lord direct our understanding seems clear to me upon presentation - therefore I ask this; was Martin Luther interpreting Scripture? Or was the Protestant revolution based on an unmitigated understanding of the Word vs. the influence of man-made dogma in the form of the Catechism?
The latter isn’t scripture… The Catholic Church projected man’s righteousness over the Cross by limiting Christ’s role at the cross by including salvation through transubstantiation but the two are incongruent. Isaiah told us that our “righteousness” is but filthy rags before God - so it would seem to me that is a resolved issue there, and reveals mans arrogance and why apostasy is so rampant today.
“…[There is] one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism”
It is because of man’s failure to submit to Eph. 4:3-4 that we have so many denominations - denominations are mans religiosity against the call for one Church [Body of Christ], and one Baptism [one public profession]. We weren’t supposed to have “denominations” as it were… so I would say because of fallen [though regenerate] man’s pursuit of theological “purity” it devolved into exclusionary politics and is all the evidence we need to see to know - that the more we are in it [leaning to our own understanding] the less we actually get out of it — wouldn’t you say?
June 9th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
I hate to toss a wrench in here but I know I do not have the Holy Spirit in me in any literal sense. He does not bring all things to my remembrance, nor is He my advocate/mediator/intercessor with the Father. What does that make me?
In Truth and Love,
Ernie
June 9th, 2008 at 4:56 pm
Mike H asks:
“I hope that some of the Christians on this blog can answer this question for me.
Where do your morals come from?”
My morals come from the character of God.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Mike H wrote: “Chad Valentine: “many of the Old Testament laws are only applicable to life before Jesus Christ”
Now, can you see how an atheist might be a little confused by this? Here you have one christian arguing that there are moral absolutes and another that says certain moral laws have changed. How can Old Testaments laws not be appliable now, but still be moral absolutes?
You’re confused, in part, because Chad is confusing “moral absolutes” with “theological application of Old Testament laws to Christians.” However, you’re also confused because you’re not listening carefully.
Your end first: nobody said any moral laws had changed. There are plenty of laws in the Old Testament that were ceremonial, not moral. Those are no longer applicable, but they were NEVER moral laws.
Now for Chad: the fact that the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians directly as law, does not imply that the moral laws of the Old Testament are no longer moral laws. Within Christian theology, you (I assume you’re Christian) are not beholden to obey Moses’ laws as rules, because the Holy Spirit inside you is directing you to behave in a manner that conforms to the moral laws. As Paul pointed out, though, that doesn’t abolish the Law, it establishes it.
June 9th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Chad Valentine wrote:
“2. The Holy Spirit, who communicates to me through thought and prayer. You may call it a conscience.”
I’m curious: are you saying the work of the Holy Spirit in your life is the same as the conscience that every man experiences? or are you just using the concept of “conscience” to explain “Holy Spirit” to someone who does not have experience with Him?
If the latter, fine. If the former, I’m not at all sure that ordinary conscience is the same as what Christians encounter when walking in the Spirit; in fact, I’m fairly sure it’s not. To say it is, is to suggest that all humans are born with the same Spirit Christians receive when they’re regenerated. If that’s so, what was the point of Christ’s coming?
June 9th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
Ernie,
From my understanding of Scripture - I will just say this, the Holy Spirit is just what Jesus said it was/is - the “Helper” and is It is the Helper, wouldn’t bringing appropriate scripture to mind in a moment of spiritual need qualify and quantify the “Helper”? I’d say so… Scripture says the regenerate [truly repentant and converted] are indwelt by the Holy Spirit, so if the Word says it… then I believe you are safe in trusting so.
In love my brother
June 9th, 2008 at 6:57 pm
Plumb Bob,
“Now for Chad: the fact that the Mosaic Law no longer applies to Christians directly as law, does not imply that the moral laws of the Old Testament are no longer moral laws. Within Christian theology, you (I assume you’re Christian) are not beholden to obey Moses’ laws as rules, because the Holy Spirit inside you is directing you to behave in a manner that conforms to the moral laws. As Paul pointed out, though, that doesn’t abolish the Law, it establishes it.”
I don’t’ want to come off as some dime-store theologian, but there is something not right right in the latter of your aforementioned response. I know more liberal denomination get sprung on Jesus joy juice and ignore “the law” but we aren’t’ to part with it either. If Christ came and said that not one Jot nor Tittle of the law should pass away until fulfilled - The it would stand to reason [Sorry Greg! lol!] the law is in fact the moral barometer, but a new standard of grace has been set because no man was worthy to carry the cross but Christ, and His law to us is that we love one another as we would ourselves… essentially the nail the Mosaic law is hung on.
Now granted a digressing argument would be then I’d agree with you on the Levitical laws - those are man made. But even Jesus, and Paul let the Pharisee’s and Sadducee’s have it on hypocritical positions such as untying a donkey on the sabbath and so forth. I am just saying - I tend to get a bit jittery when I hear grace dismissal of law rhetoric, there is no Scriptural foundation for its dismissal so i just what to [out of love] challenge you with that in complete humility.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Just to make my case consider this - If the “law” cannot save you… then what is it’s purpose? It must be interrelational, therefore the model for Biblical morality - because morals are for how we relate with each other. If they were entirely religious they would be more in sync with the first 4 commandements… but not so. Just thought I’d add that for your consideration as well. Like I said - It stands to reason.
June 9th, 2008 at 7:05 pm
Chad,
Were you saying the Holy Spirit is our concience? I was just curious, I saw Plumb Bob get into it… he may have some valid points. I was just asking.
June 9th, 2008 at 11:19 pm
Darn_Republican,
Greetings, and thanks for your concern. Perhaps this is not the right place for an inter-family tussle over theological particulars. However, I think Paul was pretty clear about what the Law was for. It was to illustrate God’s holiness, and to demonstrate your need for redemption; it’s a tutor to lead you to Christ. And I think both Paul and the Prophets were clear about what role the Law would play in the plan of redemption. I take Jeremiah at his word when he says the Law will be written on our hearts (Jer 31:33), and I take Paul at his word when he says the requirement of the Law will be fulfilled in us, who walk according to the Spirit (Romans 8:4).
I’m always amused when I get called a “liberal” for taking the Apostles literally — and believe me, you’re not the first to call me that. If actually taking Paul at his word makes me a liberal, then I guess I’m a liberal… but it seems to me that you’re the one here who doesn’t really believe what’s written. I mean no disrespect when I say that, but seriously, you need to reread the epistles to the Romans and to the Galatians, only this time take Paul to be saying precisely what he means. And keep in mind — I’m not saying God doesn’t care if we do right, I’m saying God provides the power for us to do right, from the inside out. Law-based Christianity has more in common with 1st century Judaism than it has with anything Christ instituted.
June 10th, 2008 at 7:40 am
If you’re saying that that the bible makes you more moral in the sense that it makes you more likely to follow the morals set out in the bible, then you’ve got a circular argument. [ie, The bible is moral because the bible says so].
If you’re saying you can use REASON to explain why the morals set out in the bible are the right ones, then one doesn’t need to be a Christian to follow them, and therefore atheists are no less likely to be moral.
To clarify, let’s split the morals in the bible into
1) The ones EVERYONE agrees with - don’t murder or steal etc, and
2) The ones that right-wing Christians often think set them apart from the heathens - ideas about gays, abortion etc.
All the morals in the first group are shared not only with all other major religions, but also with atheists and, importantly, the law of the land. And also they are all evidently good for mankind in general. There’s no evidence that athiests contravene these laws any more or less than any other group.
The morals in the second group are ones Christians themselves can’t agree with each other on. Death penalty? Homosexuality? Abortion? It’s a lot harder to defend the right-wing stance on these issues WITHOUT referring to the bible. If your only proof that your stance there makes you more moral than atheists (or liberals) is the bible, then THERE is your circular argument.
June 10th, 2008 at 9:34 am
Plumb Bob,
Hi, and thanks for your replay - I’ll start off; as to the arena we address matters in, I believe there is no better place than where it came up. As to calling you a liberal, I don’t think I did, I think I called that line of reasoning liberal, please correct me if I am wrong. Now,if anything I can call that rather broad-based projection of yours very liberal. It accused me with no actual evidence to support if of not believing the texts in Holy Scripture, my friend - that is what we can’t do in here without evidence.
I build my life on them, I don’t interpret them - research them and come to an understanding of what they are - and their meaning. I am not really sure you read what I said, but to think you only walked away with the typical legalism advocation arguement is not where I was coming from. You are right in this - the law was established to show us the standard of God’s Holiness and where we fall short, But the natural dynamic of the law is revealled is interelational - therefore moral in itself and seems rather plain to see at that. But you attacked me - I didn’t do that to you I simply questioned something I hear quite often more typically associated with a more generous [liberal] approach to understanding the dynamic addressed - again in love, it is cool to have individua; differences, that is how we were creatd but I believe according Eph. 4:4-5 - There is only one Word, therefore one understand we should walk away with… in unity.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Andrew,
I don’t know who your comments were aimed at but you mentioned a couple of notables… mainly:
“If you’re saying that that the bible makes you more moral in the sense that it makes you more likely to follow the morals set out in the bible, then you’ve got a circular argument. [ie, The bible is moral because the bible says so].”
I didn’t say that - The Law exists to show us where we fall short of the standard - which is written on our hearts. Nothing can make a person “moral” observing the standard and submitting to it is an act of will, but as not observing it. Paul tells us of this natural observance in Romans 1 - so that position is made clear. I don’t know how you came to that conclusion? Again - if your comment was aimed at what I wrote.
- conversely -
“…If you’re saying you can use REASON to explain why the morals set out in the bible are the right ones, then one doesn’t’t need to be a Christian to follow them, and therefore atheists are no less likely to be moral.”
This is a different argument, we as Follower’s of Christ know that the Mosaic law cannot save us… therefore if we cannot go to Heaven by observing them - what [then] is the ultimate purpose for them? It stands to reason that 6 out of the 10 Commandments are clearly aimed at the relationship between man. I don’t’ know how you could see that as anything else but what it is, a moral subtext… or principled platform, or whatever you choose to refer to it as, it is what it is. If man has no standard or interrelational guidelines for how we are to co-exists, than humanism is the standard… follow what I am saying? God’s Law preempts all of it, D. James Kennedy said it best, the secular mind throws off anything that convicts it’s behavior. and acquits itself to anything that does not. They are living in open rebellion to the Laws written in our hearts in favor of a more “naturalistic” mandate, which is flexible to man’s iniquity.
Lastly,
“The morals in the second group are ones Christians themselves can’t agree with each other on. Death penalty? Homosexuality? Abortion? It’s a lot harder to defend the right-wing stance on these issues WITHOUT referring to the bible. If your only proof that your stance there makes you more moral than atheists (or liberals) is the bible, then THERE is your circular argument.”
I would have to agree on some of that, it is a clear violation of Ephesians 4:3-5 this is religiosity in full bloom, when there is no call for it. It is an act of will to engage in denominational squabbling and Satan loves it - Divide and conquer those are his tactics… sound familiar, culturally? That is why a Righteous and Holy God tells us what he thinks about our “religion” in James. All saying, why would a Just, Holy and Righteous God have to bend a knee to man’s idea of what is right before Him, which is why Isaiah said what he did - our righteousness is but filthy rags before a Just, Holy and True Lord God.
All in love… your brother in the Lord.
June 10th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
Hi TDR, I wasn’t attacking your posts. I was more addressing the central argument of the main blog.
The stats I’ve seen point to atheists being LESS represented in prisons. Of course this could be because convicts often turn to religion, rather than atheists committing fewer crimes. But I’ve never seen any stats to suggest Christians are more moral than atheists.
June 10th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
Andrew,
Cool - interesting point, but I would consider looking what atheists tend to delve into, the secular crowd [to me] fall into three categories:
a) The I don’t believe in anything that convicts my behavior crowd
b) The I don’t understand religion or God so until i do… let it swing
from trees crowd.
c) The irreligious, but respects civil authority and the morals they
benefit from but others practice crowd.
They are all distinctly different, but all benefit from a social climate that does not challenge their self destructive indulgences. I don’t know of stats that will ever tell you more than what is plain to the eye… lol, so I’d say look at the problems openly associated with the behavior or lack of moral fortitude, and see where to connect the dots between righteous moral behavior and a system of projected relevance.
June 10th, 2008 at 2:35 pm
Darn Republican:
I didn’t think I was attacking you, and whatever it was that I said that you took as an attack, please forgive me. I meant no insult or disrespect, and I’m certainly not questioning your faith, maturity, sincerity, or any such thing.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
Plumb Bob,
Thank you for clarification - I am humbled.
June 10th, 2008 at 3:35 pm
TDR:
“a) The I don’t believe in anything that convicts my behavior crowd”
This could apply equally to Christians - just using different behaviour. I suppose some Christians may feel guilty over some things I don’t - masturbation etc.
“b) The I don’t understand religion or God so until i do… let it swing
from trees crowd.”
Hmm, depends what you mean by ’swing from trees’. That could cover a lot of activity!
“c) The irreligious, but respects civil authority and the morals they
benefit from but others practice crowd.”
This seems to be the norm - though I’m not sure atheists are out basking in the benefits of others’ charity. It’s a two-way street, no?
June 10th, 2008 at 4:39 pm
“a) The I don’t believe in anything that convicts my behavior crowd”
I mean, presumably you reject Hindus or Jewish people who ‘convict’ you for eating pork. Most non-Catholic Christians reject the idea that condoms are immoral. Jehovah’s witnesses would say view you accepting blood transfusions as ‘not believing in something that convicts your behaviour’ too.
June 10th, 2008 at 4:49 pm
So if you can justify why you think morality can be applied to subjects like eating pork, or beef, using a condom, getting a blood transfusion, wearing mixed fabrics, homosexuality, oral sex, masturbation, working on Sundays etc, then I’m happy to listen. Make a good case and I’ll consider it.
But yes, if the ONLY justification is a particular interpretation of a holy book, then I may not believe in it. Not because it ‘convicts my behavior’ and I want to continue swinging for trees, but because you’ve given me no rational reason change my views. But this is no different to the way you yourself reject other religions’ ideas that go against your behavior, and that give you no other basis to change yoru views.
Does this make sense. I’m not haranging you, just giving you my ‘atheist’ viewpoint.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Andrew:
Good points… let’s discuss those, we’ll use he Biblical standard for our discussion; a regenerate heart and renewed mind are what we shall refer too as a Christian. Anything short of that is what is it is - apparently in conflict. When you say this could equally y apply to the Christian, I would like to know based on what model? No Bible believing Follower of Christ should be having a conviction issue - if your conscience is callused over because of unconfused sin, that’s a whole other set of issues there including genuine conversion being called into question.
Being indwelt by the Holy Spirit especially means being sensitive to sin confessed or not… natural convictions can [eventually] be ignored -but a true believer will have that extra tug a them by the Spirit bringing them to a point to deal with that sin nature as it is. As to your second statement… yes it seems normative - and yes atheists gain a host of benefits from people who put more on the line everyday than they ever would - I would consider them spiritual conscientious objectors. They won’t join the fight, but want all the fruits of liberty the sacrifice of others brings.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Andrew,
I am looking at a lot of your comments and it would seem there is an over arching theme - I will try to clear what I can see is a non-division between cultural morality and individual morality. Religiosity is one thing, social ideals is one thing… but spiritual morality should be different. One man’s vanity in attempting to understand God in a relational sense, another is a group of people who choose to evoke a social standard out of some behavioral codec - which does not have to be bible based, and one addresses your individual relation with the King and where you stand with Him and it carries over to how one relates to other… I would think.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:18 pm
“atheists gain a host of benefits from people who put more on the line everyday than they ever would ”
Can you give examples here? I’m not sure I know what you’re talking about. Certainly there are plenty of atheists in the military willing to die for their country. It’s a fallacy to say there’s no such thing as an atheist in a fox hole. But I get the feeling you’re talking about something else.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:28 pm
I really can’t imagine what fight atheists are refusing to take part in. This seems an ‘uncharitable’ view of atheists! So to speak.
June 10th, 2008 at 5:43 pm
Well, I wasn’t trying to be insulting in anyway - but can you tell me any strong take away value those to whom the ideal is at odds with where they may be able to find viable social figures who lead solid lives and are great role models? Right now I can show ones who were a detriment - Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Barton, Sanger… Marx, Russell… I mean the list goes on, none of these people had not one viable attribute to lend to society at large.
And [too] I am not haranguing you… but one has to maintain an aire of intellectual honesty in the first place when dealing with this argument. The fundamental question one would ask as an atheist would be: Do I possess an infinite knowledge of the universe? That would a starting point…
June 11th, 2008 at 2:36 am
“but can you tell me any strong take away value those to whom the ideal is at odds with where they may be able to find viable social figures who lead solid lives and are great role models? ”
I’m afraid you’ll have to rephrase that - it doesn’t make any sense to me.
“Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Barton, Sanger… Marx, Russell”
I’m not sure what point you’re making with these names. Hitler was a Christian for a start. And if you mean Bertrand Russell, what’s he doing on a list of murderers? Not one viable attribute to lend to society? He was a philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, and advocate for social reform…
So again, can you explain what you mean here:
“atheists gain a host of benefits from people who put more on the line everyday than they ever would ”
June 11th, 2008 at 3:40 am
If you want contribution to society - most scientists are atheists.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:10 am
““Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Barton, Sanger… Marx, Russell”
I’m not sure what point you’re making with these names. Hitler was a Christian for a start. And if you mean Bertrand Russell, what’s he doing on a list of murderers? Not one viable attribute to lend to society? He was a philosopher, historian, logician, mathematician, and advocate for social reform…”
Well, Andrew - Lol, I enjoy debate with you my friend and will continue to do so… but this is where we have to respectfully part way, it is clearly evident you have not the slightest clue of history and the historical impact these people have had on history. The one things about actions int he natural is that we are never guaranteed we’ll escape the consequences of what we do - nor the revelation of the impact of our actions. Your defense of Bertrand Russell is topical at best - the man was vile drunkard, and blasphemer as well as vociferous womanizer… that’s how he left the world. His impact is only important to those who shared his views… and carried in memory by the same.
Leonardo Di Vinci was gay as a closet full of left shoes with one right foot - and despised the Roman Catholic church… not that that is personally important to me but at least he made an actual impact… However, your ignorance of Hitler’s lifestyle is notable as well, where did you get that Hitler was in any way, shape or form a Follower of Christ? when in fact it is more common knowledge that the man was widely and deeply into the occult and ancient mysticisim. To your poinjt of why Bertrand Russell was named among the biggest losers of all time… because, he was one. No athiest has done anything socially redeemable in a place of influence - not one. You laud them because they carried your point of view, they are denounced because they ignore what they are in creation over who they feel they are according to how they want to tlive… and lifestyle is their calling card. the only social reform Russell advocated was rank adultery… and he died a pitifull mess. At least darwin recanted his theories onhis deathbead… what does that say?
June 11th, 2008 at 9:15 am
Andrew,
“If you want contribution to society - most scientists are atheists”
There is a difference between science and scientism… most viable social contributions came from real science, not laboratory induced lifestyle advocation… is that what there was to discover of value was mainly discovered by Christian who where scientists. I could give you a long list of the most profound scientific discoveries that improved or saved lives… and they were all Christians. We don’t’ hear that today because the secular mind thinks it can dance around reality.
June 11th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Andrew writes:
“But yes, if the ONLY justification is a particular interpretation of a holy book, then I may not believe in it. Not because it ‘convicts my behavior’ and I want to continue swinging for trees, but because you’ve given me no rational reason change my views.”
I understand this, Andrew, and respect it. For this reason, and because of the changing social climate in America, I advocate all my positions in terms of how they impact society, not in biblical terms. The good news for me is that the Bible is so accurate on so many topics that there is always, always an extremely solid, logically valid defense for the social policy that I would be advocating if my only criterion were “is it biblical?” This makes my political life easier than it might be otherwise.
However, if I may ask a question here: given my 30-plus years as a Christian in the marketplace, and the fact that regardless of how viciously the Biblically sound social policy gets attacked, there always turns out to be a scientifically or sociologically sound basis for the restrictions I read there, wouldn’t it be perfectly logical and reasonable for me to advocate positions with no support other than “the Bible says this is wrong?” And further, reasonable for me to tell you, with some expectation that you would take me seriously, “Look, I don’t completely understand why it is that the Bible says X, but I think we can expect a very sound reason to be found soon enough?”
I know this sounds outlandish to you, but what I’m arguing for here is nothing more outlandish than the recognition of sound authority. If Warren Buffet makes a prediction about the stock market’s performance over the next year, none of us are required to do as he says, but we’d all be sensible to pay some attention, based on his past performance. Are you saying we Christians, most of whom have been rescued from truly destructive lifestyles and habits by obeying the Bible, have no valid reason to take the Bible seriously?
June 11th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
Bob… succinctly stated.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:13 pm
“However, your ignorance of Hitler’s lifestyle is notable as well, where did you get that Hitler was in any way, shape or form a Follower of Christ?”
Where did you get the idea that he was an atheist? You read Mein Kampf?
“Your defense of Bertrand Russell is topical at best ”
As is your attacking of him.
Should I stick with the anti-semetic Martin Luther? Or Ted Haggard? Jailed tax frauder Kent “Dr. Dino” Hovind, founder of Creation Science Evangelism and the Dinosaur Adventure Land creationist theme park in Florida? Born again Dubya?
And who are the greatest philanthropists in history? The atheists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
“Tthere always turns out to be a scientifically or sociologically sound basis for the restrictions I read there”
…Or people just ignore the bits that don’t come across as sociologically sound any more. eg Stoning of adulterers, prohibition of wearing mixed fabrics, advice on keeping slaves etc.
June 11th, 2008 at 1:16 pm
“At least darwin recanted his theories onhis deathbead”
Total myth.
Not the slightest clue of history?
June 11th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
TDR: “Bertrand Russell was named among the biggest losers of all time”
“The first of three volumes of Principia Mathematica, written with Whitehead, was published in 1910, which, along with the earlier The Principles of Mathematics, soon made Russell world famous in his field.”
“In 1920, Russell visited the emerging Soviet Union which subsequently met with his disapproval, but he also campaigned vigorously against Adolf Hitler in the 1930s.”
“During the 1940s and 1950s, Russell participated in many broadcasts over the BBC, particularly the Third Programme, on various topical and philosophical subjects. By this time in his life, Russell was world famous outside of academic circles”
“A History of Western Philosophy (1945) became a best-seller,”
“In the King’s Birthday Honours of June 9, 1949, Russell was awarded the Order of Merit”
“In 1950, Lord Russell was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature, “in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought”.
Would that any of us could be such a ‘loser’…
June 11th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
-Adolf Hitler, in his speech in Munich on 12 April 1922:
“My feelings as a Christian points me to my Lord and Savior as a fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and summoned men to fight against them and who, God’s truth! was greatest not as a sufferer but as a fighter.
In boundless love as a Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out of the Temple the brood of vipers and adders. How terrific was His fight for the world against the Jewish poison. To-day, after two thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than ever before in the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His blood upon the Cross.
As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice…. And if there is anything which could demonstrate that we are acting rightly it is the distress that daily grows. For as a Christian I have also a duty to my own people…. When I go out in the morning and see these men standing in their queues and look into their pinched faces, then I believe I would be no Christian, but a very devil if I felt no pity for them, if I did not, as did our Lord two thousand years ago, turn against those by whom to-day this poor people is plundered and exploited.”
This is just one of thousands of references.
June 11th, 2008 at 2:14 pm
“Where did you get the idea that he was an atheist? You read Mein Kampf?”
Christianity is not [entirely] a once and done kinda thing… OK, so because he was baptized Lutheran/Catholic means nothing… he has to actively pursue his relationship with Christ, to which the man had no interest. Christians live for and by evidence - we have no evidence to support your assertion. Hitler is on record for his beliefs… thoughts revealed to people who worked closest to him got to understand the mind of this monster. Adolf Hitlers administrative assistant wrote a book on her memories on the he subject… with statements from the last guard to see him alive, I am pretty sure your haven’t read it, Mien Kampf is 8th grade world view trivia, c’mon now step up - you’re not showing me anything different that what I am used to hearing from individuals who are self -professed atheists… which is simply the mist intellectually dishonest stand point you can have spiritually.
Hitlers speech [he had two of them] were for rallying the troops and propaganda - not his personal beliefs… and to restate more simply, its not how you start off - it’s how you end up, the man died a God hating mystic. He was profound student of Carl Marx and no socialism [ the Nazi’s] nor communists [Stalin & later… Mao] can exist without their creation story - Darwinian Naturalism and their political mantra - Marxism, I figured if you read main Kampf and had the time to look up his speeches, that you’d at least made that comparison.
He was open about his advocation of Marx’s position on religion, and the state… communal economics and a host or nonsense. Lets not be selective in our engagement here.. if we are to point things out… let’s point out everything, which leads me to the final bit here; Charles Darwin did in fact, profess his Catholics rites upon his deathbed, that is not myth - the man was a former priest who was embittered by the churches influence politically, to which I would agree in part, but you cannot argue what others witnessed. Charles Darwin himself in his personal memoirs detailed his thoughts back to Catholicism, it is a fact that is indisputable and incontrovertible as it is history, and cannot pawned off with conversatinal subterfuge because one cannot accept it as true, smart people get used to reality. I checked it out before I decided to believe myself. The references for where his memoirs made that revelation are on D. James Kennedy’s: Truths That Transform archives I suggest you check it out if you want to balance out what you cannot verify but accept as gospel truth anyway.
At any rate… you are a great person to discuss thing with, you kind stepped on a land minde with the last one [lol!] but this is a healthy debate and I commend you for your participation, and I am not sayign that to be flatly patronizing.
- Yours in the Lord
June 11th, 2008 at 2:19 pm
““The first of three volumes of Principia Mathematica, written with Whitehead, was published in 1910, which, along with the earlier The Principles of Mathematics, soon made Russell world famous in his field.”
Does the name: G.E. Moore ring a bell? Where do you thing Russell got his “inspiration”? pound for pound… Bertrand Russell for all his philandering way whittled away any credibility he had with the most humanist values displayed with a reckless disregard for the Victorian values of the day. No reasonable person would give him lattitude… nor shall I.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
“Charles Darwin did in fact, profess his Catholics rites upon his deathbed, that is not myth ”
Yes, you spend 141 words here saying that Darwin was a Catholic.
But before you claimed that he ‘recanted his theories’. I never claimed Darwin was an atheist. Professing Catholic rites is no more synonymous with rejecting evolution than it is rejecting heliocentrism.
Your argument that Hitler was no true Christian is a variation on the ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy.
“The Führer made it known to those entrusted with the Final Solution that the killings should be done as humanely as possible. This was in line with his conviction that he was observing God’s injunction to cleanse the world of vermin.
Still a member in good standing of the Church of Rome despite detestation of its hierarchy (”I am now as before a Catholic and will always remain so” [quoting Hitler]), he carried within him its teaching that the Jew was the killer of God. The extermination, therefore, could be done without a twinge of conscience since he was merely acting as the avenging hand of God–so long as it was done impersonally, without cruelty.”
[Pulitzer Prize winner John Toland
from “Adolf Hitler,” pp 507, talking about the Autumn of 1941.]
The “I am now as before a Catholic…” quotation from Hitler was recorded in the diary of Gerhard Engel, an SS Adjutant, in October 1941. Hitler was speaking in private, not before a mass audience, and so it is difficult to dismiss the comment as propaganda lies.
You claim Hitler was a socialist. Their name notwithstanding, the Nazis were not socialists. Any more than the Democratic Republic of the Congo is proper democracy. You also claim he followed ‘Darwinian Naturalism’. Hitler was an anti-Darwinist. Dawinism is NATURAL selection, the opposite of eugenics or selective breeding, which existed for hundreds of years before Darwin.
“Does the name: G.E. Moore ring a bell? Where do you thing Russell got his “inspiration”? ”
Are you saying he was a plagiarist? Mathematicians, like scientists, often build on the work of others. But you don’t get acclaimed in your field by simply repeating the work of others. So you’ve done nothing to show me Russell did not make huge contributions to the field.
In fact your argument against Russell rests on his philandering, set against his acclaim as a mathematician and philosopher. I make no defence of his adultery. But for this you put him up with the Christian Hitler, who murdered millions, and the communists Mao and Stalin, who also murdered millions. This is absurd. Why not include Dickens - he cheated on his wife with a teenage actress.
June 11th, 2008 at 3:28 pm
By the way, as regards the religions of Hitler and Darwin. I don’t really give a monkeys about Hitler’s religion - I’m happy for people to excuse him as a ‘really bad Christian’ who mixed in other superstitions. I don’t see Christians differently because of Hitler, any more than he and Stalin make me mistrust men with moustaches.
However, to include him in lists of atheists is a bit rich!
Your mistake with Darwin, repeating the old Creationist propaganda that he changed his mind on his deathbed, just seems routed in your confusion that he wasn’t atheist either. Perhaps because you believe that Christianity and accepting the evidence for evolution are mutually exclusive - a false idea. Even the pope refuses to reject the science, and there are many, many famous Christian scientist authors who accept and write about evolution, eg Ken Miller.
So to quote a friend of mine:
“you kind stepped on a land minde [sic] with the last one [lol!] but this is a healthy debate and I commend you for your participation, and I am not sayign [sic] that to be flatly patronizing.”
June 11th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Lies regarding Darwin’s deathbed:
http://www.cincinnatiskeptics......thbed.html
http://christiananswers.net/q-aig/darwin.html
So even Christiananswers admits it’s nonsense!
By the way, this D James Kennedy sounds a nasty piece of work:
“The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) has strongly criticized the neo-creationist documentary produced by the Coral Ridge Ministries Darwin’s Deadly Legacy, which attempts to link evolution to Hitler:
“This is an outrageous and shoddy attempt by D. James Kennedy to trivialize the horrors of the Holocaust. Hitler did not need Darwin to devise his heinous plan to exterminate the Jewish people. Trivializing the Holocaust comes from either ignorance at best or, at worst, a mendacious attempt to score political points in the culture war on the backs of six million Jewish victims and others who died at the hands of the Nazis.”
The ADL further denounced Kennedy as “a leader among the distinct group of ‘Christian Supremacists’ who seek to ‘reclaim America for Christ’ and turn the U.S. into a Christian nation guided by their strange notions of biblical law.”
June 11th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
“But before you claimed that he ‘recanted his theories’. I never claimed Darwin was an atheist. Professing Catholic rites is no more synonymous with rejecting evolution than it is rejecting heliocentrism”
Unless you know anything about Catholic rites or dogma would certainly preclude you from commentary out of sheer ignorance. Now having stated that there is a another common flaw secular do that is fundamentally incorrect - don’t confuse Christianity with Catholicism, the two are not the same.There is the Church [Body of Christ] and then there’s denomination, and shouldn’t’ be confused. So when you attempt to level arguments clearly aimed at discrediting Christianity - but was actually Catholic, you reveal a basic ignorance in theology that no one can take serious.
Secondly
“However, to include him in lists of atheists is a bit rich!”
C’mom your trying to protect his memory - you do it no credit, it is what it is based on how he lived and is codified and resolved into the pages of history and of people’s minds, if it was of any significant value there wouldn’t be such strident opposition to it.
“Your mistake with Darwin, repeating the old Creationist propaganda ”
There is no such thing as Creationist propaganda - readdress your statement. Propaganda usually attempts to normalize a given wrong or demoralize. Neither is true with the empirical evidence most scientists [secular or not] have now come to see as simply reasonable or factual without fault; all this discovery outside of the myopic filtration of scientism’s bent, so sorry… can’t give you a point there either. You’d do better my friend by dealing with matters on their face value but you have very knowledge of theology to do so… but it is still nice to debate you, but I have to say my friend - you are way off on you historical records and it is clear it is propagandistic levied to you with no intent of being even remotely historically correct.
June 11th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
So let’s sum up:
1. You’ve no evidence that Darwin retracted Darwinism on his deathbed.
2. You’ve no evidence Hitler was an atheist.
“So when you attempt to level arguments clearly aimed at discrediting Christianity ”
At no point have I attempted to discredit Christianity.
Regarding propaganda:
“Propaganda is a concerted set of messages aimed at influencing the opinions or behaviors of large numbers of people. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense presents information in order to influence its audience. Propaganda often presents facts selectively (thus lying by omission) to encourage a particular synthesis, or gives loaded messages in order to produce an emotional rather than rational response to the information presented.”
I stand by my terminology. Google ‘Darwin’ and ‘deathbed’ together. I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. I might as well claim that Christ became a Hindu on the cross.
“it is what it is based on how he lived and is codified and resolved into the pages of history and of people’s minds”
Again, ‘no true Scotsman’ fallacy. He called himself a Christian, he spoke out on his hatred on atheists, he cited the ‘great German’ Martin Luther as an influence on his anti-semitism, he decked out his armies in ‘God is with us’ belt buckles. He spoke much about his faith even in private. Pretty odd behavior for an atheist.
I know you’re not going to be convinced, but as a piece of advice, in future if you’re trying to debate atheists, you’re going to get nowhere with them by holding up Hitler as an atheist. Just for your own benefit, save your time.
Finally, as a friend of mine once said:
“You are way off on you historical records and it is clear it is propagandistic levied to you with no intent of being even remotely historically correct.”
June 11th, 2008 at 6:29 pm
So, Let’s debunk nonsense here:
“1. You’ve no evidence that Darwin retracted Darwinism on his deathbed.”
I told you right where to go find it… did you not read? Trust me it will be an education quest for you… albeit outside your personal politics, but just one nonetheless.
“At no point have I attempted to discredit Christianity.”
I am not in any way attacking you… so please grant me that - but do you really want me to go through your own words… you’ve supplied a bounty, but it may not seem that way to you - which is fine, but don’t’ say you haven’t without the understanding that you may have in fact.
“I stand by my terminology. Google ‘Darwin’ and ‘deathbed’ together. I’m afraid you’ve been misinformed. I might as well claim that Christ became a Hindu on the cross.”
Truth is a little deeper that a 5 second google up… again, I told you right were to find it: The Truths that Transform archives - I have heard the speaker twice on the very same one all in context to the message, and that source isn’t hiding it - therefore must be out the in abundance.
“I know you’re not going to be convinced, but as a piece of advice, in future if you’re trying to debate atheists, you’re going to get nowhere with them by holding up Hitler as an atheist. Just for your own benefit, save your time.”
Never a waste of time setting a crooked path straight: Rather than making a broad based unfounded postulations… I debate atheists regularly and have for many decades, all friendly but in the end - they choose their position based on how they want to live their lives now… some have moderated, some have gotten worse, but some have come to an understanding that has changed their walk in life, not necessarily by any great thing I said or did, but in timing - the right message with truth out of love… and humility, fairness and forthcoming disposition - ultimately to a reasonable mind the Gospel Truth wins out over unseated angst and rebellion. Not accusing you of that in the least… but, like I said earlier the atheist has already painted themselves into a corner of questionable rationality based solely on their namesake for beginners so… is it is not I that needs to consider anyone I debate nor any position I deliver because I know what I stand on, I would suggest you consider where it is you stand and what you stand for or on before consider debating a Christian World View.
I enjoy debating you… and am not at war with you in any way… but eventually [if you are honest to yourself] you will see what a great many fine people who care about you in spirit in this forum - I would be no exception. I once thought as your did… eventually I had to draw a line so I could learn how to move forward.
June 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
Darwin’s daughter Henrietta stated, “I was present at his deathbed … He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier.”
“Truth is a little deeper that a 5 second google up”
Great, if you have an hour to spare on the subject, so much the better.
June 12th, 2008 at 1:43 pm
Andrew,
That would be in direct contravention to his own memoirs… that and I am not aware of any such bedside denial of events - of course she wouldn’t have her fathers memoirs, but the larger question is why is it so important for you to have Darwin not have recanted his theories?
Secondly,
you wrote:
“…Great, if you have an hour to spare on the subject, so much the better.”
My friend with all due respect, if I gave you day… you’d still be wrong, so in the end it is irrelevant out of respect.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:01 pm
“I am not aware of any such bedside denial of events ”
That’s called the argument from ignorance. As I said before - do some research. Even creationist think-tank Answers in Genesis agrees that this claim is likely false, and is first on their list of arguments that should not be used:
http://www.answersingenesis.or.....recant.asp
“Many people use this story; however, it is almost certainly not true, and there is no corroboration from those who were closest to him—even from Darwin’s wife Emma, who never liked evolutionary ideas.”
“That would be in direct contravention to his own memoirs”
Darwin included his deathbed in his memoirs? Can you provide a quote here? One that rebutts this:
“These attempts to fudge Darwin’s story had already been exposed for what they were, first by his daughter Henrietta after they had been revived in 1922. “I was present at his deathbed,” she wrote in the Christian for February 23, 1922. “Lady Hope was not present during his last illness, or any illness. I believe he never even saw her, but in any case she had no influence over him in any department of thought or belief. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier. We think the story of his conversion was fabricated in the U.S.A. . . . The whole story has no foundation whatever.”
In short TDR, your man Kennedy is up there with the moonhoaxers. Is Kennedy the guy who thinks that Hitler was influenced by Darwin’s research? Despite the fact that Hitler believed in the OPPOSITE of Darwin? I’m afraid he does not sound a credible source. Certainly I wouldn’t take his word over Darwin’s own daughter, who was present when Darwin died.
“Why is it so important for you to have Darwin not have recanted his theories?”
Let me quote from Creationist website Answersingenesis again:
“Even if it were true, so what? If Ken Ham renounced the Bible, would that disprove it?”
Indeed. If Einstein had said “E = MC cubed” minutes before he died, it would change nothing. If it turned out Chistopher Collumbus had claimed there was no America before he died, it wouldn’t make cartographers redraw the maps. We were able to check Darwin’s research at the time - it existed independently of him.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
And by the way, one of your points against Hitler being Christian was his interest in mysticism etc. One of your points against Russell was his adultery.
Now, Ronald Reagan was into astrology for decades. Nancy was into spiritualism. And Nancy was Reagan’s second wife. Does that mean Reagan:
a) Was a false Christian and
b) Was as bad as Russell?
Can I also say, TDR, that your posts are pretty hard to read. You have very long sentences, endlessly stringing clauses together. This is just one sentence:
“Adolf Hitlers administrative assistant wrote a book on her memories on the he subject… with statements from the last guard to see him alive, I am pretty sure your haven’t read it, Mien Kampf is 8th grade world view trivia, c’mon now step up - you’re not showing me anything different that what I am used to hearing from individuals who are self -professed atheists… which is simply the mist intellectually dishonest stand point you can have spiritually. ”
The typos make it even harder to read. And you don’t actually SAY anything. His admin assistant wrote a book? Ok. Does it say he was an atheist, or not? You forget to mention, but manage to say: “simply the mist intellectually dishonest stand point you can have spiritually”. I can’t fathom what that’s supposed to mean!
Here’s another example:
“like I said earlier the atheist has already painted themselves into a corner of questionable rationality based solely on their namesake for beginners”
Read the above quote. What does that mean? Who is our ‘namesake’? Atheists don’t have a ‘namesake. Let alone a ‘namesake for beginners’.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pm
Can you also tell me something, TDR - are you at least a bit more aware now that Kennedy’s claim is a bit of a ‘fringe claim’? ie, it’s not one commonly made. It goes against the consensus opinion on the subject, it’s not the one that ‘history records. Furthermore, it’s a claim that even mainstream creationist websites admit is not true.
I’m not saying this means it’s automatically wrong. I’m just asking if you’re aware that YOU are the one defending a ‘fringe claim’ here, not me - that I even have other creationists on my side.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:42 pm
PS, I can’t wait for the quote from Darwin’s memoirs that contradicts his daughter’s testimony!
Also, looking forward to where you supply evidence that Hitler was an atheist.
In short, notwithstanding the whole point of this thread, I’ve seen no evidence that atheists are any less moral than Christians. There’s been bluster about “the morals they benefit from but others practice crowd”, which you were never able to provide examples of. Then you hold about the polymath Bertrand Russell, by all accounts an extraordinary man. Then you resort to ‘Reductio ad Hitlerum’, and a claim you can’t back up that Hitler was an atheist. Finally, you retract into an utterly debunked claim about Darwin.
Are we done here?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
Morals start with intellectual honest, that whole ingredient they seem to lack fundamentally - the reason being since you ignored my challenge earlier and stick to a line that you think somehow you have leverage, but don’t actually… I’ll say the following:
Since you do not possess infinite knowledge of the universe, you cannot [being honest] say that there is no God, when a person starts off with that line of circular reasoning… they are already full of themselves, so there is no reaching them with reason, now the Agnostic is a bit more reasonable from square one… they aren’t claiming there is no God, their issue is God hasn’t been made real to them, that is a whole other argument in itself. So, I guess we’ll flip this back into reality - rather engaging in semantic subterfuge… why don’t you prove there is no God, or supply convincing evidence to support your line of thinking - and since you are somehow incapable of going to the archives I had mentioned… in my spare time I’ll get and post the link here that is supplying a completely competent refutation of rank denial as a defense on the behalf of those who still insist Darwin never recanted in his memoirs - until then… take care!
June 12th, 2008 at 4:52 pm
” you cannot [being honest] say that there is no God”
None of us can say there are no unicorns, fairies, Zeus, Ganesh, invisible pixies, cheese men living on mars etc either. But I’m guessing you live your life as if none of those things exist.
“the reason being since you ignored my challenge earlier and stick to a line that you think somehow you have leverage, but don’t actually”
If I ignored any of your challenges it’s because you write in an almost unintelligible style, full of pointlessly bombastic interjections along the lines of ‘I forgive your ignorance!’ etc.
“in my spare time I’ll get and post the link here that is supplying a completely competent refutation of rank denial as a defense on the behalf of those who still insist Darwin never recanted in his memoirs”
I won’t hold my breath… Find me Neil Armstrong admitting he never landed on the moon while you’re about it.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
Andrew,
We can in fact not engage in broad, sweeping, subterfuge to attempt to dither things out. But we can say for certain… there are no unicorns, we can say with great certainly Zeus is entirely fictional… therefore aren’t even committed memory. Moreover I am not living my life in a way that I believe they exist because I need them to - all to support how I want to live.
June 12th, 2008 at 6:16 pm
“we can say with great certainly Zeus is entirely fictional”
And yet, since you do not possess infinite knowledge of the universe, you cannot [being honest] say that there is no unicorns, Zeus.
Ditto atheists.
But we’ve wandered off topic.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:22 pm
Andrew,
Now you’re just pandering… Ever read the Illiad by Homer?
resolved.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:45 pm
And who are the greatest philanthropists in history? The atheists Bill Gates and Warren Buffett.
I would argue that the greatest philanthropists were the Christians Andrew Carnegie and John D. Rockefeller, measured in constant dollars. These men did not grow rich for wealth’s own sake, they got rich serving the public well, and argued that any man who dies holding a huge estate, died disgraced. And since these gentlemen first modeled the rule of billionaire philanthropist, it’s arguable that Gates and Buffet are merely parasites off somebody else’s morality.
In fact, that’s what I think about atheism generally — that it’s, at best, a parasitic religion, borrowing the morality of the surrounding culture and claiming it as its own, because atheism contains nothing within itself that could reasonably generate any sort of moral standard.
The question, then, is not how atheists behave when operating in the midst of a culture that’s been generated by some other system of thought (as atheists do in the West). The question is, what do atheists accomplish when they deliberately set out to undo all other systems of thought and build a society entirely on atheistic principles.
Without a serious competitor, the very best example of this was Pol Pot’s attempt to build an atheist Cambodia. Pol Pot was not crazy, like Hitler; he acted consistently with the philosophy he learned in France. We all know the results.
June 12th, 2008 at 7:50 pm
Bob,
Great contribution… would never argue liberal atheists don’t contribute to their causes otherwise Moveon.org wouldn’t exist - or the ACLU wouldnt’ exist… Thank you very much Mr. Soros - but we don’t know Warren Buffet’s spiritual background - so, I wouldn’t feel good commenting there, but we can get a hints of Bill Gate’s world view.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:09 pm
Actually, I was going to add that the comparison between Rockefeller and Carnegie, on the one hand, and Gates and Buffet, on the other, is instructive. Rockefeller and Carnegie both built huge empires on providing innovative products in innovative ways that improved the lives of the public. Carnegie’s genius produced steel at a fraction of the cost of his competitors and lowered consumer prices dramatically, and Rockefeller not only reduced the price of kerosene by a factor of 10, but developed hundreds of valuable products from oil residues that had been discarded before him.
By contrast, both Gates and Buffet created wealth for themselves almost without producing corresponding value for customers. Buffet, in particular, grew wealthy trading stocks, which produces no product at all. Gates produced something, but his hallmark has always been pirating what others accomplish and leveraging that into his own product. Microsoft is the proof that capitalism is not a perfect system — they prospered because their marketing was better, not because their product was better. In other words, Gates and Buffet actually fit the description leftists routinely apply to capitalists — greedy, self-centered, and not benefactors of the public good. This stands in stark contrast to the entrepreneurs of the earlier, more religious West.
June 12th, 2008 at 9:27 pm
Andrew,
“Can you also tell me something, TDR - are you at least a bit more aware now that Kennedy’s claim is a bit of a ‘fringe claim’? ie, it’s not one commonly made. It goes against the consensus opinion on the subject, it’s not the one that ‘history records. Furthermore, it’s a claim that even mainstream creationist websites admit is not true”
I somehow missed this… Fringe? you’re joking right? that was vain attempt to trivialize historical, not hysterical fact. Dr. D. James Kennedy was fear by liberal scholars because he was the most vocal in debunking mythological claims by minds such as yours with fact. But [c’mon] consesus? when did consensus make your point valid? 99 people in a room can’t add, does that make the 1 int he room wrong? Certainly not, geez louise; no wonder liberal societies fade away, the idle their time in misplaced agreement just to avoid facts. Come now my friend… you’ll have to do way better than that.
June 13th, 2008 at 6:59 am
“I somehow missed this… Fringe? you’re joking right?”
I’m starting to think that YOU are joking. All historical documents point to your claim being a lie, creationist websites distance themselvs from it, and first person accounts from Darwin’s family contradict it too. So, yes - a fringe claim. If you persist with this I will stop giving you the benefit of the doubt and decide you are being deliberately obtuse.
“when did consensus make your point valid?”
Are you not reading my posts? I quite clearly said: ‘I’m not saying this means it’s automatically wrong. I’m just asking if you’re aware that YOU are the one defending a ‘fringe claim’ here, not me - that I even have other creationists on my side’.
I’m right because all the evidence is on my side, not because everyone agrees with me. I was just wondering if you were aware yours was a fringe claim. And you’ve answered my question - you are NOT aware of it.
“I would argue that the greatest philanthropists were the Christians Andrew Carnegie…”
Carnegie you say? How interesting!
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/c.....nde03.html
“In his ‘Autobiography’, Carnegie wrote about the dramatic effect of reading both Charles Spencer [who first coined the term ’survival of the fittest’] and the naturalist Charles Darwin.
“I remember that light came as in a flood and all was clear,” Carnegie wrote. “Not only had I got rid of theology and the supernatural, but I had found the truth of evolution. ‘All is well since all grows better’ became my motto, my true source of comfort.”
If anyone believed in ‘Social Darwinism’ it was Carnegie. It’s a Republican philosphy, not a left-wing one. Dawkins distances himself from it, as did Darwin himself - it’s got nothing to do with biological Darwinism.
You guys are digging deeper holes for yourselves.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Plumb Bob: “I would argue that the greatest philanthropists were the Christians Andrew Carnegie…”
Andrew Carnegie: “I don’t believe in God. My god is patriotism. Teach a man to be a good citizen and you have solved the problem of life.”
Oops! So Plumb Bob inadvertently admitted that atheist Carnegie is one of the greatest philanthropists. So, will PB now change his mind about atheists, or just decide he was wrong about Carnegie… Again, I’m not holding my breath.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:17 am
“Now you’re just pandering”
I’m not pandering to anyone, least of all you. Your mention of the Iliad is a bit of a non sequitur. Are you saying that Zeus being a character in the book means you can say for certainty that he doesn’t exist.
You ARE aware that Zeus was worshipped by millions of people, right? Heard of the The Statue of Zeus at Olympia? One of the seven wonders of the ancient world? It wasn’t built by people who didn’t believe in him.
So my analogy stands - Zeus was a God worshipped just the same as Allah, Ganesh, or your own God. You tell me I can’t say for certain that your God doesn’t exist. And yet you tell me that I CAN say for certain everyone else’s God doesn’t exist. You are inconsistent here.
June 13th, 2008 at 7:37 am
“I somehow missed this… Fringe? you’re joking right?”
“When did consensus make your point valid?”
Do you actually READ my posts. I clearly said: “I’m not saying this means it’s automatically wrong. I’m just asking if you’re aware that YOU are the one defending a ‘fringe claim’ here, not me”
So where did I say that I’m right because of consensus? Answer: I didn’t, and I clearly SAID that I wasn’t making such a claim.
And you answered my question: You are NOT aware that you are making a fringe claim. And we’re still waiting for your evidence. If Darwin’s memoir is in the public domain, it shouldn’t be hard for you to back up your claim. I’m currently giving you the benefit of the doubt that you’ve been hoodwinked, just like I tell myself that Plumb Bob was simply unaware that Carnegie was an atheist.
June 13th, 2008 at 8:59 am
Andrew,
It was all the same - there is no fringe claim, the fringe elements support a theory that he didn’t while they actively suppress the truth. Darwin’s memoirs are and were no secret so why keep up the charade. As for the consensus comment… you r context was misread so for you to come back later and say you meant something when the plain to see context was as stated is a bit pedantic. As to Andrew Carnegie - I am was aware that more turn-of-the-century [then] industry barons.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:19 am
Lastly,
Personal attacks on my grammar and syntax was uncalled for - and its usually only liberals that have something to say. Let’s keep non personal, I have a crisp and clear understanding of English syntax and grammar - I thought this was an informal arena, and there are occasionally cut and paste errors; but I’m sure the moderators of this forum would agree with me.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:35 am
“Darwin’s memoirs are and were no secret so why keep up the charade.”
Because you’re claiming that he retracted his theories on his deathbed. This IS a fringe claim, so I’m asking for some kind of evidence to support it. You claim there’s evidence in his memoirs. There isn’t. If it’s a charade, then please go ahead and give me a quote to prove it. I’m guessing that if you could, you’d have done so by now. I’m sure you honestly believed you were right before, but why not just admit your mistake?
“Personal attacks on my grammar and syntax was uncalled for”
I’m not being horrible, just explaining that it’s difficult to respond to sentences like the following, when they make no sense:
“As to Andrew Carnegie - I am was aware that more turn-of-the-century [then] industry barons.”
What are you saying? What WERE you, or ARE you aware of? Why not just admit that you didn’t know he was an atheist, and move on.
There’s no shame in learning something new. I myself learnt much about Bertrand Russell from responding to you here. Before you pushed me to research him, I had no idea about how acclaimed he was in the field of mathematics. So thanks for increasing my admiration of the man.
June 13th, 2008 at 9:43 am
Answersingenesis again:
“The main problem with all these stories is that they were all denied by members of Darwin’s family. Francis Darwin wrote to Thomas Huxley on 8 February 1887, that a report that Charles had renounced evolution on his deathbed was ‘false and without any kind of foundation’, and in 1917 Francis affirmed that he had ‘no reason whatever to believe that he [his father] ever altered his agnostic point of view’.
Charles’s daughter Henrietta (Litchfield) wrote on page 12 of the London evangelical weekly, The Christian, for 23 February 1922, ‘I was present at his deathbed. He never recanted any of his scientific views, either then or earlier … . The whole story has no foundation whatever’.
It should be noted that for most of her married life [Charles’ wife] Emma was deeply pained by the irreligious nature of Charles’s views, and would have been strongly motivated to have corroborated any story of a genuine conversion, if such had occurred. She never did. It therefore appears that Darwin did not recant, and it is a pity that to this day the Lady Hope story occasionally appears in tracts published and given out by well-meaning people.”
So why did answeringenesis say this, if the evidence you claim exists is so freely available? Are you one of these ‘well-meaning’ people?
June 13th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Andrew,
I will go myself into the TTT archive and supply with that information, I understand you are repeating information passed on, but it with without challenge - nor with the impetuous to be intellectually honest about personal revelation involved in one’s own [Darwin’s] reflections. remember, I too doubted it until I was confronted with evidence… now i have to submit to was was clearly in front of me, the reverse of this tends to be endemic int eh liberal ranks - not saying you personally. I see you try to work with what you have, but i suggest view it in light of palpable scrutiny.. that is how it ends up standing on its own, and so far [try as you may] you haven’t done this yet. Your sources don’t’ have the impetus to to tell the truth - the agree, therefore suppress. Again, i am in no way accusing you of this - but stating… I check sources, in some cases you can in fact butcher the messenger in spite of the message, lol - just FYI.
June 13th, 2008 at 11:55 am
Andrew,
Also many of the [then] turn-of-the-century, or Victorian age atheists were relentless in their making sure known associates did not recant on their deathbeds… this is a widely known fact, several of your [not personally] better know atheist big wigs did so, including Voltaire… who’s death was a grim reminder of how not to go out.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
“Your sources don’t’ have the impetus to to tell the truth”
You don’t think it would be in the interests in Answersingenesis to have evidence that Darwin recanted? And it’s not just my sources - every place I look is confirming there was no recantation, It seems to be just two people making the claim - you and this bloke Kennedy who told you. My ’sources’ appears to consist of EVERYONE else.
“Victorian age atheists were relentless in their making sure known associates did not recant on their deathbeds…”
But all of Darwin’s family, who confirm there was no recantation, were religious.
Meanwhile, still no quotes or evidence from you.
Any advance on Hitler being an atheist? Or Carnegie NOT being one?
June 13th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Andrew…
That was just silly, now if two people know this [using you linear thought process] two hundred know it, and if two hundred know it…. gues what? two million know it. It’s not a dirty secret.
June 13th, 2008 at 12:52 pm
Yes, but if only two people are making the claim, and one of those just accepted it off the other without evidence, who in turn just made it up, then that isn’t reliable.
This is flim flam from you - you have no evidence. Go on, give me a quote, SOMETHING.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Andrew,
There’s more integrity involved on this end to educate you from misinformation than would be afforded us by folks in your camp of thought so I wouldn’t’ reach for that one… but I understand what you mean.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Now as to flim flam, you need to just quit… I told you what I’d do… and what i supply won’t be idle quite… it will have been form the mind and heart of Charles Darwin when written - therefore it will stand on its own. expect it this weekend, I am working now and don’t have the time resources to commit to it right not, but I know where to find it… and tried giving it to you to do, but that yielded nada - so… that means I have to, but it’ll be done on my time.
June 13th, 2008 at 1:52 pm
TDR, I’m afraid I see no integrity here at all. I’ve heard people talking about ‘lying for Jesus’ before, but never really believed it. (google it).
But I’m afraid that this Kennedy bloke sounds like a deeply dishonest man, who dedicated some time to slandering Darwin.
Your insistence on repeated untruths here is no kind of integrity that I recognise, and makes a mockery of your claim that Christianity offers any route to greater morals or truth.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:01 pm
“it will have been form the mind and heart of Charles Darwin when written”
I can’t imagine your source, given that he mentions nowhere in his memoir about recanting. I might as well claim to you that there’s a passage in the bible where Jesus claims he’s a Hindu - don’t you think other people would have noticed it?
I notice too that you never admitted your mistake on Andrew Carnegie. I’d really be more impressed with you if you could just be a man and admit when you’re wrong. What’s the point? I show you your errors and you just pretend it never happened.
June 13th, 2008 at 2:44 pm
Andrew,
I don’t need to fabricate anything to debate and defeat antheism…. but your supposition is arrogant that he may have only have one journal. That is like saying Di Vinci had only one drawing.
June 13th, 2008 at 3:23 pm
TDR. Put up or shut up.
We’re waiting.
June 13th, 2008 at 4:24 pm
Kendenny,
Pipe down you’ll get it… you coul dgo get it yourself, you don’t have to wait for me it’s on the Truth That Transform Arcihive, I’m at work for cryin out loud! I said I;ll get it - it’ll get done when i can, but it will be soon enough.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:57 am
Googling ‘Truth That Transform Arcihive’ gives you www.coralridge.org, Kennedy’s site. Searching in there for ‘Darwin deathbed’ or ‘Darwin recant’ give NO results. You’re wasting our time with your fabrications.
June 14th, 2008 at 12:07 pm
Interesting how Plumb Bob hasn’t returned. Too embarrased to admit his error?
You know, what value do Plumb Bob and TDR’s opinions on Atheists vs Christians actually have? The people they believe to be the finest examples of Christianity were actually atheists (Carnegie), and the people they believe to be the worst examples of atheists were not actually atheists at all (Hitler).
That’s like saying “I can prove that women are more violent than men - compare a fine man like Mother Theresa to that evil harpie woman Adolf Hitler”.
Given such basic misinformation as to who actually belongs in which camp, what’s the point in having a wider debate on who is more moral?
June 14th, 2008 at 12:59 pm
Andrew said: “Given such basic misinformation as to who actually belongs in which camp, what’s the point in having a wider debate on who is more moral?”
I understand your sentiment but I don’t think that you can extend this to that level. While it may be tough to evaluate if someone is a true Christian or merely complying to what society expects of a Christian, there are many easy ways one can evaluate if someone is an atheist; one of the most obvious is to just ask them. In the 21st Century most atheists have no compulsion to say they are not an atheist especially in a confidential survey. Perhaps in Victorian England and till the late 60’s it was socially unacceptable to be an atheist, today it is the opposite. Christians are considered close minded and intolerant. So I think we get a much more accurate representation of who is a liberal, who is an atheist and and who is not. Note I used both liberal and atheist in the statement, but the survey was just liberal vs. conservative if I’m not mistaken. I extended it to indicate that atheists were less moral because I have yet to find many morally conservative atheists. Especially since we are talking about MORAL conservatism, not economic.
While I’m very interesting in TDR’s claim. I’m not sure it is of any real value to prove or disprove Darwin as a non-atheist as most atheists are not Darwinian in the original sense of the word. Gradual Darwinianism that was proposed by Darwin has been largely abandoned by the Scientific community. We now have to deal with more sophisticated and complex theories like punctuated equilibrium. But it would be very interesting and ironic if he were. Of course I actually do tend to believe that after the death of his daughter Darwin came to be more fatalistic and rejected the idea of God more and more (the whole “how can God exist if there’s so much suffering” question - that I think we’ve dealt with amply on this forum).
Of course we all respond in different ways, one thing that I have come to appreciate so much about my little 17 month old daughter is that this beautiful creature will be my daughter and my friend for all eternity now and forever more. If God exists, nothing can separate her from my love and compassion for all eternity. If you are a father you will appreciate that. If there was no God, the thought of her dying would terrify me. (Note: This of course does not prove God exists in anyway.)
If Darwin did end up being a Christian it would just be a fascinating but deep irony.
Statistics in general are valuable if we analyze them properly. E.g. saying that statistically cigarettes will shorten your life is valuable, something Christians had been saying for decades in my culture in India. I remember almost 40 years ago preachers saying cigarettes are evil because they will hurt you and the world laughing at that close minded view. Today that has been proven. Now note you can and do find a few 90 year old 2 pack a day smokers. But that does not disprove the stats. So we can never use the exception as a valid gauge of the harm cigarette smoke does.
I am also not as impressed by Bill Gates and or Dale Carnegie regardless of the amount they gave, this is simply because one should not look at how much they gave but what percentage that they gave and also what percentage that they really need to live on. I know of Christian billionaires who give away 90% of their income and live on the 10%. Again an exception so let’s even ignore them. The real test is do Conservatives give more that LIberals?
The other real test is to look at how many Christians have sacrificed everything they own and their lives to give hope and food and healing to the poor and suffering. Anyway you look at this you realize that atheists do NOT rise above the crowd on this. There are very few hospitals named after atheists, there were very few atheists out there when I was growing up in Africa. If we needed medical help we went to a Christian hospital with a Christian doctor to whom we paid nothing. Even in India Hindus marvel at how all the orphanages are run by Christians, not atheists or Hindus and only recently have Muslims done any.
Albert Brooks in this book: Who really Cares, shows that conservatives give 30% more than liberals. So regardless of finding one or two individuals who buck the trend, let’s look at the entire trend. That is important.
So similarly if we can indeed show that liberals are less moral than conservatives it does show that those who believe that there are no moral absolutes tend to act like there are no moral absolutes.
Conservatives are more compassionate, more giving and more moral than Liberals. I think this is valuable information. The question for atheists are twofold:
1. Why are Conservative more compassionate and moral?
2. Why exactly is compassion and morality important if there is no God?
Having said all that, I do want to commend you Andrew for your participation on this site. I enjoy reading your responses and articulate arguments and in some cases have agreed with you over some of the others.
June 14th, 2008 at 1:51 pm
Andrew,
It is clear you don’t have the patience for true research which doesn’t happen to just pop into your hands - The archive as you have visited is media based to your impudent attempts satisfy a scorching case of information ADD is moot. I have to look for the speakers who where speaking, int he time period they spoke - if you can’t respect that - may I suggest TPM cafe… it’s more to your liking; where mindless postulations endless machinations singing to their own choir seem to be the hit parade of the day.
I know what you think you are doing… but I am not going to be called a liar by you are anyone. So insisting I am fabricating something wont be tolerated. I know what I heard… moreover I know whose forum the discussion was held, so I’ll find it - this is not a keywords search, boolian search string, talking point library, so get over it. One cannot invent something someone else said, and one certainly cannot inteject something very well that was already spoken. I wasn’t the only person to have heard that series of broadcasts by D. James Kennedy and guests and I am looking right now and know roughly within the period I heard it and believe I will find it soon enough.
I am so sorry I wasn’t in my office bookmarking the edition that was airing to suite some inquiry at a unbeknownst time in the future I could not have controlled [as I lack omniscience as a basic human trait] having it on tap for you, so - don’t’ even think of going there buddy… it ain’t gonna happen.
June 14th, 2008 at 2:47 pm
Ok, I think I have honed in on where it is… they redid their site, it used to be windows media player, now they want Adobe media player and I have have Vista Home Premium, for some odd reason the player won’t launch so I’ll have to keep digging at it though I know I am getting warm. Thank you all for bearing with me - I can’t do this level of digging at work, but I will figure something out soon as I can get a player to work to verity what I am hearing.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:08 pm
Dr. Ken Hamm on the “Death Bed” Recantation” of Charles Darwin:
Apparently there is considerable historical weight to what i have been reading [being objective in what I find] in in between my trying to get my silly media player to play I did come upon this in my research:
“…Darwin’s biographer, Dr James Moore, lecturer in the history of science and technology at The Open University in the UK, has spent 20 years researching the data over three continents. He produced a 218-page book examining what he calls the ‘Darwin legend’.7 He says there was a Lady Hope. Born Elizabeth Reid Cotton in 1842, she married a widower, retired Admiral Sir James Hope, in 1877. She engaged in tent evangelism and in visiting the elderly and sick in Kent in the 1880s, and died of cancer in Sydney, Australia, in 1922, where her tomb may be seen to this day.8
Moore concludes that Lady Hope probably did visit Charles between Wednesday, 28 September and Sunday, 2 October 1881, almost certainly when Francis and Henrietta were absent, but his wife, Emma, probably was present.9 He describes Lady Hope as ‘a skilled raconteur, able to summon up poignant scenes and conversations, and embroider them with sentimental spirituality’.10 He points out that her published story contained some authentic details as to time and place, but also factual inaccuracies—Charles was not bedridden six months before he died, and the summer house was far too small to accommodate 30 people. The most important aspect of the story, however, is that it does not say that Charles either renounced evolution or embraced Christianity. He merely is said to have expressed concern over the fate of his youthful speculations and to have spoken in favour of a few people’s attending a religious meeting.”
So the two siblings most in a position to appear credible as family actually weren’t there, so their statements are no longer credible as objective information. I am still working away but as I see more info as I try to get this up and running I want everyone to hear what I heard… it would be hard to walk away with any other context.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Also, Andrew… Look through my posts, I never claimed Darwin was an atheist, just because listed his works as the foundation of may leftist ideologies, does not tie him to atheism, nor did I.
June 14th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
typo… “many” leftist ideologies…
my bad, lol!
June 14th, 2008 at 5:49 pm
“I never claimed Darwin was an atheist”
Neither did I. And I never claimed that you did either.
So what’s your point?
“just because listed his works as the foundation of may leftist ideologies”
Another sentence that I can’t decipher.
Neil: 1. “Why are Conservative more compassionate and moral?”
Well quite obviously they aren’t Neil. Or they wouldn’t vote Tory. They are the war party, the homophobia party, the anti-science party, the lying party. How does that make them moral? Think about it?
June 14th, 2008 at 10:17 pm
Andrew,
“…“just because listed his works as the foundation of may leftist ideologies” Another sentence that I can’t decipher.”
Learn to follow the thread.. it was a typo, and I cleared it up.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:58 am
Right, but it still doesn’t make sense: ‘Just because listed his works’ - who listed his works?
“The archive as you have visited is media based to your impudent attempts satisfy a scorching case of information ADD is moot.”
Then: “they redid their site, it used to be windows media player, now they want Adobe media player and I have have Vista Home Premium, for some odd reason the player won’t launch so I’ll have to keep digging at it though I know I am getting warm. ”
And then: “in between my trying to get my silly media player to play I did come upon this in my research”
Followed by the same utterly debunked ‘Lady Hope’ story that we’ve already dealt with before, the one that even answersingenesis admits is nonsense. TDR, this is hopeless.
Right, so it wasn’t me being impudent or impatient after all…
June 15th, 2008 at 3:59 am
Neil: “If Darwin did end up being a Christian it would just be a fascinating but deep irony.”
I don’t see why. There’s no reason that being a Christian means you are incapable of understanding evolution. Most Christians do. Heard of the The Clergy Letter Project? It’s an organization that has created and maintains a statement signed by American Christian clergy of different denominations rejecting creationism, with specific reference to points raised by intelligent design proponents. This effort was organized by 2004 by biologist Michael Zimmerman, now Dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at Butler University in Indianapolis, Indiana.
By April 14, 2008, the Clergy Letter Project had collected 11,196 signatures of US clergy.[1] It continues to collect more.
Personally I don’t know or care what Darwin’s religious beliefs were. They are irrelevant to his amazing work in the field of biology.
June 15th, 2008 at 3:59 am
Neil, one of the problems with saying “Again an exception so let’s even ignore them,” about Bill Gates and Andrew Carnegie (not Dale Carnegie!), is that Christians are always listing Mao, Stalin and Hitler as examples of bad atheists. Leaving aside that Hitler wasn’t even an atheist, this is exactly the argument that you are dismissing - holding up an exception to judge the rest.
The second problem is that judging morality purely on charitable donations is reductive. As I mentioned before, atheists are astonishingly unrepresented in US prisons.
http://www.holysmoke.org/icr-pri.htm
0.2% of prisoners? When Atheists are about 8% of the population at large?
Furthermore, could I point to America’s vastly higher murder rate compared to France, Italy, UK etc to show that Americans in general are less moral than those countries?
My opinion? These stats don’t really affect the way I see Christians or atheists. I’m just showing that if YOU are going to use stats to make your argument, then you have to be consistent and go all the way.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Andrew,
“…I don’t see why. There’s no reason that being a Christian means you are incapable of understanding evolution. Most Christians do. ”
I’d like a crack at answering this, it depends on what world view you approach life from, most Christians as you say don’t have a choice, it is what was foisted upon by secularist in the education system. However, there are many dynamics within evolution to be addressed - to which can be addressed some to be dismissed, Darwinian naturalism is in the process of having the fork stuck in it - as there is nothing buyable even as a theory - to many laws of nature [even] that don’t add up so even secularists are rapidly moving away from it. However Big Bang dynamics are still being explored there are two field of thought being explored - to which one is Creation Science.
The founder of the Human Genome Project, a widely accepted institution among st todays objective members of the scientific community - secular and non. This has been encouraging as more and more data is revealing the science of microbiology and the utterly fascinating discoveries being uncovered.
June 15th, 2008 at 11:52 am
Accepting Evolution as is, i.e. the gradual evolution of man has some deep theological problems for any knowledgeable Bible student. Francis Collins (a Christian) who says he has no problem with evolution is just confused about it’s theological implications. If there was no Adam there was no first sin. If there was no first sin and no Adam then Jesus was wrong when he mentioned Adam by name and Jesus was unnecessary because Sin never entered the world, it was created with it.
But that is a family argument. It doesn’t make sense to argue theology if one doesn’t accept the premise that God exists.
June 15th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Neil,
lol, thanks for adding his name - I was so busy trying to complete my thought. Yes, true about the theology discussion… the biggest problems that Big Bang & Darwinian Naturalists have is something from nothing argument - which defies a fundamental law of physics… the law of entropy. If there is nothing there - there can’t be something to beget the next in series [generation]. Their arguments are struck with theories in gaps and plain logic 101, you can’t have something from nothing; and since there was never nothing, something was inevitable.
Good point.
June 15th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
This is funny: the biggest problems that Big Bang & Darwinian Naturalists have is something from nothing argument - which defies a fundamental law of physics
But two humans, and two of every species of animal magically appearing out of thin air doesn’t. I agree that the big bang model does have something appearing from nothing but there is nothing in the theory of evolution that has that problem.
While something-from-nothing is problematic, the current scientific model only has it happening once. The creation model has it happening millions of times.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:18 pm
Interesting how Plumb Bob hasn’t returned. Too embarrased to admit his error?
Do you always presume character flaws in your opponents for no reason at all?
I have a life outside of this site, and cannot always visit on a daily basis. I will take a look at what you wrote and decide if I made an error or not. At this moment, I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about…
… and if I were you, I’d be embarrassed by my own evident ill will, more than by any particular error. Ignorance is a lot easier to cure than viciousness.
June 15th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
I see — you’re saying that because Carnegie was influenced as an adult by Spencer, and was pleased to throw off his Protestant upbringing, that all the achievements of his life must be attributed to atheism.
This is a fine example, actually, of the parasitic nature of atheism that I mentioned earlier, but you chose not to address. If you ask a developmental psychologist “which years have the most influence in the formation of moral character in a human being,” you’ll discover that it’s the first 5 by a pretty wide margin. The article you pointed to indicated that the main point in which Spencer’s writings influenced Carnegie’s moral habits was to break him free from the disdain for pursuing wealth that his culture had taught him. That lesson clearly took hold, but tell me — where in that do you see encouragement toward philanthropy? Certainly not from Spencer: the very article you linked to said that Carnegie IGNORED Spencer’s opposition to philanthropy.
What we were seeing in Carnegie’s philanthropy was a return to the training of his youth — his Protestant upbringing. Carnegie, then, gives us a sterling example of how atheism and Christianity affect behavior — and how atheism relies on Christianity for the performance of any good work. Atheism has nothing within it to encourage charity; only in a Christian milieu, surrounded by Christian examples, or reaffirming a Christian upbringing, will an atheist behave in the positive manner in which Christians are encouraged to behave.
By the way, you seem to cherry-pick the arguments you’ll respond to, avoiding anything that makes your life difficult but grabbing the low-hanging fruit that will allow you to say “Aha! There’s an ERROR!” Jibes about what your opponents are afraid to admit are singularly inappropriate for a debater who uses that tactic. You should throw the next such jibe in the mirror.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Kendenny:
“…But two humans, and two of every species of animal magically appearing out of thin air doesn’t’t. I agree that the big bang model does have something appearing from nothing but there is nothing in the theory of evolution that has that problem.”
I had mentioned research such as the Human Genome Project which sort of kick started the field of microbiology… scientist are find sub atomic order and structure - biologists are finding sub-cellular order - if that is the case, they are not far from showing order in the universe by spiritual dictate. God is spirit, and if spirit is as light as thought - but substinative by order, then it goes a long way to opening the door to a great many creations in the universe - not surprisingly - us.
June 15th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
pardon - I meant to say scientists are finding… pardon my typo.
June 16th, 2008 at 4:39 am
” I will take a look at what you wrote and decide if I made an error or not. At this moment, I haven’t the slightest idea what you’re talking about…”
It’s not exactly complicated. You held up Andrew Carnegie as being a ‘Christian’ who is far superior to atheists such as Buffett and Gates. Only problem is that Carnegie was also an atheist. So now you will presumably change your mind and say Carnegie was a bad person too.
“only in a Christian milieu, surrounded by Christian examples, or reaffirming a Christian upbringing, will an atheist behave in the positive manner in which Christians are encouraged to behave.”
This gives you further problems, as Stalin was brought up a Christian. So good atheists you say owe their goodness to being brought up Christian. So what about ‘bad atheists’ who were brought up Christian?
June 16th, 2008 at 7:28 am
Neil, so the 11,000+ US clergy members who signed their support of evolutionary theory - they’re all confused and ignorant? Isn’t this just the same argument that was originally thrown up against heliocentrism?
It’s a dangerous argument to say ‘either the science is wrong or the bible is a false document’, because you leave yourself a hostage to fortune. The more scientific evidence is gathered, the more painted into a corner you become. Very few people who understand the evidence now insist that the sun goes round the earth, or that evolution is false, or that the earth is flat.
Plumb Bob: “By the way, you seem to cherry-pick the arguments you’ll respond to”
I have done no such thing. In your first post about Carnegie, your whole argument of Carnegie over Gates and Buffett rested on that fact that he was a Christian, whereas they were atheists. If he WASN’T a Christian, then your whole argument collapses.
Now you have shifted the argument, saying he may have been atheist, but was brought up Protestant. But the thread was responding to the question ‘Are atheists as moral as Christians’, not ‘Are atheists who weren’t brought up by Christians as moral as Christians’.
And where does it end? My gf is very moral, has spent her life caring for others, but both her parents are atheists, and so is she. Do you now say it’s because her GRANDparents may have been Christians? This is just loading the dice of the argument, fixing it so you can’t lose.
As for atheism being parasitic, Christianity took many elements from other religions - Judaism, the Golden Rule etc. And Virgin birth stories from antiquity include Horus (mother Isis, ancient Egypt), Montezuma, Zoroaster, Deganawidah, Dionysius (to Semele), Krishna (to Devaka), Minverva, Perseus (to Danae) etc. Even the date of Christmas was taken from a pagan festival. It’s Christianity that tries to force itself on everyone else, not atheists trying to nick things from Christianity.
June 16th, 2008 at 7:37 am
“Darwinian naturalism is in the process of having the fork stuck in it ”
Utter nonsense. Creationists have been claiming this for decades, while the evidence supporting it grows year-by-year. It is as central a foundation of science as any. Those that oppose it either do so through ignorance or through malevolence. They are no different to the 18% of Americans who still think the sun goes round the earth - that doesn’t mean that secularists are ‘foisting’ heliocentrism on Christians.
June 16th, 2008 at 9:51 am
Andrew,
“…This gives you further problems, as Stalin was brought up a Christian. So good atheists you say owe their goodness to being brought up Christian. So what about ‘bad atheists’ who were brought up Christian?”
When Christians were the majority in America, the values shaped the day.. therefore anything [just like in any culture that would be anything else] because there were Judea-Christian value that set the standard high, and those moral conscientious objectors had a barometer to operation within.
Now, your assertion that there is a good/bad atheist, one is only as good as when called upon. In any society… the test is what you lay your life down for. Atheists here in our culture seem to be swayed by the pride of life arguments, which make any argument not to defend your nations values or the nation itself, and are the liberals in our society who maintain a patently different view on he value of human life and it seems rather convenient to the way they want to live… which no man has a right to simply devalue just because.
Secondly,
“…Utter nonsense. Creationists have been claiming this for decades, while the evidence supporting it grows year-by-year. It is as central a foundation of science as any. Those that oppose it either do so through ignorance or through malevolence. They are no different to the 18% of Americans who still think the sun goes round the earth - that doesn’t mean that secularists are ‘foisting’ heliocentrism on Christians.”
What’s utter nonsense? Utter nonsense is a person who a) defends a bad idea - mainly because it is central do a behavioral codec that allows for the complete removal of morally clear guidelines as the standard that guides their behavior simply because it is convenient for hoe they want to live.. which is no good reason in itself and b) denies reality - the only utter nonsense were your unfounded ideas that somehow Creation scientists are lying about the defection of secular science from the selective engagement of subjective arguments to the open engagement to objective findings and arguments is simply a irresponsible and blatantly escapist - you are simply wrong… again. The shift in funding of research projects has been decreasing steadily over the last 10 years, and more rapidly over the last 5. You can repeat it until you believe it all you want Andrew, but it doesn’t make you right - this time you were flatly wrong.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:16 am
“You can repeat it until you believe it all you want Andrew, but it doesn’t make you right - this time you were flatly wrong.”
Likewise to you.
‘Creation scientists’? That’s a contradiction in terms - like ‘flat earth scientist’. There are no creationists submitting scientific papers for peer review. Creationism isn’t science.
“Utter nonsense is a person who a) defends a bad idea - mainly because it is central do a behavioral codec that allows for the complete removal of morally clear guidelines as the standard that guides their behavior simply because it is convenient for hoe they want to live.”
Right. But I’m talking about empiricle, peer-reviewed science. How exactly is this bluster supposed to be proving me wrong?
“The shift in funding of research projects has been decreasing steadily over the last 10 years, and more rapidly over the last 5. ”
Which research projects would these be? You don’t have ‘reseach projects in evolution’ any more than you have ‘research projects in the earth going round the sun’. But most of the biological sciences have evolution at their root.
Anyway, you’re trying to shift the argument from one you were losing badly. If you want to falsify evolution then go ahead and write some papers on the subject and win your nobel prize for science.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:23 am
“In any society… the test is what you lay your life down for. Atheists here in our culture seem to be swayed by the pride of life arguments, which make any argument not to defend your nations values or the nation itself”
Do you have any evidence for this, or did you just pull it out your ear? Any evidence for your slander that atheists are less likely to defend their nation? You’re just making it up as you go along.
June 16th, 2008 at 11:58 am
I have no problems stating that any Clergy that states that Evolution is true or refutes the Genesis account as myth does not share my theology. And yes I think they are wrong.
I have no problems tying Science and the Bible. Heliocentrisim is not in the BIble please feel free to find it for me. The folks who were pushing it were pushing their own doctrine and not anything found in the Bible.
Look at it this way. If the Bible is not true, I have other things to do with my time and my money. Science is not always correct but when we do find evidence that we can prove (i.e. vs a theory) then it is critical that the Bible is not proven wrong when the Bible is interpreted correctly.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
Neil, please tell me you don’t think that ‘theory’ in science means ‘something we haven’t proved yet’…
Are you sure that the clergy who signed that statement aren’t just much more aware of the science than you are?
As for heliocentrism, when it was first mooted that the earth was not the centre of the universe, the church suppressed the idea at the point of the sword, so they obviously thought the bible contradicted it.
Eventually, as with evolution, people had to accept the facts. Or just stick their fingers in their ears.
June 16th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Religious attitudes to the sun and earth’s movements
Psalm 93:1, Psalm 96:10, and I Chronicles 16:30 state that “the world is firmly established, it cannot be moved.” Psalm 104:5 says, “[the Lord] set the earth on its foundations; it can never be moved.” Ecclesiastes 1:5 states that “the sun rises and the sun sets, and hurries back to where it rises.”
Galileo defended heliocentrism, and claimed it was not contrary to those Scripture passages. He took Augustine’s position on Scripture: not to take every passage literally, particularly when the scripture in question is a book of poetry and songs, not a book of instructions or history.
For this, he was tried for heresy.
Martin Luther once said:
“There is talk of a new astrologer who wants to prove that the earth moves and goes around instead of the sky, the sun, the moon, just as if somebody were moving in a carriage or ship might hold that he was sitting still and at rest while the earth and the trees walked and moved. But that is how things are nowadays: when a man wishes to be clever he must . . . invent something special, and the way he does it must needs be the best! The fool wants to turn the whole art of astronomy upside-down. However, as Holy Scripture tells us, so did Joshua bid the sun to stand still and not the earth.”
This reminds me a lot of creationists dismissing science.
Which side would you have been on in the 17th Century?
June 16th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
Don’t confuse the church with the Bible. Don’t confuse preachers with God. There have been many preachers who have preached either heresy or merely been wrong.
If you talk to my friends who are young earth Creationists, my being an old earth creationist would put me on the dissenting side in the 17th Century. So chalk me up with Augustine.
Galileo was right. And as I said heliocentrism was a theory that Plato had.
You should look up those passages in context and look at the actual interpretation of the words in Hebrew.
Remember to interpret the Bible the same way you’d interpret the sports page.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Neil, I don’t interpret or judge the bible at all. My attitude to it is probably similar to what yours is to the Koran or the Bhagavad Gita.
However, regardless of interpretation of the bible, young earth creationists are simply wrong. Their beliefs are contradicted by empirical evidence. And similarly, evolution is supported by a huge body of evidence in several difference scientific disciplines. That’s why it’s taught as science. Creationism and ID are not supported by any evidence at all.
Saying that your holy book clearly says that something is the case, when it isn’t, simply makes either your book look wrong, or your interpretation of it.
However, I really don’t see why this thread has suddenly become about creationism. Supposedly it was about morality. But it got bogged down with endless claims from certain posters that disolved as soon as they were subjected to the slightest examination.
If it’s really important to you to believe that being Christian makes you more moral, that’s fine.
From my viewpoint, I’ve not noticed much difference in morality between them and atheists. I put the higher prison rates of Christians, their higher likelihood of being homophobic, and their increased likelihood of being anti-science as more being cultural things, mostly confined to certain mid-west areas of the US, and not necessarily related to their religion.
June 16th, 2008 at 1:36 pm
It’s not important to me to believe that being Christian makes me more moral. It is important to me to find facts to verify my thesis.
It’s an obvious conclusion from the argument, that not having a moral absolute does indeed cause the atheists to be less moral.
But the atheists have always bristled about this claiming that they were indeed JUST as moral as Christians. So when we find evidence that shows that our original thesis is true, it has explanatory and confirmatory power.
So when you say in your viewpoint you found….that is like me saying in my viewpoint I’ve found the opposite….we both know this is meaningless and merely uninformed opinions when compared to a real statistic (or 4 in this case).
June 16th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
“So when we find evidence that shows that our original thesis is true, it has explanatory and confirmatory power.”
Right. So when the ‘real statistics’ contradict your thesis do you change your mind? Or ignore the stats? Is America so much less moral than Western Europe, with its much higher murder rate, despite its greater levels of Christian devotion? Is it all the atheists committing these crimes? No because we have other stats showing that prison populations are 0.2% atheist compared to 8 or 9% of the population at large.
“that not having a moral absolute does indeed cause the atheists to be less moral.”
You are surely aware of the argument that Christians possess no more access to moral absolutes than atheists. Either God merely tells us the moral absolutes that already exists - in which case we don’t need God to tell us. Or the moral absolutes exist BECAUSE God says so - in which case they are abitrary and open to God changing his mind.
You have no more moral absolutes than me - you still had to choose the ‘right’ religious text, and then have the ‘right’ interpretation of it.
At any rate, ‘moral absolutes’ led to Christians using the bible to justify slavery for hundreds of years. Morals reached through reasoned debate of ethics have more value to me than inflexible dogma, than someone claiming that THEIR interpretation of a particular bronze age book, is better than someone else’s interpretation of the same book.
If it’s so ABSOLUTE, how come Catholics and Protestants spent decades burning each other at stakes over who was right? How come different religions disagree so much? How come the SAME religion disagrees with itself as much about ideas of morality as it does disagree with atheists?
I see no moral absolutes coming from Christians. I see arguments, I see people who sin just as much, if not more, than atheists. And at worst I see people using the bible to justify horrific acts.
So given that atheists are plainly no less moral than Christians, you may want to consider that you’re asking the wrong question. Ask WHY they aren’t.
The secular answer is that our morality evolved. You may not agree with this view, but it answers the question of why atheists are no less moral than Christians. And it fits the evidence available to us.
But again, if you want to believe you are more moral than atheists, go ahead. Whatever makes you feel happy!
June 16th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
Andrew we actually dealt with all these issues already. Please see this link: http://www.crossexamined.org/blog/?p=52
Also you said: So given that atheists are plainly no less moral than Christians, you may want to consider that you’re asking the wrong question. Ask WHY they aren’t.
I’ve shown 4 studies that show that this statement is false. You either need to refute the studies or you need to come up with your own study. But merely refusing to accept their results without reasons is not an argument.
June 16th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
Andrew,
“Right. But I’m talking about empiricle, peer-reviewed science. How exactly is this bluster supposed to be proving me wrong?”
Do you not understand you will never find the “empirical” evidence you so evocatively project as something the Creationists somehow lack? Are you getting that? The only thing you have is a global nutter consensus - mainly of European Marxists who need it - and some got sold over here and is bully pulpitted as “truth” when it is anything but. I don’t’ think so… reality is not aligned with your personal best wishes - Fact: Funding sources are drying up for traditional exploration of Darwinian Naturalism simply on strength of what the Human Genome Project brought tot he table. Now add in more and more Universities and private research exploring the discoveries already being mapped by the further research of Christian and secular scientists involved who are [I might add] being a lot more objective than you… Darwin’s theories are old, and highly improbable - there is not natural evidence to support virtually none of it, the only valid point used is survival of the fittest by way of natural selection, and that is it - but that is viable and can be expressed by other theories as well. I’ll say this… you’re tenacious, now imagine if you focused all that on more purposeful ventures?
June 17th, 2008 at 7:15 am
Neil, thanks for the link where you ‘deal with these issue’. It just seems to a debate between a non-biologist (Hitchens) and a friend of yours, moderated by Ben Stein, who has already shown he doesn’t even UNDERSTAND evolution.
It proves nothing, my point stands.
Now, you’ve got your 4 studies, but the statistics stand: Atheists are 50 times less represented in prisons than they are in the rest of America. Furthermore, America proportionately has a much higher population of Christians than all of Western Europe, and yet has a much higher proportion of its population in prison, and a vastly higher murder rate. Then you’ve got the opposition to global warming science, the harm of which far outweighs any charitable donations to the nations most vulnerable, eg Africa.
I’ve mentioned this before, and you’ve not responded. As you say yourself: ‘Merely refusing to accept their results without reasons is not an argument.’
TDR: “The only thing you have is a global nutter consensus”
Oh I see, a conspiracy theory, carried out by virtually every biologist in the world. If you have such disdain for the science, how can you bear to see a doctor when you’re sick?
Your mention of Marxism is particularly bizarre. Marxism is anti-Darwinian. Marxism and socialism is about the state carrying the weaker members, the opposite of Capitalism and Herbert Spencer’s ‘Survival of the Fittest’.
“there is not natural evidence to support virtually none of it”
This is true. However there IS natural evidence to support virtually ALL of it. The fact that you are unaware of the evidence is merely the ‘argument from ignorance’.
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
The evidence for evolution comes not just from the biological sciences but also from both historical and modern research in anthropology, astrophysics, chemistry, geology, physics, mathematics, and other scientific disciplines, including the behavioral and social sciences.
Astrophysics and geology have demonstrated that the Earth is old enough for biological evolution to have resulted in the species seen today. Physics and chemistry have led to dating methods that have established the timing of key evolutionary events. Studies of other species have revealed not only the physical but also the behavioral continuities among species. Anthropology has provided new insights into human origins and the interactions between biology and cultural factors in shaping human behaviors and social systems.
It’s not MY tenacity, it’s those of many scientists far smarter than either of us, over 150 years. Your dismissal of their work is shameful.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:13 am
Andrew,
Your counterpoints validate nothing, and are as argumentative as they are wildly speculative.
June 17th, 2008 at 11:43 am
My counterpoints? You mean 150 years of painstaking science? Building to a massive scientific consensus, supported by hundreds of thousands of scientific papers in many disciplines? Those are just ‘counterpoints’? Right ho then…
Meanwhile, what have you got? Strawman claims that fall apart as soon as I ask you for examples - Hitler’s atheism, Darwin’s conversion, Carnegie’s Christianity. Yawn.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
Andrew,
What you hijack to try to refer to as science is what is called scientism, [or] the subjective valuation of research or findings more in line with it’s social or political agenda. Ok therte pal?
We’ll try this again for the kids with the nose-bleed seats… science is objective in it’s approach to discoveries through observation and analysis, however scientism flatly disregards facts [mostly] and is highly subjective because it only holds valuable what will support its positions socially or politically. So in short… scientism supports your views because they are in sync with your social and political beliefs. So it doesn’t matter what’s on paper… most of it isn’t worth the mental effort to repeat let alone the time to write.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
OK, so we’ve got two groups:
Science: impirically gathered data etc, giving us evolution, backed up by evidence. No political agenda - we follow the facts, wherever they lead us. The facts are what they are.
Creationism - both Muslim and Christian - which flatly disregards facts and is highly subjective because it only holds valuable what will support its literal reading of the bible. See also religious people’s attempts to deny that the sun moved round the earth, also because it was thought to undermine the bible. The facts are denied because people are scared of what they might mean, regardless of the evidence that supports it.
But TDR, you long since ran out of arguments.
June 17th, 2008 at 10:58 pm
Andrew,
“…Science: impirically gathered data etc, giving us evolution, backed up by evidence. No political agenda - we follow the facts, wherever they lead us. The facts are what they are.”
first off.. you cannot empirically gather data, you have to gather empirical data. But that’s OK, your BB came loose quite a while ago, and these impudent arguments are just more evidence of that. On the matter of empirical evidence, you loose right off - the fossil tables don’t support gaps in species mutation. If something morphed… where are the phased mutation records? there are none… listen you are devolving in so many areas you have no more viable ammo, I just can’t - you are responding with feeling, not with fact, your retorts are conjecture laden and carry nothing what you call science could use, but scientism on the other hand lavishes the public with.
“…The facts are denied because people are scared of what they might mean, regardless of the evidence that supports it.”
People generally will let you bring viable arguments to the marketplace of free ideas… but when they fail to support themselves, and then are survived by a coercive nutowork,,, [oops.. did I say that?] - network of consensus based, leveraged lie brokering-as-fact. Darwinian Naturalism is nothing more than the creation story for the secularist and nothing more.
Creation scientists aren’t having the ACLU have to go in and court-jack their ideals into the public square, it is had validity on its own, there would be wider acceptance - most don’t even like the topic, they just move right along… because they know it is full of holes.
“…But TDR, you long since ran out of arguments.”
This is rank, textbook projection right here… why don’t just say I’m rubber you’re glue,? that is just about how silly that sounds. No, my friend, it is you that have nothing but feelings to run on - to which you are entitled, but [as they say] bring a knife to a gun fight… but you didn’t even bring a gun. You might as well have brought Oprah and Eckhardt Tolle - at least we might have gotten a car out of it.
June 18th, 2008 at 7:03 am
“This is rank, textbook projection right here… why don’t just say I’m rubber you’re glue?”
I explained why you’ve run out of arguments, there was no projection from me. Every argument that you gave fell apart as soon as I asked for an example or evidence:
* Hitler being an atheist
* Atheists being less likely to be patriotic
* Darwin recanting
* Carnegie being a Christian.
And now a new one: “If something morphed… where are the phased mutation records?”
You’ve not heard of Tiktaalik then?
June 18th, 2008 at 9:06 am
Andrew,
Just because YOU FELL you’ve supplied whatever it is you needed to make your arguments - doesn’t mean I didn’t make my point valued and known;
“Hitler being an atheist - Never said he was - He’s mystic, used as an example of those who used Darwin’s theories as the basis for their social ideals
* Atheists being less likely to be patriotic - That was argued and resolved, because the humanist says man is the measure of all he does, mans fallen nature cannot [on its own] set a standard greater than it’s own nature without guidance. Nothing through out history will show man own his own devising good for all on his own without Divine guidance. That was resolved - you never supplied anything valid to support your position - resolved.
* Darwin recanting - I supplied what the root argument for is, which I admit [until I get the audio sound byte] don’t refute nor substantiate it.
* Carnegie being a Christian. - I never made any comment about him personally - Carnegie was a humanist… i.e. an atheist.
“And now a new one: “If something morphed… where are the phased mutation records?” You’ve not heard of Tiktaalik then?”
Ah, yeah… but another feeble attempt at manufacturing evidence to support a an intellectual fraud. Even secular scientists denounce it as a fraud.
June 18th, 2008 at 10:16 am
TDR: “can you tell me any strong take away value those to whom the ideal is at odds with where they may be able to find viable social figures who lead solid lives and are great role models? Right now I can show ones who were a detriment - Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Barton, Sanger… Marx, Russell…”
So this wasn’t supposed to be a list of atheists then?
And I’ve already pointed out several times that Hitler was an anti-Darwinist, so that doesn’t hold water.
“Even secular scientists denounce it as a fraud.”
No they don’t. Cite please.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:23 am
Many, many examples of transitional fossils:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....ional.html
Plus:
http://www.talkorigins.org/faq.....tions.html
“To say there are no transitional fossils is simply false. Paleontology has progressed a bit since Origin of Species was published, uncovering thousands of transitional fossils, by both the temporally restrictive and the less restrictive definitions. The fossil record is still spotty and always will be; erosion and the rarity of conditions favorable to fossilization make that inevitable. Also, transitions may occur in a small population, in a small area, and/or in a relatively short amount of time; when any of these conditions hold, the chances of finding the transitional fossils goes down.
Still, there are still many instances where excellent sequences of transitional fossils exist. Some notable examples are the transitions from reptile to mammal, from land animal to early whale, and from early ape to human.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:27 am
I just tried to post links to info on dozens of transitional fossils, but it didn’t come through.
I’ll just past a few from talkorigins:
* Parasemionotus (early Triassic) — “Holostean” fish with modified cheeks but still many primitive features. Almost exactly intermediate between the late paleoniscoids & first teleosts. Note: most of these fish lived in seasonal rivers and had lungs. Repeat: lungs first evolved in fish.
* Oreochima & similar pholidophorids (late Triassic) — The most primitive teleosts, with lighter scales (almost cycloid), partially ossified vertebrae, more advanced cheeks & jaws.
* Leptolepis & similar leptolepids (Jurassic) — More advanced with fully ossified vertebrae & cycloid scales. The Jurassic leptolepids radiated into the modern teleosts (the massive, successful group of fishes that are almost totally dominant today). Lung transformed into swim bladder.
* Triadobatrachus (early Triassic) — a proto-frog, with a longer trunk and much less specialized hipbone, and a tail still present (but very short).
* Vieraella (early Jurassic) — first known true frog.
* Karaurus (early Jurassic) — first known salamander.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:38 am
Andrew,
Do you not realize that the data you are offering still isn’t fact, they are wild eyes postulations buy people getting government grants to tell you something you may need to justify… no fact in it. There are no half-phase life forms. We were created whole, animals were created whole. Mutations do not account for genus. Nice try though - I’ll got you B for effort.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:42 am
More conspiracy theories from you. You’re dismissing every single one of tens of thousands of fossils? The fact that speciation has been observed?
Taking that attitude then there is not a single fact in science that you could dismiss on the grounds that it is inconvenient to your narrow world view.
Try taking off that tin hat.
June 18th, 2008 at 11:59 am
Practical purposes evolution has been put to:
The evolutionary principles of natural selection, variation, and recombination are the basis for genetic algorithms, an engineering technique that has many practical applications, including aerospace engineering, architecture, astrophysics, data mining, drug discovery and design, electrical engineering, finance, geophysics, materials engineering, military strategy, pattern recognition, robotics, scheduling, and systems engineering
Bioinformatics, a multi-billion-dollar industry, consists largely of the comparison of genetic sequences. Descent with modification is one of its most basic assumptions.
Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture.
Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields.
Artificial selection has been used since prehistory, but it has become much more efficient with the addition of quantitative trait locus mapping.
Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy.
Sex allocation theory, based on evolution theory, was used to predict conditions under which the highly endangered kakapo bird would produce more female offspring, which retrieved it from the brink of extinction.
Then there’s the many practical uses of Phylogenetic analysis, which uses the evolutionary principle of common descent
So you’re basically claiming that a particular tool doesn’t exist, when the tool is actually being used by millions of people and many different contexts. This has nothing to do with ‘government grants’. That’s like claiming that NASA pretended to the moon to get money off the government. But instead of just involving NASA, you’re involving tens of thousands of scientists, and millions of other people involved in related industries.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
lol… pardot the bad syntax.
June 18th, 2008 at 1:32 pm
Andrew,
I conceded on the only aspect of evolution that made any sense or had practical application outside of its dominant theory - and that was natural selection. Ok, we agree on that… because the theory in practical application could be reasonably asserted in Creation science. The other progressive and far reaching theories are are just that. Theories, it isn’t science because a scientist said it was a theory. They have a word for that - hyposthoesis… and that’s all it it.
Secondly - true science tries to disprove a line of thinking first… and when there is ample evidence to support the inability to do so, then they can apply observation to make tangible thesis for discussion… unfortunately proponents of Darwinian naturalism negate that step - and that is what more objective scientists [secular or not] have a huge problem with. They may not believe in God, but they have a heart for the true process of scientific discovery and let the evidence reveal itself. Classic evolution fails to me that basic building block, and that strength it gets knocked pretty hard.
June 19th, 2008 at 7:28 am
“true science tries to disprove a line of thinking first”
There are many ways one could falsify evolution. No-one’s managed it, despite huge prizes on offer. Keep trying though, eh?
But you’ve already admitted that you will reject ANY evidence as ‘wild eyes postulations buy [sic] people getting government grants’. So nothing would convince you anyway.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:01 am
Andrew,
“There are many ways one could falsify evolution. No-one’s managed it, despite huge prizes on offer. Keep trying though, eh?”
Deluded, there is no way to further falsify something false. Look up the word debased, and apply it to your intellect.Seriously, you have some issues pal.
” But you’ve already admitted that you will reject ANY evidence as ‘wild eyes postulations buy [sic] people getting government grants’. So nothing would convince you anyway.”
Minds like yours have had over a hundred years to make an argument stick, me thinks you’ve had plenty of time. It didn’t make sense then… still doesn’t make sense now. Elements have been made into sub theories but on its own merit - evolution own its own is only survived by force fed agenda. Christians have never forced anything on anyone… including Creationism. It is growing more and more in stature because it asks you to use your common sense and look at the evidence that is already here, and that which is being discovered that flatly turns Darwinian Evolution on its ears. To know now something has the support of objective science [real science] over subjective valuations of a handful of social engineers with pocket protectors is madness.
It is truly like looking at yourself in a mirror and denying the image you see in favor of a feeling of what you believe you are. In short [thus] the title of Franks series… sorry, I don’t have enough faith to be an atheist.
June 19th, 2008 at 9:50 am
“Deluded, there is no way to further falsify something false. Look up the word debased, and apply it to your intellect”
Please look up the word ‘falsify’. It means ‘to show something is false’. You said this yourself here:
“true science tries to disprove a line of thinking first”
In other words, it tries to falsify it! And yes you CAN falsify something that is false - you demonstrate that it is false. That is how science words.
I was agreeing with you here and you call me debased. To be honest, I stopped reading your post there - you’re not familiar with basic scientific terminology, and assume the worst when you come across a word you don’t understand.
There’s nothing left to discuss.
June 19th, 2008 at 10:57 am
I’ve noticed the silence from Neil too, on the statistics showing atheists are far less likely to be in prison - 50 times less likely in fact. And he claimed we had to follow the stats where ever they led us. Why the silence on this issue?
June 19th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
No avoidance, I teach about 1000 different kids every Tuesday and Wednesday about how to argue for the existence of God and other such things. So other priorities are a bit higher at times.
As to the prisons, I’ve talked to folks from Prison Fellowship and I have a friend named Dan M. who was a Prison Guard and they say that in US prisons most prisoners are given special privileges to attend Church or Islamic services (5 break a day for Islam and access to water for washing and a mat to pray on). As a result they all flock to those services or religions. Secondly there is a habit in the US of identifying yourself as the religion of your parents even if you don’t hold to those belief systems.
Prison Fellowship says if you interview most prisoners they will claim that they are religious AND innocent. But if you dig deeper they will not have a personal relationship with Christ.
So the “prison” vs. Christianity comparison is not as strong. A better test would be to do a survey and ask the prisoners if they had a personal relationship with Jesus Christ PRIOR to their incarceration. Then you have a valid statistic.
This irrelevance is also apparent when you look at people like Charles Manson who claims to be deeply religious and in fact claims to be Jesus Christ. And believe me he’s not all that unusual.
If you had a statistic that compared the number of born again Bible believing evangelistic believers. Then you may have an argument.
And finally, I’m glad that prisoners are hearing the Word of God, who needs it more. But you can’t use the statistic to overide the 4 surveys above.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:30 pm
On an administrative note I’ve noticed that TDR and Andrew have been spending a lot of time arguing at cross purposes and coming close to the ad hominum lines.
I don’t want to pick on any one of you alone, but could I ask that we focus on the facts of the argument and avoid certain inflammatory statements like calling the other person’s facts wild eyed or claiming that they have a narrow world view etc.
You may feel that way but surely we can keep that to ourselves and say that we disagree and why we disagree. If you don’t understand what someone says, please ask them to explain it. I think there some good dialog going on here and I want to encourage it but in good faith.
Remember there are only 2 ways to refute an argument:
1. Show the facts are wrong or incomplete OR
2. Show that the logic is wrong.
Everything else is a fallacy of some sort.
June 19th, 2008 at 12:51 pm
Andrew,
I realized that I owe you one other response. You asked about the link I pointed you towards. Though the blog was about DNA, the resulting discussion included the issues you asked about morality. If you do want to discuss that issue, I can start a new blog for it or you can continue on that link that i sent you (preferred, so all the arguments will be in one place).
Thanks
Neil
June 19th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
Andrew,
“There’s nothing left to discuss.”
What is it you think you supplied? Truth? Answers? No… you’re right in one thing - there nothing left for you to add. Because you can’t add nothing to nothing. The scientism group is a deluded group of social engineers , and that’s all. Those whole point clearer thinking mids are just about exasperated in levying… is you have substantiated nothing, and validated even less - respecfully my friend - you’re done…
June 19th, 2008 at 11:27 pm
oops… clearer thinking minds, pardon all.
June 20th, 2008 at 7:08 am
Neil, you can always explain away statistics that you don’t like. If you attacked Schweizer’s with the same tenacity then you could dismiss them too.
Comparing charitable donations is difficult. It’s not enough to compare how much you give proportionate to your wage. I earn twice as much now as ten years ago, but I can afford to donate perhaps five times as much. I’d have thought that conservatives tend to be better off and therefore more able to donate. The people right at the bottom of the ladder in US society are much more likely to vote Dem, and are the ones most likely not to be able to spare ANY money for charity.
How’s about looking at the stats for American murder rates vs ‘Godless, socialist’ Europe?
June 20th, 2008 at 7:23 am
I’ve been trying to google for Schweizer’s studies. For some reason my browser quits whenever I open your link.
How is he definining ‘Conservatives’? People who vote GOP or something else?
Plus, it seems to be circular arguments he is offering:
eg ‘Conservatives are actually more knowledgeable than liberals.’ How is he defining ‘more knowledgeable’? I could tell you that GOPs are much less likely to understand evolution, know that the earth moves round the sun etc, but you might not see those as important. If you are defining ‘more knowledgeable’ as meaning ‘more likely to hold conservative positions on science etc’ then it’s a circular argument.
At any rate, polls consistently show that viewers of Fox News are much more likely to believe falsehoods like ‘Saddam Hussein was involved in 9/11′. Also, Scientists are much more likely to be atheist than the general population. To me, that points to greater knowledge. You may disagree, but that’s my point - the person who comes up with the definition can tailor it to make their side the victor.
June 20th, 2008 at 12:10 pm
I also notice through Googling that Schweizer holds up people such as Bill O’Reilly, Rush Limbaugh and Dick Cheney as being more charitable than ‘liberals’ such as Al Gore. I’ll leave aside the many, many controversies these men have been involved with that make it hard for me to accept them as moral examples (eg the lies they’ve been caught out telling and the numerous scandals involving sexual harassment etc).
Before he became VP, Cheney said he was giving away/ selling all his Haliburton shares, to avoid conflict of interest. After Haliburton started getting loads of contracts in the war that Cheney had a major hand in starting, someone did some digging around and found that Cheney in fact still had many interest in Hali.
He was pretty much forced to donate to charity the millions he had made out of the war. So, is Schweizer including these donations in his calculations?
Is he also including the work Gore has done for charities dealing with Global Warming, or does Schweizer discount these because he disagrees with the science?
If so, then I’d like to know if he’s including conservative donations to charities that run on science that I disagree with - eg to Christian organisations in Africa that push absitinence-only programmes proven to be less effective in combating AIDS than programmes that push abstinence together with education on contraception.
Finally, who says that liberals aren’t just more discrete in their charitable donations?
And FINALLY, finally, if you’re saying that we can’t trust stats on prisoners religions - as they will often claim not to be atheists when they are - then by the same token, how can we trust atheists are genuinely so ill-represented in congress and among the senate? I’d be very surprised if many, many famous GOPs aren’t atheist on the quiet, simply because they know it would be career suicide to admit to it.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:05 pm
That is certainly possible, the only problem is that there are only at most 47 GOP senators, even if every single one of them was an atheist it would not be able to change the stats sufficiently. You should also look at Albert Brooks’ “Who really cares” that also indicates that Conservatives give 30% more than liberals.
We can safely calculate unless I am mistaken (so correct me if I’m wrong on this), that the atheists fall into the liberal camp. While it is possible that atheists give more than the average liberal, I’d need to see some evidence of this.
June 20th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“That is certainly possible, the only problem is that there are only at most 47 GOP senators”
I don’t mean to change the whole stats, I mean to change your viewpoint that the GOP is almost exclusively a non-Atheist party, and to change Schweizer’s examples of charitable GOPs (some of whom might actually be atheist).
“We can safely calculate unless I am mistaken (so correct me if I’m wrong on this), that the atheists fall into the liberal camp”
I have no idea either way - do you?
“also indicates that Conservatives give 30% more than liberals.”
I’ve already pointed out that the lowest-earning members of society are much more likely to be Democrat, and they are much less able to donate even proportionately small amounts to charity.
And I’ve heard many accounts of Christian charities giving starving Africans bibles instead of food. Or ,as I’ve already said, pushing ‘abstinence-only’ programmes proven to be less effective against AIDS than those that include contraception education. I’d count such organisation more as pushing propaganda than charity.
If I said I give much money to the Richard Dawkins Foundation, would you count that as a charitable donation?
Any opinions on murder stats in the US vs Europe?
June 20th, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Neil: “But even before we get there the first requirement is to agree that there are moral absolutes, otherwise trying to determine what they are seems a waste of time. How can you argue about preferences? e.g. I prefer pepperoni, you prefer chicken pesto. I prefer saving lives regardless of its effect on the race, Hitler prefers killing to purify the race.”
The problem is that you both reached your radically differing conclusions apparently via the same ‘Absolute Higher Authority’ of the bible.
“Though the blog was about DNA, the resulting discussion included the issues you asked about morality. If you do want to discuss that issue, I can start a new blog for it ”
If you reject evolution, then the discussion would be as pointless with me arguing over the cause of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, with someone who rejects gravity.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Neil: We can safely calculate unless I am mistaken (so correct me if I’m wrong on this), that the atheists fall into the liberal camp”
Andrew: I have no idea either way - do you?
Neil: This is easy to prove. We are talking about moral conservatives. Are you against abortion, gay marriage and sex before marriage? If so and you know that the majority of Atheists believe like you do, then I am wrong. If not then I think it shows that atheists fall in the liberal camp.
On the GOP. Do not fear, I think most of them are RINOs (Republican in name only). Others of them are wimps. So I probably agree with you that most of them are losers. A few exceptions..
“And I’ve heard many accounts of Christian charities giving starving Africans bibles instead of food. ”
That is stunningly false. If you know anything about Christian Charities their major purpose is to meet medical and physical needs. That must be an atheist urban legend. It is quite laughable. I grew up in Africa. They do give Bibles our in the US, but in 3rd world countries most tribes don’t have a written language and when they do most of the people we reach out to are illiterate. In 2nd world countries they do give out Bibles and literature, however not if there is a need for food. Even when I was in the Middle East (Yemen), the best hospital there was a FREE Missionary hospital. DId they have Bibles in the hospital rooms in Arabic. Sure. But come now if that’s your beef it’s rather weak don’t you think. In fact that was the hospital where some crazy Muslim went in and tried to do his jihad, killing 3 great doctors/administrators. The people and the government of Yemen were outraged that the very people who had been providing healing for over 17 years had been killed by one of their own. Ironically it did more to advance Christianity there than anything else could have.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:31 pm
Oh if the Richard Dawkins foundation did anything to alleviate the suffering of sick and hungry people then yes. If they just focus on some philosophical suffering i.e. eradication of religion that has theoretically caused suffering then I would be hard pressed to imagine that that was very charitable.
June 20th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
Andrew: If you reject evolution, then the discussion would be as pointless with me arguing over the cause of the Leaning Tower of Pisa, with someone who rejects gravity.
Valid objection. Can I say though that I’m willing to accept an answer that includes evolution just so I can understand your viewpoint. If you feel it would be worth your effort to do so. I would find it valuable.
June 21st, 2008 at 10:56 am
“Can I say though that I’m willing to accept an answer that includes evolution just so I can understand your viewpoint. If you feel it would be worth your effort to do so. I would find it valuable.”
Neil. I’ve handwritten an answer, but will need time to type it out - my partner is 37 week’s pregnant and possibly ready to drop.
“That is stunningly false. If you know anything about Christian Charities their major purpose is to meet medical and physical needs. ”
My point stands on “pushing ‘abstinence-only’ programmes proven to be less effective against AIDS than those that include contraception education.”
June 21st, 2008 at 1:06 pm
Info on Richard Dawkins foundation:
http://richarddawkinsfoundatio.....ourMission
June 21st, 2008 at 1:34 pm
“This is easy to prove. We are talking about moral conservatives. Are you against abortion, gay marriage and sex before marriage? If so and you know that the majority of Atheists believe like you do, then I am wrong. ”
Well obviously I couldn’t claim moral highground if I was homophobic. None of my friends are either. But then, none of them would ‘cheat on their taxes’ or ‘buy goods that you know are stolen’ either, to answer Schweizer.
This could be because we are all prosperous and middle class. But then, the prosperous and middle class are more likely to be GOP too. Schweizer failed to separate his survey along salary lines. Again, I’ve already pointed out that the lowest-earning members of society are much more likely to be Democrat, simply cos they feel ill-served by GOP. Rich people less likely to buy goods that they know are stolen?
Big surprise.
June 21st, 2008 at 1:37 pm
“Neil: This is easy to prove. We are talking about moral conservatives.”
The quoted polls refer to political conservatives and liberals, not moral:
“Another survey by Barna Research found that political liberals…”
“And academics concluded in the Journal of Psychology that there was a link between ‘political liberalism’ …”
June 21st, 2008 at 6:16 pm
Neil, if I said that we evolved the sensation of pain as a survival mechanism - eg to alert us that a fire was damaging our skin - would you parse this to mean that I believed there was no such thing as pain?
Similarly, I can theorise that our appreciation of human beauty also had its roots in reproduction - full breasts, wide hips, healthy skin all suggest ability to produce healthy children etc. A combination in men of height (but not TOO tall), wide shoulders, and power, all make a good potential father for a woman’s kids. That doesn’t mean that I can’t say Marilyn Monroe wasn’t beautiful. Or that women don’t actually fancy Brad Pitt.
Similarly, we can all agree that Hitler was evil, regardless of how we grew to gain our appreciation of that evil - from evolution, from God, or from God guiding evolution or from something else.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:18 am
Andrew: The quoted polls refer to political conservatives and liberals, not moral:
Andrew, since the survey referred to political liberals being less moral, I think we can presume that they are morally liberal. If I understand Political Liberal means either morally liberal or economically liberal or both and I presumed that Atheists fell into that camp. But are you postulating that this survey is overly weighted by “political conservatives” who are economic conservatives, yet morally liberal and this set consists of atheists?
In short I’m saying that the Atheists will fall into the liberal camp and the question was about moral values so it would seem to indicate the morally liberal ones would choose to be “liberal” about their morals.
June 23rd, 2008 at 2:24 am
Andrew: “Similarly, I can theorise that our appreciation of human beauty also had its roots in reproduction - full breasts, wide hips, healthy skin all suggest ability to produce healthy children etc. A combination in men of height (but not TOO tall), wide shoulders, and power, all make a good potential father for a woman’s kids. That doesn’t mean that I can’t say Marilyn Monroe wasn’t beautiful. Or that women don’t actually fancy Brad Pitt.”
Andrew, I think there’s a problem with the analogy. Let me see if I can reason it out:
1. Beauty is largely subjective. The standards for beauty are subjective. e.g Today Marilyn would be considered pudgy. Take a look at Rodin’s women. Today they’d be considered fat. Beauty is largely subjective. In China, small feet were considered beautiful, so they would bind the women’s feet and doom them to a life of pain.
2. Women fancying Brad pit is an objective statement. Brad Pitt is good looking is a subjective statement. If this is not clear I can spend some time on that.
So what is absolute morality? Is there an objective morality? If there is where does it come from?
Hitler and many of the Germans did not think Hitler was evil. What is your basis for saying Hitler was evil?
If there is no absolute morality, why was Hitler wrong? If there is an absolute morality, why do you get to decide what it is and not Hitler?
June 23rd, 2008 at 4:43 am
“If there is an absolute morality, why do you get to decide what it is and not Hitler?”
Why do YOU get to decide that YOUR morality is absolute?
Your interpretation of your holy book is subjective too - or there wouldn’t be so many differing opinions about WJWD. And choosing your holy book is an accident of which country you were born in. Hence thousands of different religions.
And regardless of cultural differences on beauty - which are roughly analagous to cultural differences on morality - there is the same broad consensus. Marilyn Monroe ‘would be’ considered pudgy now? She still wins polls for sexiest woman. People don’t watch her films and say ’she’s chubby’.
The people considered beautiful actually fit a very set template, relating to specific facial proportions. There ARE differences in what is considered too fat or thin in different cultures - but what doesn’t change is the ratios of hips to waist etc.
So that analogy stands as far as I’m concerned.
June 23rd, 2008 at 9:05 am
That’s not to say that beauty is as important as morality. Just that both evolved in the same way.
YOU are the one saying you need absolutes of good and evil in order to denounce Hitler. It’s not that hard to make a philosophical, rational case for why killing millions of people isn’t a nice thing to do. Meanwhile, saying that you have access to ‘absolutes of morality’ allows you to make the case for all kinds of evil without the need for rationality OR philosophy. In fact, that’s exactly what Hitler did.
I’d take rationality every time.
June 23rd, 2008 at 11:19 am
So you are saying that the killing of 6M Jews was NOT objectively wrong. Just subjectively wrong? Is that correct?
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:02 pm
“So you are saying that the killing of 6M Jews was NOT objectively wrong. Just subjectively wrong? Is that correct?”
No, you’re the one saying that.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:05 pm
Would YOU say that homophobia is objectively right?
Would you say that without the bible, you wouldn’t be able to condemn the killing of 6M Jews? The bible is your only argument against the holocaust?
Again, any opinions on murder stats in the US vs Europe?
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
And please explain why you choosing your holy book is not subjective. And why your interpretation of your holy book is not subjective either.
June 23rd, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I am not afraid of gay people, I have gay friends. So your statement does not apply to me. But your question is if it was right or wrong. If it is a true phobia like the fear of heights then phobias cannot be analyzed in that sense.
But I’m not sure why you are changing the subject. To show that objective moral values exist. I only need to show you 1 moral value that is objective. I don’t need to prove all moral values are objective. In fact if you read my previous posts you’d see that I said quite clearly that not all moral values are objective.
That’s like saying Blood Oranges exist. To whit you show me a regular orange and say: This orange is not Red. Thus no blood oranges exist. All I need to do is show you 1 blood orange to demonstrate that blood oranges exist.
Similarly if I can show you 1 objective moral value then I have proven that objective moral values exist. Do you see the difference? Or did I misunderstand your claim.
I don’t think we need bring the Bible into this yet. Once we determine that Objective moral values DO indeed exist we can then argue about how do we discover what they are.
BTW I’m the one claiming that the killing of 6M Jews was objectively wrong for man. I’m not sure why you would try and turn this around.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:16 am
You have not shown that an objective value exists. You subjectively chose a holy book, and then applied your subjective interpretation of it. You and Hitler are simply arguing over who has the better interpretation of it.
“I don’t think we need bring the Bible into this yet.”
But you’re saying that without the bible we’ve got no access to objective morality.
“I am not afraid of gay people”
I’m not sure if you’re being disengenuous here. If there’s a word you have instead of ‘homophobia’ that sums up Fundamentalist Christian’s attitutude to gays, then let me know what it is. But I think you probably know that when I say homophobia I don’t mean the same as ‘fear of spiders’ or ‘fear of heights’. I mean the view that homosexuality is a sin. That Darn Republican is a good example of this view - that being gay is some kind of a choice, akin to choosing to steal or even choosing to rape children.
I find it hard to believe that you honestly believe the word homophobia simply means ‘fear of gays’ in this context. I ALMOST provided the above qualification of the word before I used it a few posts up, but then thought that it probably wasn’t necessary. Obviously I was wrong.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:21 am
By the way, if you are able to show that objective moral values exist, and you are going to do this without referring to the bible or God, then please go ahead.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:37 am
“But I’m not sure why you are changing the subject. To show that objective moral values exist. I only need to show you 1 moral value that is objective.”
I’m not changing the subject. My point is that it’s all very well a group claiming that they have managed to find a bunch of objective moral values that everyone can agree with.
But when one of their key objective moral values is one that - to me - is clearly actually IMMORAL, then I have to say that I have my doubts. If that’s where their so-called ‘objective moral values’ leads, then I don’t want any part of it.
Furthermore, proponents of these values such as Ann Coulter say that the same ‘objective moral values’ says nothing to her about important moral problems such as preventing global warming. In fact she says the bible gives Christians carte blanche to rape the world and use it as they wish.
You may disagree with her. You may not.
But the end result is that ‘objective moral values’ is useful only as a philosophical construct. We’re left in the same position either way - different people making a case for their own moral view. In fact, groups that claim that THEIR moral view comes direct from a superior being, and is therefore not up for debate, actually make life HARDER to have a rational discussion.
June 24th, 2008 at 7:22 am
Andrew and Neil,
Sorry I haven’t been able to keep up with your rather robust discussion here (184 posts!). I’m coming in late, but I just have a couple of comments that perhaps you’ve already covered (I apologize if I’m covering old ground).
First, Andrew said this: “But when one of their key objective moral values is one that - to me - is clearly actually IMMORAL, then I have to say that I have my doubts.”
Andrew, is your claim that homophobia is wrong an objective MORAL principle or only a subjective MORAL principle?
Is it possible that this discussion is failing to understand that all interepretations are in the subject (a person), but that doesn’t mean that every conclusion is only a subjective opinion. For example, I (a subject) perceive a Dell Monitor before me, but the object (a Dell Monitor) is indeed before me. That’s an objective fact, and the person who denies it is mistaken.
If we can’t trust our senses and reasoning abilities (and they are always interpreted by a subject), then we can’t know anything about objects (and thus we can’t do science). If we say we can’t, then we buy into Kant. As we point out in another thread somewhere and in Chapter 2 of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist,” Kant’s assertion is self-defeating. If you “kant” know the real world, then how do you know THAT about the real world? In fact, how do you even know the real world is there?
Second, Andrew said “If that’s where their so-called ‘objective moral values’ leads, then I don’t want any part of it.”
What does “want” have to do with truth? There are a lot of things I subjectively don’t like that are nevertheless objectively true. The objective moral law against stealing often annoys me because it would be convenient to steal, but it’s true even though I don’t “want” it to be true.
You don’t have any doubt that what Hitler did was objectively wrong, do you?
Neil, the issue with beauty is a more difficult one to prove, but I think beauty is objective because it ultimately is grounded in the nature of God. Everyone realizes the a sunset is more beautiful than a garbage dump. Even if one person prefers Marilyn Monroe and another Angelina Jolie, we all know they are both more beautiful than an old witch with warts on her face. But the beauty discussion would require another thread. We’re talking about morality here. And I think it is Andrew has the ball right now.
Blessings,
Frank Turek
June 24th, 2008 at 8:49 am
“What does “want” have to do with truth?”
Frank, I find your post a bit disturbing. So if Hitler tells me that he has absolute faith that the bible tells him he is doing God’s work (as indeed he believed), then any arguments I have against him is just my ’subjective opinion’ and ‘what I want’?
By ‘I want no part of it’, I am not making a whining ‘I want my way statement’. I am saying that I find that deeply unconvincing, or at least incompatible with the idea of an all-loving God.
In the same way, a Muslim might tell me that it is the will of Allah that women must keep themselves behind a burka. I would reply that ‘I want no part of such a philosphy’. I suppose he could then tell me that what I want doesn’t really affect God’s plan, but would you find that a satisfying response?
“There are a lot of things I subjectively don’t like that are nevertheless objectively true.”
But what you are saying is that your SUBJECTIVE interpretation of a particular holy book, out of dozens of holy books, gives you a greater authority than mine to true morality.
I agree with you that Kant is self-defeating. For example he held up the sin of lying as an absolute. He was presented with the following dilemna:
“A murderer asks you if your brother is hiding in the house next door. If you tell the truth, then the murderer will find and kill your brother. Do you lie or tell the truth?”
Kant’s answer was that you MUST tell the truth - if it’s a moral imperative then it applies in all situations. He added that if you lied and say your brother was in another house, then for all you know your brother might have secretly started hiding in THAT house, and you would have caused his death anyway.
Do you find that convincing?
“You don’t have any doubt that what Hitler did was objectively wrong, do you?”
I don’t have any doubt that it was wrong. I’m saying that the dividing line between objectively wrong and subjectively wrong is an entirely philosophical construct. It is completely unnecessary too. If you want a discussion about what makes something moral or immoral, then it’s possible to have one. However, if you are claiming that YOUR morals are objectively right, then you’re basically shutting down any possible rational discussion about those morals.
This leads to the irony that the very people who trumpet that they alone have the skinny on ultimate morality are often the very people who carry out the worst deeds.
Now YOU seem to be saying that I cannot denounce Hitler as wrong without reference to a holy book. The same holy book that Hitler used to JUSTIFY what he did. This drags the whole ‘Hitler was bad’ debate down to an argument over whose interpretation of the bible was correct.
Finally, is murder wrong because God says so? Or does God say it’s wrong just because it IS? If the former, that means he could change his mind, and Hitler would no longer be evil. If the latter, then murder is wrong regardless of whether God tells us it is. In which case an atheist is just as able to denounce murder as a Christian.
So, ball back in your court Frank.
June 24th, 2008 at 3:03 pm
Frank,
good point on beauty. I concede that. I was being lazy and didn’t want to go off on a tangent.
Andrew,
here’s the issue I think.
If I can prove to you that 1 objective moral value exists then we know that objective moral values exist. Once we know 1 exists we can work together to see if others exist and if we should use the Bible or Koran or Hitler to discover them. Can we agree about that?
So here’s one objective moral value:
Torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong. (Thanks to Bill Craig for this).
June 24th, 2008 at 3:56 pm
Frank,
Nice to see you chime in… I enjoyed reading your perspective. Not to pick on Andrew, we’ve had enough back and forth and supports his positions - ad nauseum - to his credit he is consistent, but what is that saying? To his detriment his [perceived] lifestyle affiliations draw his moral center toward what is comfortable for his to accept on the fly. Because if his mind was on consequences [well] then that would be a drag and couldn’t very well comfortably approach a principled moral standing with objectivity for the way he wants to live - so any proposed moral clarity would have to “rinsed off” as it where.
A hallmark trait of secularism is to parse details for that which convicts their behavior erring on the side of lifestyle - and then hold a convenient standard on issues that impact them in other areas of life; i.e. I think it is OK for homosexuals to marry and for embryonic stem cell research to be carried out, but if someone steals my car [well] that is illegal. It part and particulates what is comfortable for them to
navigate through the day-to-day administration of their lives, as far as social engineering goes - it clearly is far easier to get a society hooked on difficult to shake loose deviancies and proclivities that are personally self destructive, than it is to keep them “in the closet” - their attitude is why should I hide it. so if you feel bad out it too.. you are no better than me. In psychology there is a name for behavior that is projected by individuals or groups on to others - it is called transference.
Simply put, it’s misery loves company… The secularist at this point is saying: I am infinitely vain in the mind to openly project a disdain for feeling in the remotest sense guilty for the feelings or ideals I hold that support my lifestyle, therefore if you [projecting now] moral people won’t normalize my behavior I am just going to make it socially unacceptable for you to be what it is you are that offends me and call you the bigots in the process. Well, that is the model of projection and transference. Our children have been subjected to it… we all have been,and all will be at a point some time in our lives where we have to draw a line morally against something a mind such as mentioned here declares stridently that they have a right to be, or do that it is they want to engage in… and it is the “what” they base their feelings on that is subjective as far as a guideline for what is right or wrong.
They can’t have it both ways, either the same moral codec that says it is just as wrong to steal as it is to commit fornication [pre-marital sex and homosexual activity], over it’s OK for pedophiles, and homosexuals and drug dealers to do what they do, but stealing is against the law, It just doesn’t jive well with the law that is already written upon all of our hearts - and it is even more inconsistent with the underpinnings of what formed our laws in this nation.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:27 pm
Neil,
I think you kind of boiled it down to one succinct arguement… subjective vs. objective. The thing is.. these people know exactly what they are doing and simply don’t care. They want what they want and don’t want to answer for it. The Apostle Paul had a word for an intellect like this - debased. To a debased mind everything is exactly the opposite as it should be - I have written on this before. Some translations use the word worthless, but basically… it is a mind that has imploded on itself, good is bad… common sense is the common enemy, clarity is disparity [because it presses you to make a hard choice on things], right… is in fact wrong, and so forth.
With a world view like that, you can piece mail whatever is comfortable for you to live your life with, and discard anything else that is a perceived tether. This [essentially is relativism] is the mind-set we are dealing with today. Subsequently the same mind that will make substantiations for the moral equivocation of widely known destructive behavior with that which is life-giving and socially redeemable behavior seems to be what is at work here.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:38 pm
“So here’s one objective moral value: Torturing babies for fun is objectively wrong.”
OK, go on then - prove that this is an objective moral value. How do you know that’s not just your opinion?
TDR: “To his detriment his [perceived] lifestyle affiliations draw his moral center toward what is comfortable for his to accept on the fly.”
Then how do you explain that I am more moral than you, TDR? Surely it is your own argument that it is merely your subjective opinion that I’m not?
That’s the problem when you abandon rationality. Whereas I can rationally explain my morality, and reach rational conclusions on the more moral path to take - you guys are stuck saying that it’s all subjective and that you’re not allowed to use rationality.
Remember here, I’m not the one saying Hitler cannot be rationally condemned. I said that he can - that we can make a rational case for him being evil. You guys dismissed this idea.
June 24th, 2008 at 4:58 pm
Andrew, good challenge. Let me turn it back on you.
Find me one society, culture, club, or social group or group of individuals who says that “Torturing babies for fun” is good. In fact find me anyone who believes that way (I don’t mean just says that, but genuinely believes that).
If you can’t find anyone, that shows that it is an objective moral value that bypasses all cultures, traditions, values and beliefs.
No one is abandoning rationality. Remember rationality is precisely what condemns us because rationally you can’t say something is good or bad unless you have a standard of good and bad.
If you say whatever is good for human beings is good, then you are stuck because then you have to define what a human being is. Hitler felt Jews weren’t human, you feel unborn babies aren’t human.
So rationally unless you have a standard, you can’t have a measurement.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
“If you can’t find anyone, that shows that it is an objective moral value that bypasses all cultures, traditions, values and beliefs.”
Well done - we got there without God! I feel you are making progress.
June 24th, 2008 at 5:57 pm
No no, you’ve missed the point completely. If you take that tact then the onus is upon you to explain why torturing babies for fun is not a objective moral value.
Afterall it is not a societal survival requirement. If Hitler tortures babies from another culture, an aversion to that is not something that evolutionary theory will develop in his DNA. You have to show me WHY it’s there. You have to show me why evolution explains this moral value as inherent. Where did it come from?
June 24th, 2008 at 6:01 pm
Andrew,
“Then how do you explain that I am more moral than you, TDR? ”
You are moral according to your feelings, and that is good for you. You are moral according to what makes you feel moral - not what another person receives as valuable. In other words you are smelling your own fumes…
“Surely it is your own argument that it is merely your subjective opinion that I’m not?”
Fortunately whether I am lawfully in the right or wrong, that which convicts me is a violation of that same innate codec you have, only I have not supplanted it with a paired-down set of rules based conveniently one how I am living.
June 24th, 2008 at 6:37 pm
Andrew,
In essence - you have failed altogether to show us a value in your moral superiority all based on something collectively recognized as valuable to all, not a subjective system of selective pseudo-moral engagement as you have regaled us with here - ad nauseum.
June 24th, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Andrew,
“Well done - we got there without God! I feel you are making progress.”
This has to be some of the more daring spurious lip dribble from you… Until you can prove you can control your appearance on this earth - i.e., predestine your own creation, I’d your remedial incantations here are nothing more than feeling and no where near fact. The force of existence known as life has a central form of Intelligence that formed and organized its existence - and had nothing to do with its ignorance[of that reality].
I sat back and read just about all of your replies in this thread… and you know what? Stripped down to its rudimentary essence - you have said nothing, your points validated nothing because they are just regurgitated gray matter from other depraved minds looking to pass the dis-information - because you believe in nothing[of quantifiable value], one thing is certain, one cannot acquire something from nothing, not on a white-board, not on a Ouija board, video game, college lecture hall or eight sided dice… it simply won’t happen.
You may try that new book that hit the presses a while back, it’s called Willful Ignorance, it may have the social diagnosis for what ails you pal as only a fool looks in the mirror a denies the image they see in lieu of an image someone told them they should be looking for.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:39 am
“If you take that tact then the onus is upon you to explain why torturing babies for fun is not a objective moral value. ”
You’re the one claiming it, not me.
“You have to show me why evolution explains this moral value as inherent. Where did it come from?”
You’re asking WHY it would be bad for a species to torture its own young? Are you kidding me? It’s hardly going to BENEFIT the species, is it? You’re not thinking hard enough here.
TDR: ‘only I have not supplanted it with a paired-down set of rules based conveniently one how I am living.”
I think YOU have, and I haven’t. So we’re at an impase. At no point have I said I support ‘just doing what feels right’. That’s your projection.
TDR: “You are moral according to what makes you feel moral - not what another person receives as valuable.”
Is this what you imagine that I believe? Because it’s the opposite of my belief. Or is it YOUR opinion?
June 25th, 2008 at 6:26 am
“You have failed altogether to show us a value in your moral superiority all based on something collectively recognized as valuable to all”
Well neither have you. Frank himself said that it’s about God’s will, not about what’s valuable to all. eg, from the Jewish point of view, if we all like pork, and God says we shouldn’t - then so much the worse for us, regardless of the benefit to society of eating pork. It’s a just ‘a sin’, not because it harms anyone, just because God says so.
Are you now saying that you base your morals on ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’? A kind of consequentialism? If you are, then that is a good start.
For example, you can use this system to explain why you think homosexuality is a sin. You could explain why you believe it to be to the detriment of society. This would be a significant advance on saying that it’s simply wrong because of your interpretation of your holy book.
The arguments I’ve heard along these lines are that homosexuality spreads disease. However, when I ask whether that means they support condoms, which reduce the spread of disease, fundie Christians tend to answer ‘No’. Which undermines their argument somewhat. Then I ask if that means they have no problem with the many gays who don’t practice anal sex, and just do the stuff that doesn’t spread disease. They answer that that is still sinful.
THEN I ask whether, given that they say they support marriage because it promotes monogomy, if that means they also support gay marriage, as it promotes monogomy and therefore cuts down on the gay promiscuity that leads to the disease. Their answer: ‘No’. Which, again, undermines the argument.
So I have to say that I don’t believe that anyone’s objection to homosexuality is that it is harmful to anyone. It seems to me that people just find the idea abhorrant, and therefore label it sinful. By that logic, I could call eating oysters sinful.
This is nothing to do with making moral rules along the lines of my own selfish desires - I’m a heterosexual father-to-be. If anything that accusation could be leveled at YOU. What moral rules do you abide by that you wish you didn’t have to? Speaking for myself, I have no desire to steal, murder or cheat on my partner. Do you? Presumably you have no wish to marry another man either, so it’s hardly a selfless act to speak out against gay marriage.
Meanwhile, it’s Christians who don’t seem to oppose it if it’s convenient to them. We have Dick Cheney, whose daughter is gay - he supports gay marriage. Then we have Christians like Ted Haggard, who told his millions of followers that homosexuality was a sin against nature - but still endulged in all kinds of gayness whenever it suited him. Then we have gay vicars in the UK wanting to get married…
So it’s the Christians with no stake in the matter and nothing to lose that oppose it, or the hypocrites like Haggard.
At any rate, if gayness is a sin because of the supposed damage it causes others, shouldn’t you also see driving cars as a sin? Look at the hundreds of kids killed in car accidents each year. Every time you drive a car you make that more likely to happen. Of course, you can take care to drive more carefully - but one can take precautions not to spread STDs too.
By the way, if you think my posts are dribble then stop replying to them. I’m close to thinking that TDRs posts are mainly ad homimem, and making absurd claims about my views (eg I never said that my morality is based on what ‘feels good’). So any more of that and I’ll stick to responding to Neil or Frank’s posts.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
Andrew,
“I think YOU have, and I haven’t. So we’re at an impase. At no point have I said I support ‘just doing what feels right’. That’s your projection.”
No projection here - it is QUITE apparent you aren’t thinking more than you are feeling, and the only one grossly projecting here is you. See in this forum… including the thread is about what the basis for you wanting an equivocation of non-Biblical values as being equally moral as the real thing. You haven’t supplied anything to that effect other than feeling and rank conjecture and scurrilous speculation.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:25 pm
Neil: “If you can’t find anyone, that shows that it is an objective moral value that bypasses all cultures, traditions, values and beliefs…”
.”Hitler felt Jews weren’t human, you feel unborn babies aren’t human.”
On the subject of torturing babies and redefining things for your own ends, Jews, Muslims and (most US) Christians routinely circumcise baby boys, a practice I view as an unnecessary and painful surgical removal of a functioning part of a man’s most sensitive body part, performed without consent on babies at their most vulnerable.
And further on immoral redefintions, America’s Republican government have shown that they feel happy about redefining torture to absolve themselves of all kinds of depravity. Do you support that?
BTW, re: abortion.Out of interest, if your wife became pregnant after being raped, how would you feel if she said she wanted an abortion? (please don’t just reply that she wouldn’t say that - it’s hyperthetical, plus you really don’t know that for certain).
June 25th, 2008 at 1:28 pm
“No projection here - it is QUITE apparent you aren’t thinking more than you are feeling”
And I feel exactly the same about your posts. I believe that I am the rational one, and you are merely going on your unthinking gut feelings.
As I said - an impasse. Perhaps you and I should agree to disagree. I don’t believe you are posting in good faith; I think you just want an argument.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:33 pm
Andrew,
“By the way, if you think my posts are dribble then stop replying to them. I’m close to thinking that TDRs posts are mainly ad homimem, and making absurd claims about my views (eg I never said that my morality is based on what ‘feels good’). So any more of that and I’ll stick to responding to Neil or Frank’s posts.”
The responses you get are based on the posts you leave… there is no one here pretending they don’t’ have a duty to correct misinformation when they hear it. Though you may feel you’re right with the supposed evidences you supply to support your varied positions here on things that matter you and the way perceive them as right to you [granted] - that still doesn’t make them valid or correct - buck up buttercup… that’s just life. No one in this forum is attempting to be holier than thou - so pipe down with the heated rhetoric already.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:41 pm
TDR: As I said before, I’m not going to respond to any more posts from you that don’t concern the issues of the thread. I’m here to discuss issues, not argue. Go to Huffington or Townhall if that’s what you want.
June 25th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
Andrew,
Get your facts straight, this is a debate forum - arguments occur here, no one here is fretting at you, but childish digs won’t be tolerated [I am quite sure] by anyone. If you cannot handle that little piece of reality… may I suggest the same for you, now… enough from you on that.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
TDR: As I said before, I’m not going to respond to any more posts from you that don’t concern the issues of the thread.
June 25th, 2008 at 2:23 pm
Andrew,
I am not here responding to I Love Lucy threads am I? I am on point… due try to do the same.
June 26th, 2008 at 7:09 am
Fine, I’ll check in again to see if Neil can explain why it would NOT be disadvantageous to a species to torture its own babies.
And I’ll see if TDR has any response to my post of June 25th, 2008 at 6:26 am on consequentialism.
And TDR never responded to this either:
TDR: “You are moral according to what makes you feel moral - not what another person receives as valuable.”
Is this what you imagine that I believe? Because it’s the opposite of my belief. Or is it YOUR opinion?
You told me that I form my morality on what ‘feels good’. At no point have I said that that is my position, or how I form my morality.
Meanwhile, still waiting for an explanation of the vastly higher murder rates, teen pregnancy rates etc of Christian US over secular Western Europe.
“Though you may feel you’re right with the supposed evidences you supply to support your varied positions ”
You said yourself that I was ‘at least consistent’. Now my positions are varied? What evidence have you offered? You strung me along for several days with a promise of evidence that Darwin recanted. Eventually you admitted you couldn’t find it - leaving me with an anecdote that someone you once met (now deceased) once told you that Darwin recanted.
If your next post does any of the following then I won’t bother to respond:
a) Tells me again that my morality is just ‘what feels good’, without backing up the accusation.
b) Simply asserts that I’m posting drible without engaging in any way with the points
c) Irrelevant (and meaningless) Ad Hominems like the following: “it may have the social diagnosis for what ails you pal as only a fool looks in the mirror a denies the image they see in lieu of an image someone told them they should be looking for”
June 26th, 2008 at 9:30 am
Andrew,
Thanks for the time you put into your posts. I’m sorry that I’m on the road right now and can’t respond more fully. But let me briefly respond to the core of your last post: You said:
Finally, is murder wrong because God says so? Or does God say it’s wrong just because it IS? If the former, that means he could change his mind, and Hitler would no longer be evil. If the latter, then murder is wrong regardless of whether God tells us it is. In which case an atheist is just as able to denounce murder as a Christian.
I think this is a false dilemma. The third option is this: murder is wrong because it is a violation of God’s nature. God IS the standard. Morality is not arbitrary and there is not a standard beyond God. He IS the standard.
Now here is a question I’ve posed before and no atheist cares to answer: How can there be an immaterial, objective standard of morality (which you admit exists), If only materials exist (which is what atheists believe)?
Again, thanks for you posts. BTW, what do you do for a living?
Blessings,
Frank
June 26th, 2008 at 10:30 am
“Now here is a question I’ve posed before and no atheist cares to answer: How can there be an immaterial, objective standard of morality (which you admit exists), If only materials exist (which is what atheists believe)?”
First of all ‘Only materials exist’? Concepts exist. Prime Numbers existed before we discovered them. I can’t hold or build a number, but to argue that there’s no such thing as a number would be absurd. Good and evil are concepts - they exist. Would they exist if there were no life forms in the universe? Possibly not. But we’re here, so that’s a moot point.
By the way, Neil ‘proved’ that there was an objective morality by saying this:
1) “Find me one society, culture, club, or social group or group of individuals who says that “Torturing babies for fun” is good. In fact find me anyone who believes that way (I don’t mean just says that, but genuinely believes that).”
2) There’s no evolutionary advantage in viewing baby torture as immoral.
Now, his second statement is obviously absurd. There’s a pretty direct correlation between how immoral (or frightening) we view a practice and how damaging it would be to our species.* And obviously it would be to our species’ immense disadvantage if we tortured our young.
But in Neil’s first statement, all he is doing here is showing that there is human consensus on the subject. I could also show that all humans agree that a warty crone is less beautiful than Angelina Jolie, and that ice cream tastes better than excement. Are these objective or subjective? To humans, by Neil’s criteria these are objective. I might agree. But dung beatles would disagree on both counts - crones and actresses look the same to them, whereas the dung looks very tasty indeed.
My point is that I’m not convinced by the appeal to consensus. Humans have had consensus on things before and been wrong.
That doesn’t mean that torturing babies is actually OK. That would be a perverse interpretation of what I just said. After all, I can make a good case that it’s a terrible thing by taking about the Golden Rule or discussing consequentialism etc.
Secular blessings to you Frank.
Andrew
ps: Why do you want to know my job?
* [Appendix - …Or to be precise how damaging it would be to our species a few tens of thousands of years ago. We spend the majority of the past million years living in tribes of a hundred or so, with minimal access to food, and few ways of keeping food.
So that’s when we evolved our ideas of morality, of beauty, of taste etc. Stealing, murder, rape etc were all damaging to a community. The worst practices, the most harmful, became the biggest taboos - paedophilia, incest, harming children.
Most of these things still hold firm today, especially those major taboos. But other things are simply holdovers from those caveman days. We find sugars and fats very pleasing to eat - a taste that actually damages the millions of Americans who eat themselves into obesity. This is because for hundreds of thousands of years we had little access to fat and to sugar, but we needed it to provide energy.
When people bump into famous people in the street, they feel compelled to talk to them as if they’re friends, simply becuase in tribal days if you recognised someone then they WERE your peers.
Similarly, our ideas of beauty tie in with reproduction. All features we see as beautiful or handsome are related to sexual reproduction. Our rational minds are impressed when we meet someone maimed or scarred fighting for our country - but often our shameful knee-jerk reaction is one of disgust. This is a hold-over from the days when it other disfigured humans would probably be victimes of pests or disease, and therefore we’d avoid them.
This is not to say we are prisoners of our genes. We overcome our ‘genetic imperative’ every time we use contraception, practice the rhythm method etc. Our knee-jerk reactions are often to be avoided, when our rational minds point us in a more moral direction.]
June 26th, 2008 at 10:51 am
I’ll reiterate: Understanding how we developed our morality is in no way a route to becoming less moral. It provides no excuses for less morality.
By the way: “murder is wrong because it is a violation of God’s nature.”
I’m assuming you’re familiar with the story of the prophets of Baal. What’s your take on it? To me it’s a story of Elijah murdering a bunch of people for having a different religion to him. That’s why I’m not surprised when people like Hitler cite the bible as an influence.
June 26th, 2008 at 3:41 pm
Andrew,
“Concepts exist. Prime Numbers existed before we discovered them.”
True in part, the fact is the concept of prime numbers is still based on the material output, that is just a given. In order and in design prime number help quantify scaled output - so again, the reasonable deduction that be gleaned from this is that numbers represent something that has a direct correlation to a physical expression or dynamic.
“I can’t hold or build a number, but to argue that there’s no such thing as a number would be absurd. ”
Again, it is a rational deduction that a number represents a manifestation of something physical or material, otherwise the concept of numbers becomes rather moot and inconsequential. The whole purpose of numbers are to quantify a physical property.
“Good and evil are concepts - they exist. Would they exist if there were no life forms in the universe? Possibly not. But we’re here, so that’s a moot point.”
It’s not a moot point - What Frank was eluding to was the reality that good and evil [projected] are the physical manifestation of a behavioral concept that are defined by moral absolutes.Andrew, there’s a reason why in math the part of the equation that predicts the sum is called the “value” - Now, let’s investigate this closer… the number has no value in itself - it doesn’t know what it is worth, it is only when assessed externally [putting 1 & 1 together], or presented… that a quantifiable worth for what was presented can be assessed.
So when a secular person say to me “well, those aren’t’ my values” well the first logical question to ask is, aren’t you values based on what? The value int he equation predicts the sum… simply put, because there is a guarantee [immutable characteristic] in that equation… the summation is valuable. Morals work the same way, we have an innate system designed to let us know when we cross certain lines, and when present to others have an registered value - otherwise one is just smelling one’s own fumes at that point. It is the same reason our monetary system calls money “currency” Why? because what you feel your money is worth is irrelevant - it is the exchange of it for goods and/or services the value is predicated on when presented to the person receiving what you deem valuable:
- economic vibrancies or inactivity
- export of valued goods
- precious metals propping it up
- economic philosophy in general
all these things give the recipient of the “currency” an idea of its worth… based on “current” evaluations. The same thing with morals, a system of behavior propped up by nothing substantial has no innate value, is subject to the environment of the day and relies on external factors to reinforce its importance. God’s Laws are are the exact opposite and are understood by us regardless of external influence, and depending on the culture, can be more or less prevalent therefore having significant impact on us individually… ut we know the standard, which is why those who question even know what they are rebelling to. In short it reveals itself to us int he right situations and we know what we are violating when we do it - no big mystery there.
I respect that latter line of inquiry from you., and thought to add additional perspective to this.
June 26th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Andrew,
You agreed that “Concepts exist. Prime Numbers existed before we discovered them. I can’t hold or build a number, but to argue that there’s no such thing as a number would be absurd. Good and evil are concepts - they exist.”
Atheists are materialists. So I assume then you are not an atheist, am I right? If you are an atheist, how can there be these immaterial entities like morality and numbers? And how does one have a moral obligation if there is no personal source of this morality?
The reason I was asking what you do for a living is because you are very intelligent and seem to have a lot of time on your hands to write these long posts. More time than I have and It’s my site!
Blessings,
Frank
June 26th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
Please pardon some typo;s there… thank you.
June 26th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
Frank - great point.
June 27th, 2008 at 3:31 am
“Atheists are materialists. So I assume then you are not an atheist, am I right? If you are an atheist, how can there be these immaterial entities like morality and numbers”
Ah I see where the problem is - you have a misunderstanding of the term atheist.
Atheist just means you don’t believe there’s a God. It doesn’t mean anything else. I’m glad to have been able to correct this misconception!
It would be absurd to argue that there’s no such thing as concepts. (You might want to read about Richard Dawkins on ‘memes’.)
I’m a journalist, in the UK. And yes, I spend too long posting here. As I said before - baby is due any day, so that might cut down on posting!
“And how does one have a moral obligation if there is no personal source of this morality?”
I care about my family, I care about other people. That’s a completely natural part of the human condition - regardless of your religious beliefs or lack thereof. Google the Golden Rule, read what the great philosophers had to say on this subject.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am
Andrew,
“Atheist just means you don’t believe there’s a God. It doesn’t mean anything else. I’m glad to have been able to correct this misconception!”
No misconception… just intelligent people scratching their heads at the unmitigated arrogance of some minds out there [collectively] that can make and then project as if true such a bold claim as there being no God. Being intellectually honest you have to look at the word for what it meas first. The atheist has one fundamental argument that saws the legs off its namesake right up front and casts them in a rather disingenuous light from square one.
In the Greek language when the prefix “a” is put before a word in means - no. The “theos” which is the Greek word for God [subsequently where we get our word for the study of God - theology] the two together: “a” [meaning no] and “theos” [meaning God] - “no” God, well how can such a grand claim be made? Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.
Agnostics have a more intellectually honest disposition, the prefix “Ag” isn’t has strong as “a” by itself… the prefix “Ag” means “without” then the word “gnosis” which simply means “knowledge”; the two together mean “without- knowledge”, now take that on its face value, it is a more reasonable position to take. In other words, they have no knowledge of God because He has not been made real to them, not in relationship nor nature has God been revealed to them. This argument is an intellectually honest position to make - and Christians completely empathize with that. We recall our unregenerate nature and can understand that completely.
“Google the Golden Rule, read what the great philosophers had to say on this subject”
Where do you think the philosophers got it from? Christ spoke it Himself… Solomon said it best “there is nothing new under the sun” the atheist thinking themselves a law unto themselves is age old my friend.
Please pardon any typo’s in advance… thank you and blessings.
June 27th, 2008 at 10:35 am
TDR, we’ve already been through this. You said you could say without doubt that Zeus didn’t exist. But you couldn’t explain why the below could equally apply to you in making such a statement:
“Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.
You then claimed you knew Zeus didn’t exist because he’s a character in the Iliad. I pointed out that he was a worshipped God prior to the writing of the Iliad. Then the conversation ended.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:02 am
“Where do you think the philosophers got it from?”
The Golden Rule predates Christ. As you say, nothing new under the sun.
You don’t need to apologise for typos. As long as I can understand your post, it’s fine.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:51 am
Andrew:
“The Golden Rule predates Christ. As you say, nothing new under the sun.”
How do you come to that conclusion? It is Scripture:
‘Honor your father and [your] mother,’ and, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ ” Matthew, 19:19
This is the Scripture, now the burden on you my friend is to prove who said it before Him - you won’t find one ancient Egyptian talisman, or tea sipping Buddha with those words having been uttered on record. The structure of the old anecdote “do unto others as you would have them do unto you…” follows the form of scripture its model in Scripture perfectly.
June 27th, 2008 at 11:55 am
“How do you come to that conclusion? It is Scripture”
I said it predates scripture. I didn’t say it doesn’t appear in scripture. I came to that conclusion because the idea of the Golden Rule was discussed before scripture. By the Greeks for example. Therefore, it predates scripture!
June 27th, 2008 at 12:18 pm
Pittacus (c. 640-568 BC): “Do not to your neighbor what you would take ill from him.”
Isocrates (436–338 BC): “Do not do to others what would anger you if done to you by others.”
And many others.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:06 pm
Andrew,
I have to give you an A for effort of that one… but it still doesn’t predate Christ of the Holy Scriptures - Jesus always referred to the scriptures as basis for His message of grace, look here in the Levitical Laws of the Jews int he Pentateuch written by Moses:
“…’You shall not take vengeance, nor bear any grudge against the children of your people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD.? 1440 -1400 B.C. The Lord God through Moses
Who is Jesus? He is God incarnate… again, man of him own nature could not devise such a rule of our nature - it was inspired by God for our best interests to coexist together, and most of us can’t do those. These Levitical Laws predate even your best sophic minds of the day. Good shot though, but you’ll never show man’s nature and tendency for evil to trump the inspiration or motivation to do good in and of itself…
“…Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning. ” James 1:17
Compassion, understanding… concern… love - all inspired by God, therefore anything emanating from that gift He received the credit and the Glory for - because we all know we couldn’t author it of our own accord. Summary: Your Goldeen Rule was inpsired by Levitical Law and infact did not predate Christ nor Scripture.
Resolved.
June 27th, 2008 at 2:50 pm
“you’ll never show man’s nature and tendency for evil to trump the inspiration or motivation to do good in and of itself… ”
I wasn’t aware I was attempting to do any such thing.
“Your Goldeen Rule was inpsired by Levitical Law”
It’s arisen in many different cultures. We’ve no reason to believe that Pittacus, Isocrates, Lao-tzu, Confucius, Plato etc got the idea from the Old Testament.
http://www.secularhumanism.org.....goldenrule
June 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
Oh, and chimps have been seen to observe the Golden Rule too, despite not being able to read.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:25 pm
Well… according to minds like your, Albatross’s can be gay as well, how absurd.
June 27th, 2008 at 5:32 pm
Homosexual behaviour is seen in virtually every mammal.
June 27th, 2008 at 6:03 pm
Yes… in label form only, not that it actually is.
June 27th, 2008 at 9:38 pm
Andrew,
“Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.
“You then claimed you knew Zeus didn’t exist because he’s a character in the Iliad. I pointed out that he was a worshipped God prior to the writing of the Iliad. Then the conversation ended.”
I am sorry I missed this somehow… I’d have jumped on this right away if I had saw it straight way. Zeus is a figment of man’s imagination regardless of it predating the Iliad or not. The fact is our sense of moral acuity doesn’t stem from the writings of Homer, and the basis for them predate even he. We are bound by the character of God in the placement of these moral burdens on our hearts. Not so with the laws of man themselves. Some of them transcend the laws of laws of nature to provide a spiritual guidance in our individual lives as to how we are to interact with each other all based on character dynamics of God Himself. We as His creation reflect those when we act on them revealing through a flawed nature than we cannot possibly act on good impulses without a model or standard.
The fact is you seem to be a materialist to which Frank may have been correct in pointing out, if so… you rely on what can manifest itself to your advantage in the natural as the projected reasoning why you refute supernatural influence on man’s morality. But sens what is presented from the mind of man appearing to be [superficially] is a contrived effort at righteousness, and is flawed from the core because it is as selective [who receives this grace and mercy] as it is elective in how you apply it. Rendering it completely subjective and not objective in its proving the same for all without compromise provided you follow its mandates.
The humanistic approach is miry clay at best and its applied morality is entirely subjective in application - this is why people have a problem with it by-in-large. Reprising the currency analogy again, it is a kin to saying “…my dollar [or pound note sterling] is what I feel it is because I need it be, not that I have valid reason to substantiate such… just that it fits what I am doing for now, and I need it to be worth what I claim - and you need to value it for what I said its worth, even though I have nothing of universal value to back its value to you - but only my feelings that is is a value to prop it up.”
Well… if that is they atheists best argument [reduced] it’s a hard flung battle right there.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:27 am
“Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.
If that applies to my atheism then it also applies to you saying the following:
“Zeus is a figment of man’s imagination regardless of it predating the Iliad or not. “
June 28th, 2008 at 9:25 am
Andrew,
“If that applies to my atheism then it also applies to you saying the following:
“Zeus is a figment of man’s imagination regardless of it predating the Iliad or not. “
Surely you’re not attempting to incinuate that Zeus is anythig more that mythology?
June 28th, 2008 at 11:47 am
“Surely you’re not attempting to incinuate that Zeus is anythig more that mythology?”
There are thousands of Gods. You feel happy to dismiss all as mythology, figments of man’s imagination, apart from your own.
That’s fine, but you can’t then say “Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.
All religious people seem to think non-believers are arrogant for dismissing THEIR particular God, but they see no hypocrisy in themselves dismissing all other Gods in the same way.
June 28th, 2008 at 11:58 am
“Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.
So tell me, does that apply to people dismissing ALL Gods, or just your own?
June 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pm
Andrew,
“There are thousands of Gods. You feel happy to dismiss all as mythology, figments of man’s imagination, apart from your own. ”
The whole purpose here is to draw a distinction between Divine agency - the basis for our innate awareness of right and wrong, and human inspiration the system of convenience based moral awareness. Not to slam anyone - nor reduce individual/personal significance, but I feel you are loosing sight of the nature of the thread. No one here is calling you out. You are obviously very bright, and intelligent. We [actually] care enough about you to continue this thread - ad museum. But having said that, cultures based on myth and imagination share a common thread, when they cater to self indulgence and that indulgence takes center stage over practical governance, balance, and self-control, they [hmmm… go figure] disappear, ever thought to wonder why?
Secular sociologists and anthropologists, as well as zoologists will all conclude when self indulgence takes center stage, the culture looses its value to itself and devolves, then disappears, this is a matter for historical fact; the Sodomites & Gomorrahans, Babylonians, Persians, Macedonians, Greeks, and Romans all succumbed to having their own way, and that is a matter of historical record. Secular minds have a funny way of conveniently dismissing that in favor of vociferous finger pointing - all in vain though, majorities still don’t buy into their arguments, but I respect where your thoughts came from but the empirical evidence that is hard for seculars to refute is that every culture that Christians inhabited was vastly improved where they allowed to practiced their values - thus the point of this thread. In this nation, we didn’t have to be “allowed” to practice anything, they are incorporated into the very fabric of what we are. Europe didn’t have that grounding… but do they still know better, yes.
“That’s fine, but you can’t then say “Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.
All religious people seem to think non-believers are arrogant for dismissing THEIR particular God, but they see no hypocrisy in themselves dismissing all other Gods in the same way.”
Well the assertion is still logical, no man has that knowledge, thus we rely on evidence coupled with faith for inspiration. God’s Word supplies all mankind with what we need for guidance, a sense of worth and purpose… and faith by not answering ALL the question about the who, what and why? with them all answered, why have faith? We still have evidence in us, in nature to support what would be considered gross claims by secular special interests looking to forward their own agendas. Who in themselves have no answer for this in their own self-propagated theories and postulations.
One such view has a self-purposed and molded esteem based on topical moral affiliations aimed at attracting one’s attention with a projected image of value, but based entirely man-made objectives and enforced by the contrived nature of political correctness’s hypocritical moral leveraging for value in the minds and hearts of those who cannot quantify it is a value to practice and above all base law on.
The other is innate, we know because we know better. Practicing them doesn’t make us Holy, but does make us able to survive with other people with a high degree of cohesiveness, does it mean wars will never occur? No, not at all… does it mean perfect harmony exists? Well that is a different question, again, morals are about how man relates to man, religion is about how man relates to God. Secular special interests intensionally try to blur the lines between morality and religion all to leverage their own arguments about not having any of it present in law or in the public square, but resident in their won practices is nothing better - only convenient.
People who are ignorant to that fact fall for it simply out of a lack of knowledge, that reveals an agenda and tactics of personal persuasion at work rather than that of letting them work themselves out in the marketplace of free ideas… not ideals, to minds that know better call it propagandistic.
June 28th, 2008 at 3:33 pm
“I feel you are loosing sight of the nature of the thread.”
TDR, I was just answering YOUR post of “June 27th, 2008 at 9:38 am:
“…intelligent people scratching their heads at the unmitigated arrogance of some minds out there [collectively] that can make and then project as if true such a bold claim as there being no God.”
I thought your post was a bit of a diversion from the thread topic, but I’m an obliging person and so I addressed your point.
June 28th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
If you’re saying there’s evidence for your particular God that atheists ignore, then that’s a different argument. But you were basically saying that it was arrogant simply because no man knows everything and so cannot make such a definitive statement. And that’s a different argument. I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist.
If you are NOW saying it’s arrogant of atheists to reject evidence that YOU personally find convincing, fair enough. But that’s a different thing.
And if you’re going down that path, you are rejecting peer-reviewed scientific evidence for natural selection. I don’t call you arrogant for it, though many might, given that you are stating that you have a much better understanding of biology than tens of thousands of scientists who’ve spent their lives researching the subject.
June 28th, 2008 at 5:37 pm
Andrew,
“…But you were basically saying that it was arrogant simply because no man knows everything and so cannot make such a definitive statement.”
Why can’t a clear thinking person make an absolutely accurate and factual statement about the limits of man’s knowledge? It is a fact, man is not omniscient. We do not posses infinite knowledge of the universe… I know it is not politically correct to say that, but you seemed to be governed by those self imposed limits, not myself.
“… I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist.”
No you did, and have not… at all.
“…And if you’re going down that path, you are rejecting peer-reviewed scientific evidence for natural selection.”
I never digressed, this is a different line of thinking right here, but I already mentioned to you earlier in this thread that I conceded on the basis that certain elements of natural selection may be valid because they have universal biblical dynamics in them. Creation science, Intelligent Design, and Darwinian naturalism all have varying applications of the same hypothesis.
“…I don’t call you arrogant for it, though many might, given that you are stating that you have a much better understanding of biology than tens of thousands of scientists who’ve spent their lives researching the subject”
Well, you don’t know my backgroud… so I wouldn’t’ really go down that road, though I understand the rational for using it. That is tantamount to saying every Nazi scientists doing experiments in the name of the ethnic cleansing was validated and sanctioned “scientific” research because every scientists agree on what was being done. No, you are reaching for consensus… just because a number of people do a given thing doesn’t make it right, or factual. That is every liberal tactic of persuasion, you don’t need to resort to that, you’re smarter than that. Try not to paint such broad strokes… that you cannot know for certain can back up your position my friend.
June 29th, 2008 at 4:15 am
Me: “… I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist.”
You: “No you did, and have not… at all.”
So you DON’T categorically say Zeus doesn’t exist? Make up your mind!
June 29th, 2008 at 4:35 am
“Well, you don’t know my backgroud… so I wouldn’t’ really go down that road”
OK, do you have a degree in any of the biological sciences?
“is tantamount to saying every Nazi scientists doing experiments in the name of the ethnic cleansing was validated and sanctioned “scientific” research because every scientists agree on what was being done.”
No it isn’t. All scientists dismiss what the Nazi ’scientists’ did, which had its basis in superstition, not science.
“No, you are reaching for consensus”
Right - that IS how science works you know? Got a better method?
June 29th, 2008 at 9:45 am
“So you DON’T categorically say Zeus doesn’t exist? Make up your mind!”
Don’t even go there… I have been unwaivering in my emphatic acknowledgment that Zeus is an irrefutable figment of man’s imagination.
“OK, do you have a degree in any of the biological sciences?”
I went through medical school and a couple years into my residency before I had finally decided medicine wasn’t really what I was passionate about. There, now you a little more about myself… and I’ll tell you this as biology and Chemistry major, you believe what is convenient for you accept - that is the law of man;s behavior. So it is irrelevant to to make blind consensus arguments levying that as a potential reason someone should just simply accept what you say. Today it is plainly evident that academia has their own agenda, and anyone not on board is going to kind it very hard work in those ranks.
“Right - that IS how science works you know? Got a better method?”
Wrong, That is how scientism works… it is nothing more that propaganda leveraged in the name of “science” with the sole goal of advocating a social position or lifestyle. The more “scientists” that agree means it must be a “scientific” fact - right? Wrong… Science is what is has always been, the pursuit of validating hypothesis through what can be plainly observed and/or proven through analysis of empirical evidence. Consensus doesn’t make anything more or less valid unless being compared to something else more or less credible. Not where atheists in science are concerned, they have infected academia specifically to scew the “consensus” of those who agree with their social agenda or ideals and pawn them off as fact to support how they want to live and call anyone else who disagrees a religious fanatic. That is rank propagandizing and is that is plain and simple.
June 29th, 2008 at 11:32 am
“Wrong, That is how scientism works…”
No, that is how science works.
“I have been unwaivering in my emphatic acknowledgment that Zeus is an irrefutable figment of man’s imagination.”
So why, when I said this: “… I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist,” did you reply this: “No you did, and have not… at all.”
June 29th, 2008 at 11:41 am
“…No, that is how science works.”
well I am certainly not going engage in a futile debate of what science is to you, there is and has been only one… and it is what it is. There is science and scientism… all of the information you have supplied in this thread to support your arguments errs clearly on the side of the latter, which is fine we all expect that, but it doesn’t make it evidentially correct.
“So why, when I said this: “… I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist,” did you reply this: “No you did, and have not… at all.”
I was only responding to what your claim of what may exist to you to challenge what the Christian places their faith in. I believe I was quite consistent there. If not please let me know where I dropped the ball and I’ll make it clear for you.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:05 pm
“I believe I was quite consistent there. If not please let me know where I dropped the ball and I’ll make it clear for you.”
I haven’t got time to rehash it all over again. Just re-read it.
Me: “… I was immediately able to give you examples of things you were able to say categorically don’t exist.” In other words, Zeus.
You: “No you did, and have not… at all.”
So what did you mean by ‘You have not… at all”? I DID give you an examples of something you were able to say categorically doesn’t exist. Zeus.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:12 pm
“all of the information you have supplied in this thread to support your arguments errs clearly on the side of the latter”
Scientism is a meaningless term. If you want to dismiss the evidence then you’ve either got the information to falsify the science or you haven’t. I suspected your knowledge or the way science works because a few posts back you made it clear you didn’t even understand the term ‘falsify’.
June 29th, 2008 at 12:15 pm
So let’s try again:
“There are thousands of Gods. You feel happy to dismiss all as mythology, figments of man’s imagination, apart from your own.
That’s fine, but you can’t then say “Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.
All religious people seem to think non-believers are arrogant for dismissing THEIR particular God, but they see no hypocrisy in themselves dismissing all other Gods in the same way.
“Unless one posses a complete unabridged knowledge of the universe [which no man can]… they cannot logically make such a claim, it ’s absurd at the core.”.
So tell me, does that apply to people dismissing ALL Gods, or just your own?
June 29th, 2008 at 2:38 pm
Andrew,
We’re clear, like I said… just point it out. which you did.
“All religious people seem to think non-believers are arrogant for dismissing THEIR particular God, but they see no hypocrisy in themselves dismissing all other Gods in the same way.”
I respect where you are coming from on that angle… however, I ask you to check yourself here. Just do a little introspection before you respond, lol! None of those man made gods or deities have laws universally written on our hearts that divides their behavior into two camps, productive and unproductive. If it is unproductive… well, what are they doing? this is where the clarity of moral principles comes in, they are either right or wrong.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:33 pm
I’ve already argued the issue of morality at length with some of the “folks” around here (to use the nice word), but I’ll contribute again, for the fun of the debate:
Killing people to “perfect” the race (i.e. Hitler-ism) is stupid. I’m sorry, but if you think otherwise by any standard, even God’s, then you’re an idiot. But what you can’t argue with is that people of all races, all creeds, both genders, and all walks of life are here. They exist. So what do we do with them? How do we decide how to deal with them? If you go around killing them to suit your own goal, you’re only thinking about yourself, and you’re ignoring the world around you, which makes no sense—so what if you live, and you kill others around you in the process? Why, to extend your own life for a little bit without having to do extra work (that doesn’t involve killing or “wrong”ing someone)? That’s silly, and I don’t think you’ll find many who disagree. People are here—argue for whatever reason you want, “because God put them here,” “because genetics made them,” whatever. The point is, they’re here.
My “morality” (I hate that word, because the Christians have stolen it and distorted it beyond salvaging) comes from the here and now. What can we do with what we have, that will make use of all of the parameters of our world, that will use them in the way that the clues of nature intend for them to be used? Why would people exist if they were merely meant to be killed and harvested by other people? Why not make such people animals, instead? We don’t seem to feel the same remorse from killing animals. It doesn’t make sense, then, to say that a person should be killed solely for the benefit of another.
Think of it like this; you have a control panel in front of you. You have all of these buttons; you could just press a few, figure out a basic sequence that does something cool, and stick with that forever and ever, until you die. Or, you could learn more about it as you use it, make a few mistakes here and there, and try to learn how to use all of its functions in a way that will make use of this device ultimately easier than it would have been, had you just stuck with that simple formula.
Here is where you say, “but isn’t it just easier to stick with the easy formula? What motivation do you have to work on learning the rest of it?”
Simple; it gets even easier if you do that. Ultimately, it’s easier to have principles than to pursue barbaric anarchism. You Christian folk make it out like, if somebody didn’t tell us what to do, we’d all go crazy and become sodomites. You make it out as though, if society were completely Christian, everybody would live in perfect harmony and nobody would ever have sorrow or conflict or disagreement. Except, of course, that could only happen in a perfect world, devoid of human imperfection—even in a world of only Christians, you would inevitably have the outcasts, the “false Christians” (to use the popular Christian buzzword), who would “succumb to the temptations of the world” (as we have now) and do “evil.” That’s why you have laws in the first place, right? To draw the line? What good is a line that nobody’s wiling to cross?
It seems your criticism of the non-Christian sense of morality is rather short-sighted. Maybe you should think it over a little more?
July 11th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
P.S. I forgot one part. About the device with the buttons….the Christian analogue here is like a meager instruction manual that tells you not to ever touch a certain few buttons, because those are “bad” buttons. Those buttons exist, but they should never be used; they are only there to tempt you from pushing them, and for no other reason. That’s a silly reason, and quite juvenile in the event that a Creator is discovered one day—what such creator would toy with the development of his/her creation in such a way? It can only hinder the process.
Likewise, Christianity emphasizes suffering—if it makes me feel bad, then it must be more virtuous than if it makes me feel good. The harder it is, the more moral it becomes, essentially. Whereas a complete lack of an all-encompassing moral center would, on the surface, appear to endorse the idea that the easier the better, since there will be no afterlife in which to be compensated for my suffering. Right? Again, I accuse you of being shortsighted here; in the long-term, it’s actually easier to establish some moral code and follow it than it is to simply do “random acts of dumbness.” Likewise, Christianity becomes less appealing once one realizes that it’s entirely possible to be “moral” as well as live a life relatively free from suffering—not entirely, of course, as suffering is a part of life; things must be done, work must be finished, and basic necessities must be acquired….but this is simply the way the universe works. Change (and the desire for change) is a part of existence; without change, there would be nothing at all, not even thought or movement. Everything would be perfect, perfectly still, and it would never have to change at all—for to do so would disturb its perfection.
July 11th, 2008 at 8:48 pm
My point being that there is much more to be enjoyed out of a life that is well-rounded, that is based on experiencing the full spectrum of society and the world. In the short sight, it seems that simple and easy is always better…..but, as the old axiom (which I feel should be obvious by now) says, with hard work comes great satisfaction. The harder you’re willing to work, the more joyful your life will be in the end. Ultimately, the choice is up to each person by him/herself. And I think what troubles Christians the most about this ideology is that it doesn’t allow grounds on which to justify forcing other people to think the way you do; if someone isn’t willing to try and work for their share, then they don’t get one. If they lash out and try to take someone else’s, it’s in everyone’s benefit to stop them from doing so, because it establishes a precedent. But there is no changing the mind of the person, not without that person’s own consent. There is only influence—something which Christians have so much of in today’s world….and yet, they use it in such puzzling ways.
The most ironic part of the whole idea is that, once you understand it, it’s delightfully simple….and easy.
July 12th, 2008 at 1:27 am
Tim D, thanks for your comment.
I not really sure why you feel the necessity to start with an ad hominem. I always avoid those as it indicates to me perhaps either a weak argument or a sense of victimization. Have some Christians been very mean to you? If so I do apologize for them. Sometimes we can get too harsh.
Tim, I found it interesting that much of your post avoids the blog issues and seem to make some apriori assumptions. Let me address those first. For example you said:
1. “And I think what troubles Christians the most about this ideology is that it doesn’t allow grounds on which to justify forcing other people to think the way you do; if someone isn’t willing to try and work for their share, then they don’t get one.”
***Why do you make this accusation when you have not established that it is a valid accusation. Remember an assertion is not an argument nor evidence or a statement of fact. You’d have to show this was true and why before we could argue it. Until that point I tend to just treat it as rhetoric.
2. “Killing people to “perfect” the race (i.e. Hitler-ism) is stupid. I’m sorry, but if you think otherwise by any standard, even God’s, then you’re an idiot.”
*** Why do you make THIS accusation out of the blue. Actually the argument at some point seemed to be that Atheism lent ITSELF to perfecting the Race, certainliy not Christianity (as we are the ones accused of pandering to the weak). And the root question is WHY was Hitler wrong as you imply, if there is no absolute morality? And if there is one, why do you get to decide what it is?
3. ” Why would people exist if they were merely meant to be killed and harvested by other people? Why not make such people animals, instead? ”
*** Huh? Are you saying people are not animals? But surely you can’t be serious. Any true evolutionist would realize that humans are merely animals who have evolved in a certain way (brains vs. body). Why treat them any different than another evolved ape? What special rights do they get and why?
4. ” You make it out as though, if society were completely Christian, everybody would live in perfect harmony and nobody would ever have sorrow or conflict or disagreement. ”
*** I”m not sure where you get that. Christianity is quite clear that until we are in heaven/the new earth we will never live in harmony due to our sin nature (which you don’t believe in). It’s the atheists and the humanist who say that we can achieve peace in our time. Christians say strive for peace but know that the laws are given to allow us to achieve some modicum of it.
5. “About the device with the buttons….the Christian analogue here is like a meager instruction manual that tells you not to ever touch a certain few buttons, because those are “bad” buttons. Those buttons exist, but they should never be used; they are only there to tempt you from pushing them, and for no other reason”
*** But this is patently false and if I may be so bold this shows that you really have no concept of true Christian theology. Sounds like you got all your info from atheists or something.
The Christian theology clearly says the following: The laws are given for our safety and are not capricious.
For your analogy this would be closer: The Creator has 2 options.
a. Restrict us from doing anything stupid. E.g. Cover all the 110AC covers and make sure no power tools are in the house. That seems to be your option apparently. Do you really want that?
b. Allow us full freedom but alert us to the dangers: Here is how these things work, beware, don’t stick a fork in the socket. Use these general principles to determine the details.
If I have time I’ll address other issues later.
Neil
July 12th, 2008 at 11:57 am
I not really sure why you feel the necessity to start with an ad hominem. I always avoid those as it indicates to me perhaps either a weak argument or a sense of victimization. Have some Christians been very mean to you? If so I do apologize for them. Sometimes we can get too harsh.
I don’t always avoid them. I just generally don’t like them. However, I’m known to dabble in them from time to time, when I feel like stating facts isn’t going to do good one way or the other.
And no, Christians haven’t been “mean” to me. I’m not even sure what you mean by that. But I have been discouraged when dealing with many of them ever since I heard a group of them describe science and rationality as “the beast of logic” that seeks to “taint the holy waters” of religious morality, as well as every single time when I turn on the TV and see these Christian folks talking about how people like me (who’ve never even met most of them) are somehow trying to destroy them and their morality. Oh, and the whole “being gay is bad, even though being gay in itself doesn’t actually do anything bad” thing kind of pisses me off.
***Why do you make this accusation when you have not established that it is a valid accusation. Remember an assertion is not an argument nor evidence or a statement of fact. You’d have to show this was true and why before we could argue it. Until that point I tend to just treat it as rhetoric.
Because I am just so blown away by the aggressive nature of the idea that Christian morality is somehow “more right” than any other way of determining right and wrong—you don’t see an “ad hominem” embedded in there?
Who says Christian morals are right? What, in the objective world, can you show me to prove that they are right? Because “God said so?” How do you know that’s “right?” You don’t; you “trust” that it is. And I’m sorry but your trust is not a good enough foundation on which for me to establish such pathetic “morals” as “being gay is bad because God said so” (for example).
*** Why do you make THIS accusation out of the blue. Actually the argument at some point seemed to be that Atheism lent ITSELF to perfecting the Race, certainliy not Christianity (as we are the ones accused of pandering to the weak). And the root question is WHY was Hitler wrong as you imply, if there is no absolute morality? And if there is one, why do you get to decide what it is?
Because it is. Someone here used the argument that atheism/science somehow condones racial superiority, and that is simply wrong. It’s a fallacious straw man argument—you won’t find very many people (atheists or otherwise) today who would agree with that. People who believe in such things are the minority in all walks of life, and unsurprisingly, many racist groups are also predominantly Christian (such as the KKK, which we get a lot of down here). So don’t try to say that just because I’m an atheist I’m somehow obligated to explain to you why I don’t believe in killing to purify the race (even though I already have, and you just didn’t like my answer). I don’t need a reason not to be a douche-bag; that’s just the way I think, and frankly, I don’t care if it’s good enough for you.
You know, this is why I included the part about Christians being afraid of other types of “non-blind-followership” morality; it’s not that it’s any less sound than Christian “morality,” it’s that there’s no physical way to “prove it.” If we all just agree that we’re supposed to trust the man in the sky, then that’s somewhat of a common ground, but it’s still nowhere near “objective.” It’s just a given that we’re supposed to accept without examining, something of which I am not particularly fond—what’s that? I can’t prove why I feel the way I do? Then it must not be right. I love my girlfriend? Well, I guess I can’t prove it, so it’s not right, then. We’re not together based on Biblical principles, so I guess that’s not “right,” huh? I don’t feel the urge to go around commiting extreme, atrocious acts just for the hell of it (I mean, why not, I’m an atheist, no repercussions, right?), but I can’t tell give you a solid reason that anybody would abide by, so it’s not right?
The fallacy of the Christian “moral” argument is that it’s not any easier to solidify than personal morality. I can explain my personal feelings, and you’re no more obligated to hold to them (you can just disagree and say, “well, that’s your opinion”). Likewise, I can turn to a Christian and disagree with the idea that I have to trust in a high power and just accept His rules as a source of morality, without question or examination, and say, “well, that’s just the way you feel. I don’t feel that doing that is right.” Do you see my problem?
*** Huh? Are you saying people are not animals? But surely you can’t be serious. Any true evolutionist would realize that humans are merely animals who have evolved in a certain way (brains vs. body). Why treat them any different than another evolved ape? What special rights do they get and why?
Now you’re just being fececious. This argument comes from the ancient, tired assumption that, just because I as an atheist feel no obligation to *not* perform atrocious, extreme crimes on the basis of a God’s command, that I must feel no obligation not to do so at all—that if I have no specific moral identity that says, ‘this is always wrong no matter what,’ then I will just go out and do it whenever.
Most people will tell you that the idea of a brutal murder is disturbing. Few people can listen to the stories of things Hitler did to the Jews without cringing just a little. This is because of a thing called empathy, something that allows us to relate to others in a way that is very, very difficult to explain. It’s not so much science that keeps me from attacking people on a random basis as it is common sense—what need is there for me to kill someone? Right now, none. Even if I were starving; what need is there to kill someone? Sure, it would immediately get me what I want (food), but then I’d just have to do it again later when I needed more. And besides, my goal is to eat, not to kill. So I would only be pressured to kill from duress if someone else decided their life was more important than my food, right?
But then, this goes back to the idea of a common precedent. It’s in the interest of everyone to maintain such precedents as “stealing is wrong,” because if everyone agrees on the same beneficial idea and works towards it, then they will all be there to help each other if and when someone else decides they are exempt from this rule. This is how society functions.
P.S. You do realize that animals all over the world treat their own species differently than the others, don’t you? Do you think there’s some sort of “logical basis” for that? Do you think the animals do so based on “morality?” I don’t. I think it’s instinct.
*** I”m not sure where you get that. Christianity is quite clear that until we are in heaven/the new earth we will never live in harmony due to our sin nature (which you don’t believe in). It’s the atheists and the humanist who say that we can achieve peace in our time. Christians say strive for peace but know that the laws are given to allow us to achieve some modicum of it.
See, the catch is, Christians don’t care about the world in the long term. They think Jesus is on his way back, and that he’ll come down and fix everything once all the convertin’s done and all the theocracies are set up. For those of us who don’t believe this, it’s alarming to watch Christians seize power over our governments and, say, march us into illegal wars that destroy our credibility on the world stage. Because these leaders claim to speak for us, as well, and rest assured that they do no such thing.
Atheism (at least, my brand of it) doesn’t believe in achievable “world peace.” But that’s simply due to the variety of human nature; I wouldn’t say humans are “evil” by nature, or “good” by nature. Christianity is a good example here—Christians try to say that if you’re Christian, you’re good, and if you’re not, you’re bad (by nature)…and yet, there are Christians who do both good and bad. This is because of the nature of the person, the predisposition—if you are a “good” person by nature (whatever your idea of good may be), then you will search for things in the Bible that will help you accomplish good, and you will search for a positive message. If you are “bad” by nature, you will use the religion as a tool to accomplish political goals and make money. Same circumstance + different person = different result.
So why strive for peace, then, if it’s not possible? Simple. Social interaction and diplomacy is an ongoing job, because people are constantly taking action and communicating with one another; there will never be a day when it’s simply “done” and we have world peace. And yet, I don’t think anyone would disagree that an unsteady world is better than one that has fallen apart altogether. I’d rather live in this world (as run-to-the-ground as it is) than one full of Christian barbarians who execute homosexuals and fornicators.
*** But this is patently false and if I may be so bold this shows that you really have no concept of true Christian theology. Sounds like you got all your info from atheists or something.
Ah, but this is where you are wrong! Everything I accuse Christians of here is taken from conversations (or television broadcasts) with/from Christians themselves! Things I would never have thought to accuse anyone of on my own, things that literally make me hang my head in shame for humanity whenever I hear them.
The Christian theology clearly says the following: The laws are given for our safety and are not capricious.
For your analogy this would be closer: The Creator has 2 options.
a. Restrict us from doing anything stupid. E.g. Cover all the 110AC covers and make sure no power tools are in the house. That seems to be your option apparently. Do you really want that?
b. Allow us full freedom but alert us to the dangers: Here is how these things work, beware, don’t stick a fork in the socket. Use these general principles to determine the details.
Ah, so you value consistency over substance? That explains a lot. The reason Christians value their “morals” is because they are consistent; they are “finished,” somebody else did the work to figure them out, and now one need only sit back and apply the results where necessary. Is that it?
I don’t value consistency over substance. I realize that there are moral gray areas, places where the Bible’s vague sense of “morality” is tested at length. It’s situations like these for which I seek real answers to morality—and again, that’s an ongoing job. There will never be a day when humankind as a whole will say, “oh, we’ve figured it out! We’ve figured out everything about morality!” To do so would defy the very nature of the task of discerning morality—morality concerns itself with conditions, with specific situations and with the actions of others, all of which are in constant flux. So to say that your “morals” are valuable just because they are consistent is a fallacy; you need a better reason.
July 12th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Now you’re just being fececious. This argument comes from the ancient, tired assumption that, just because I as an atheist feel no obligation to *not* perform atrocious, extreme crimes on the basis of a God’s command, that I must feel no obligation not to do so at all—that if I have no specific moral identity that says, ‘this is always wrong no matter what,’ then I will just go out and do it whenever.
P.S. Allow me to clarify a little. You seem to think that, just because I have no religious motive to avoid killing people, that I will do so without hesitation—that I need to be “held back” somehow from doing this for no reason, that deep down I actually want to do this, and that I just need some reason to cling to not to do it. And what I say is, if you know someone who does need to be “held back” from doing something like that, you don’t have an immoral person—you have a crazy person.
July 13th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
*addendum*
…all of which is basically a way of saying, “I’m not a robot.” I think logically, yeah, but not 100%. I don’t think anybody does. I also don’t think anybody’s going to say, “Well, since God’s not watching….hmm, what’s the most atrocious act I can perform?”
People—even stupid ones—believe in what they’re doing. Nobody performs atrocious acts for the sake of being atrocious; we perform seemingly random acts of kindness because there is a positive sensation accompanying that kind of behavior—it’s a pleasant feeling to know that you are in the company of gratitude—but there is no immediate motivation to do “evil.” There would have to be some intervening physical factor, like hunger or desire, to motivate someone to do that. All “morality” is is the little voice that steps in at this point, the voice of reason that says, “hey, think about the long term. If you do that, then….[insert rationalization here].”
All of which makes my point that morality is no less dangerous even if it’s taken from Christianity. Because with solid, unmoving guidelines comes the justification of atrocious acts based on technicality. True “morality” must contain a spirit, as well—you know, like when they say, “that doesn’t actually break the rules of the game, but it breaks the spirit?” The “spirit” here meaning the intention, the atmosphere. If your morals never change or waver to account for individual situations, then there will inevitably be situations in which technicalities arise that can be taken advantage of.
July 13th, 2008 at 1:50 pm
Oh, and one more important thing. Sorry for the spam comments, but I can’t edit my older ones (which is probably better, for the sake of argument), so meh. I have a question for Christians in general, any and all takers welcome.
Why do you believe that God’s morals (from the Bible, or from whichever link on the chain between you and God you think they came) are “real” and “true” and “effective?”
Now, really think about that before you answer it. What I mean here is, why do you believe the morals in the Bible? Why do you think they are objective and true?
Should you say, “because it’s the word of God,” then I ask this: Why do you believe it’s the word of God?
And given that you do believe it is the word of God, why do you believe that it’s right? What about the nature of this “word of God,” given that we have no actual physical “proof” of God’s existence one way or the other, causes you to believe it’s more well-founded than the moral code of an atheist?
What I mean is….if we assume God is real, how do you know He is right? Because he’s God? What about that makes him right, or objective? Where can you point to show me his “rightness” or “objectivity?” If you believe it on your own, that’s fine. But you assert that you are bent on legislating this morality; thus, you require a method by which to “prove” it to other people. If we take away the presupposition (because it is just that, it’s a presupposition, not a fact) that God is real, and that he is just right because he’s God, then on what grounds can you say that he’s right?
July 13th, 2008 at 1:55 pm
P.S. To sum it up: Why should I make the presupposition that God exists and is right? What motivation do I have to do this? Make your case to me, I’m all ears. Why should I agree to the presupposition that these morals are objective, as you have? Why should I agree to the presupposition that God exists, and that He can make these things true?
If you say, “because God is great and fine and dandy, and because the world will be a better place because everyone plays by God’s rules,” I’ll say this: “Why should I believe that?”
July 13th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Oh, and I think TDR is Frank Turek. All too often, he shows up as one of the first commentators and never has anything negative to say (or even really disagrees with Turek).