Merry Christ-miss from the American Humanist Association

# on 17 Dec 2008
Apologetics & Naturalism/Atheism

Comments (101)

Related Posts

• God, Naturalism, and the Foundations of Morality
• The "Idea" of Evangelicalism (1)
• A Theology of Fear and Government Mistrust
• “True for You, But Not for Me” 2.0: The Newly-Released Revised, Expanded Edition
• Friday’s are for Historical Renewal!

101 Responses to “Merry Christ-miss from the American Humanist Association”

1. Jeff Haynes on 17 Dec 2008 at 12:22 pm #

   No God, no good and no evil. No God, why be good.
   Better to steal, kill and rape and enjoy all the senses have to offer for at death, nothingness.

2. Bryan Cross on 17 Dec 2008 at 12:26 pm #

   Doug has seemingly not read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics, or Aquinas’s Summa Theologica. First he needs to distinguish the order of being from the order of knowing. That way, he won’t create false dilemmas like “There are only two possible sources for morality: God or human beings”. It is a false dilemma because the term ’source’ is ambiguous with respect to the order of being or the order of knowing. Second, he needs to see that there is more than one way for morality to have a grounding in human beings than merely in arbitrary human volition. His voluntarism is a presupposition that itself needs to be substantiated. Voluntarism is what sets up his ‘problems’ with not basing morality [in the order of knowing] in God. Aristotelian ethics, for example, doesn’t face the three problems Doug presents. Being a voluntarist is not the only way to think about ethics. Nor is it the correct way to think about ethics. But the huge problem here is failing to distinguish the order of being from the order of knowing. (We can find this distinction, for example, in the opening paragraphs of Aristotle’s Physics.) Ultimately we can’t have morality without God. But ultimately, we can’t have anything without God, for all that is has its being from Him. But we can know many things (including morality), and have a proximate grounding for their truth, without explicitly basing them on God or special revelation. We can know justice, for example, and the goodness of treating persons with respect. We do know this already, through natural law. We know it through our natural power of human reason, and this is why we are culpable when we violate it, because we already know it. But it is not something that God frontloads into us, the way a computer comes with software already preloaded. Rather, we derive it by a natural habit of reason from the very natures of things, and from a foundational apprehension of goodness by reason, such that we know fundamentally that good is to be done and evil avoided. The way to respond to the Humanists is not to turn to divine command theory, but to show the problems with their *philosophy*, particularly in the order of being, not the order of knowing.

   In the peace of Christ,

   - Bryan

3. Truth Unites... and Divides on 17 Dec 2008 at 12:34 pm #

   Perhaps you are creating a false dilemma between Divine Revelation through “divine command theory” via Scripture and Natural Revelation/Law in terms of formulating a response to secular humanists.

4. Scott Ferguson on 17 Dec 2008 at 6:00 pm #

   I almost didn’t read this post because it is the same, tired apologist’s argument on relativity but come on, Doug, even Lewis managed a False TRIlemma! Besides if the only thing holding you back from raping your niece is that God said ought not do it, than your character is in serious question. Fortunately I assume that you are mapping the morality your learned and deduced with your lovely little brain onto God.

   Speaking of C. S. Lewis, I have always tried to but my finger on where the Nazi Germany argument fails. I think it is the idea that those holding conflicting views of morality must acquiesce to each others’ positions because there is no “ultimate” arbiter of the dispute. In other areas of intellectual life, say economic policy, human beings disagree and vociferously so. Just because my opponent has come to a heinous conclusion, i.e. that amassing wealth in the top 1% of the population is good for everybody, doesn’t mean that I will stop opposing him or even viewing him as motivated by greed or some other negative trait of Human Nature (I will defend my view on the merits of greed, too)

   Since no God ever seems to descend and knock heads together to straighten out these contretemps, we get the situation we would expect sans God, one in which people and societies disagree and oppose each other on so-called moral grounds.

5. Doug Powell on 17 Dec 2008 at 6:31 pm #

   So, you are defending relativism and telling me I’m objectively wrong at the same time? Thanks for helping make my point! Merry Christmas, Scott!

   dp

6. rayner markley on 18 Dec 2008 at 7:57 am #

   Doug does not seem to take into account Genesis chapter 3, where God offers the knowledge of right and wrong to man. When Adam took it, he acquired the sense of morality as God has (Gen. 3:22). So now our sense of morality, originally given by God, is inborn naturally. God can refine it for us, but humans can certainly base their moral conduct on this natural sense.

7. Doug Powell on 18 Dec 2008 at 8:30 am #

   Rayner, you miss my point. The question is: What is the necessary precondition for the sense of morality we all have? I’m not denying or ignoring it Gen 3 at all. In fact, your comment speaks more to my point than your criticism since it answers that very question.

8. rayner markley on 18 Dec 2008 at 8:46 am #

   Thank you, Doug. Then do you agree that humans can base morality on their inborn sense? It doesn’t seem to matter whether people believe that that sense comes from God or not—it’s the same idea of right and wrong. I see, therefore, no real conflict with humanists on this point.

9. Doug Powell on 18 Dec 2008 at 8:54 am #

   Rayner, I think you’ve missed my point again. Humans cannot BASE morality on their in-born sense, only apprehend it. Our moral sense SENSES an objective moral standard. So again, the question is, What is the necessary precondition for the existence of the standard our senses apprehend?

10. rayner markley on 18 Dec 2008 at 9:09 am #

    But people do base morality on their inborn sense. How can you say that they cannot do it?

    I see Genesis 3:22 as more than just apprehending that there is such a thing as morality because God says ‘man has become like us knowing good and evil.’ Furthermore, even those who believe that God must be the basis of morality, do not always agree on what that morality is. We are still thrown back on our inborn judgment.

11. Doug Powell on 18 Dec 2008 at 9:23 am #

    Rayner, the verse you quoted does not ascribe to man the ability to base morality, only to KNOW it. Moral standards are external from man and man has the ability to know (apprehend) them. And the fact that people do not always agree on what morality is makes my point, not yours. If God gave man the ability to base morality then there should be NO disagreements unless God did a very poor job or gave each man a different morality. However, the biblical passage you keep pointing to does not say God gave man that ability, as was point out above. It does say that man is fallen, and that fallen state effects every part of the person. This includes the mind. As people whose minds are clouded by sin we should expect to see disagreements about morality. These disagreements don’t indicate an absence of a transcendent objective standard, only our fallen state. The last thing fallen man needs is to be thrown back on our inborn judgment (as you say); what man needs is salvation from it.

12. Nick on 18 Dec 2008 at 9:50 am #

    Knowledge of morality would imply definitely that there are true statements about morality and that would be the way to begin the argument. Morality needs to be treated as a truth claim and as a truth claim it is either true or false. Consider this statement:

    Rape is evil.

    Now that statement as I see it is, if it’s a truth claim, either true or false. If there is no such thing as morality though, then it’s not really a truth claim. It’s simply meaningless. Someone can just ask “What do you mean by ‘moral’?” “What do you mean by ‘good’?”

    To start with Aquinas, it would be to say that being is good. Insofar as a thing is, it is good. Rape is not good because it goes against the nature of being. It violates the sexuality of a human being which is something divine. (No. I’m not meaning anything pantheistic by that either.) It treats a person as an object rather than as a person and thus denies their being.

    For Aristotle, there is no denial that there is such a thing as good, especially since Plato emphasized the form of the good so much. While Aristotle saw several problems with Plato’s teaching, he never outright denied that there is some truth to the idea of the forms.

    Now our skeptic says “God is the only thing keeping you from raping your niece?” Well, if moral relativism is true, there is no moral difference between raping her for Christmas and giving her a new doll for Christmas. There are different results, of course, but you cannot say these results are better or worse than another. They are simply results.

    Also, divine command is not the only system. If Doug does hold to voluntarism, which I do not see, he is welcome to defend it. I won’t. I instead believe that there is such a thing as goodness and that is that which is desirable for its own sake and this finds its ultimate expression in God who then is goodness itself.

    The atheist will still have to give his basis for truth and if I am correct that this is a truth claim, then to deny such would be to deny truth itself. Truth is just as eternal as morality is, when properly understood. I am sitting as I type this, for instance. If I stand up, that does not go against the eternality of truth for it will be true for all people in all times in all places that when I wrote “I am sitting” which is tied to a certain time, that I certainly was sitting.

    My approach is that we either assert there is such a thing as moral truth claims that are meaningful and then moral relativism is refuted, or else we say that all moral claims are meaningless and consider if we really live in such a world and realize how much it goes against our basic nature.

13. Bryan Cross on 18 Dec 2008 at 11:07 am #

    Doug,

    Replace ‘morality’ with “principles for good farming” and look at your three problems.

    If principles for good farming are grounded in the natures of plants and animals and the environment, then the first problem is that it justifies farmers who are clearly not following these principles (and getting low yields, or going bankrupt). The second problem is that the principles of good farming can change or be something entirely different than they are. For example, presently it is a principle of good farming to farm in a sustainable manner, but if the principles of good farming are grounded in the natures of plants and animals and the environment, then perhaps in the future it will not be good to farm in a sustainable manner. Thirdly, if the principles for good farming are grounded in the natures of plants and animals and the environment, then there can be no improvements in farming. Agriculture innovators would ipso facto be violators of the principles of farming.

    Obviously, these three ‘problems’ are pseudo-problems. The person who claims that they are problems does not understand the relationship between the natures of things and the principles of good farming. Now, replace ‘morality’ with “principles for good living”, and it is clear that these three ‘problems’ are pseudo-problems, for the very same reason.

    You shouldn’t assume that Humanism entails moral relativism, just as you shouldn’t assume that Humanism entails mathematical relativism, or agricultural relativism. If someone is talking about “goodness”, then to accuse him or her of moral relativism is to attack a straw man, unless he or she explicitly endorses moral relativism. Assuming that Humanism entails moral relativism plays right into their hands, because it shows that you are a voluntarist about morality, not understanding the *proximate* grounding of morals in the natures of things, just as our imaginary objector doesn’t understand the proximate grounding of the principles of good farming in the natures of plants, animals, and the environment. Our imaginary objector presumably thinks farmers need to ground the principles of good farming in God, in order to avoid the three problems that you raise. And we all laugh at such an imaginary objector. But, for the same reasons, the Humanists (rightly) laugh at your description of the pseudo-problems of their position. There are atheists and agnostics in my department (Philosophy), and they would laugh at your pseudo-problems. It indicates more about what you don’t know about morality than it does about their position.

    Anyone who ridicules being good for goodness sake doesn’t understand the intrinsic worth of good acts, virtue, or integrity. Plato spends the whole Republic defending this very thesis. So by claiming that being good for goodness stake is “arbitrary and meaningless”, you’ve just rejected Plato and Aristotle, without even considering their arguments. That doesn’t seem like “reclaiming the mind”; it seems more like fundamentalism.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

14. Nick on 18 Dec 2008 at 11:16 am #

    I see a difference though in that good farming refers to physical effects as well as is essentially being that which produces the best crop. Good action though is simply action which is done for the sake of being good. There is a condemnation in Scripture of doing evil that good may result meaning we can’t be only ends-oriented. Ends will always play some part, but not the only part.

    I do believe that humanism does entail moral relativism as goodness is not a physical property of the universe. Actions are simply actions and the only way to speak of something being good is if there is some sort of idea of goodness, a form of the good as it were, although Aristotle and Plato would see this form in different ways and Aristotle and Aquinas would say goodness is being.

    If we are to ground morality in man, then we can simply say “Which man?” If we are to ground it in results, then we can say “Why should I think X results are good?” They might be desirable, and while there is a goodness to all that is desired, it does not mean it is good for its own sake. Pleasure is good, but that does not mean it is the highest good. It also does not mean all that brings about pleasure, like some would say adultery does, is good.

    If we ground it in God and in being itself then and have God as the ultimate desire of mankind, as Augustine would have us do, then what is good is that which reflects the nature of God himself.

15. Bryan Cross on 18 Dec 2008 at 12:17 pm #

    Nick,

    There is a condemnation in Scripture of doing evil that good may result meaning we can’t be only ends-oriented.

    Doing evil that good may result is itself contrary to our nature and end; that’s precisely why it is not good for us to do it.

    I do believe that humanism does entail moral relativism as goodness is not a physical property of the universe.

    Feel free to write out that syllogism. If you do so, be sure not to confuse humanism with scientism.

    If we are to ground morality in man, then we can simply say “Which man?”

    That’s like saying, “If we are to ground the principles of good farming of wheat in the nature of wheat, then we can simply say, “Which wheat plant?” Or “If we are to ground medicine in the nature of man, then we can simply say, “Which man?” The question [mistakenly] assumes the truth of nominalism or some kind of skepticism viz-a-viz philosophical realism. There would have to be a unique anatomy book written for each individual human being, and a unique biochemistry book for each individual human being, and so on. I agree with your criticisms of hedonism, but Plato and Aristotle likewise condemned hedonism, as something incompatible with our nature and end. And I agree with your criticism of consequentialism, but again, so did Plato and Aristotle and Aquinas. The point is that the Humanist is not necessarily strapped with consequentialism or hedonism, let alone moral relativism.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

16. Nick on 18 Dec 2008 at 12:34 pm #

    As for evil that good may result, it is contrary to our nature indeed, but we may as well ask if that is really our nature in humanism. What is the nature of a man in humanism? Of course, I am speaking of the atheistic humanism. I know of no other origin in such a humanism for mankind than evolution which would mean that man is simply a highly complex entity that’s the result of chance in a universe that knew nothing of his coming or cares nothing of his being here.

    As for goodness not being a physical reality, I would say we can start with the idea that something is good if it is desirable. Aquinas even says this is the essence of goodness. While there are many things we desire, they ultimately for the Christian end in God and God is a non-physical reality. Thus, goodness at its root I take to be a non-physical reality.

    As for the idea of wheat, I do see a belief that all plants of a certain kind called wheat do share some of the same predicates, just as I believe that there are some essential predicates all men must possess in order to be considered men. If the humanist agrees that all men must possess the same predicates, then he must tell me what those predicates are exactly. What is it that is essential to my humanness that I possess?

    If he can’t, then I see the potentiality of simply setting up certain ideas by those in power of what constitutes as a human and what doesn’t and being able to eliminate all that don’t fit that criteria. (Don’t need to imagine it really. It’s already happening with the abortion movement.)

17. Bryan Cross on 18 Dec 2008 at 1:35 pm #

    Nick,

    What is the nature of a man in humanism?

    Notice that you are not refuting the Humanist’s position, but asking questions. That’s fine, but Doug’s post was stronger than just asking questions of the Humanist.

    The nature of man is what it is, whether one is a Humanist or not. What makes a wheat plant flourish does not depend on whether it came about through an evolutionary process, or was created ex nihilo. It depends on its present nature. The wheat farmer can know from the nature of wheat what is good for wheat without knowing its phylogenetic origin. And the same is true of human beings. We can apprehend what makes humans flourish (and what destroys us), without knowing our phylogenetic origin. The atheist as such cannot adequately explain the ultimate ground for teleology, but that doesn’t mean that he or she must deny teleology. Nor does biological evolution entail ateleology, for the same reason that biological evolution does not entail atheism. What may seem like chance at the level of secondary causes is not necessarily chance at the level of primary causes. That’s why theistic evolution is not a logical contradiction. Scientism is false, and a Humanist need not (and should not!) embrace scientism. That’s why Humanism does not entail moral relativism.

    If the humanist agrees that all men must possess the same predicates, then he must tell me what those predicates are exactly. What is it that is essential to my humanness that I possess? If he can’t, then I see the potentiality of simply setting up certain ideas by those in power of what constitutes as a human and what doesn’t and being able to eliminate all that don’t fit that criteria.

    Why “must” the Humanist tell you anything? Do you demand that the wheat farmer tell you what all wheat plants have in common? I’m not sure how you justify demanding that Humanists tell you things.

    If we couldn’t know what human nature is, then yes, de facto, might would ‘make right’. But we can and do know human nature to greater and lesser degrees, even when we can’t articulate in words what it is. This is precisely how we are able to know justice from injustice, even when no one has explained to us that justice is giving to each his due. This is how we know the Golden Rule, and the rest of natural law. This is how we know that persons should be treated with respect; we know something about the nature of persons. This is also how we know what freedom is, and why freedom (with various qualifications) is rightly recognized as a human right. The false philosophy that leads many people astray is scientism, which is a form of [philosophical] skepticism. That false philosophy ends up [by its methodology] denying natures, teleology, goodness, meaning, etc. And probably some significant portion of Humanists is at least sympathetic to scientism, because it is a default position (intellectually) in our time. But I think that Humanists are trying to affirm and preserve goodness and virtue, without appealing to God. So to the degree that they [by default] affirm scientism, there is a deep tension within their position between all that makes us fully human (in the sense of what used to be discussed in Humanities Departments), and the epistemic limitations concerning what we can know about ourselves given the methods of modern science. That’s the better point at which to criticize Humanism; if you get them talking about Plato and Aristotle, you’re much closer to agreement. As for me, I would take St. Paul’s approach at Athens: “This goodness that you speak of, let us tell you what it really is, and why.” Affirm the common ground, and build on it; don’t attack a straw man.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

18. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2008 at 2:24 pm #

    I am surprised that this is so much disagreement with Doug’s proposition. He is talking about the philosophical grounding for morality. This is much different than farming which is based on a set end or purpose which has a naturalistic result which cannot be relativized due to its purpose.

    Morality, on the other hand, as Doug has said, can be relativized in the humanistic worldview precisely because it has no stable/static grounding or set end. God’s nature provides this stablility. Without it, there is no ultimate justification for the philosophical belief that murder, beastiality, incest, hatred, adultury, etc. it wrong. Just look to the animal kingdom for evidence.

    The reason why humans are different is not because we live, for some reason, according to some arbitrary morality standards different than the rest of creation, but because we are created in God’s image and we have a moral compass different from that of the rest. Take God away from the equation and you have no obligation to live differently than the animals. In other words, there is no stable epistemic justification for morality without God.

    He is not saying, I believe, that without a belief in God there is no morality. For whether one believes in God or not, they live as if there is one, believing that there is a stability in right or wrong, truth and error, righteousness and evil. This is the presuppositional argument at its best.

    However, humanism (atheistic), as history has shown, does not provide a sufficient philosophical basis for believing in such. Without this basis, people can justify anything—even the holocaust.

19. Bryan Cross on 18 Dec 2008 at 3:48 pm #

    Michael,

    Morality, on the other hand, as Doug has said, can be relativized in the humanistic worldview precisely because it has no stable/static grounding or set end.

    You seem to be assuming that a Humanist must be a nominalist. But I know atheists (personally) who are philosophical realists, either of the Platonic or Aristotelian sort. They hold that human nature is no more capable of change than is 2+2=4. So, do you have an argument for your assumption?

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

20. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2008 at 4:16 pm #

    My point is that there is no epistemic justification for holding to a stable morality with such a worldview. Of course, this is my opinion. Obviously, atheists will make a case for such. But this is precisely the point of the article. No valid case can be made for stability without transcendence.

21. Bryan Cross on 18 Dec 2008 at 4:53 pm #

    Michael,

    You seem to be loading nominalism into the concept of atheism, and then claiming that since nothing is stable in atheism, therefore there can’t be a stable basis for morality in an atheistic worldview. But that just begs the question, assuming precisely what is question. There are atheists who are Platonists. (Your conceptual framework seems to be unable to acknowledge that possibility.) And Platonic Forms are eternal and unchanging — so are Aristotelian forms. I have never met an atheist who thinks that 1+1 might some day equal 3. They all believe that mathematical truths are eternal and unchanging. Likewise, most educated atheists are not moral relativists. They believe in unchanging objective moral standards. They believe that rape and torture and child labor and female genital mutilation, etc. are always and everywhere wrong, in every possible world, and that societies that come to discover that such behavior is wrong have discovered moral truths, and moved toward enlightenment. And they ground these unchanging moral truths in [the unchanging nature of] sentience or rationality or personhood. So if we are to avoid attacking straw men, we can’t just stipulatively define atheism as essentially nominalistic.

    The better approach, I think, is to show how theism is the best explanation of eternal truths, as St. Augustine does in ‘placing them’, so to speak, in the mind of God.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

22. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2008 at 5:43 pm #

    Brian, 1+1 is an analytic truth. It is not comparable in my opinion. That is the point. Same thing with farming. The basis is in its self. Morality cannot be such.

    “And Platonic Forms are eternal and unchanging.” This simply begs the questions of transcendence. If an atheist wants to argue for such, they are really pantheists of some sort. In this case, the point is still the same.

    Hope that makes sense. The humanism that he is arguing against is true atheistic humanism, not a modified impersonal theism where the greatest conceivable being or beings exist in platonic forms. Once that argument is made, the discussion has moved toward a “What does your God look like” (i.e. what is your form to transcendence).

23. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2008 at 5:50 pm #

    Notice from their website: “We can have ethics and values based on our built-in drives toward a moral life.” This is a subjective argument from immanence which is not ever stable by definition. If we change, evolve, discover that bestiality is beneficial, learn that there is a greater good due to the satisfaction of rape, find that having same-sex relationships is satisfying, so be it. There cannot possibly be an argument for stability with such a philosophy, only conventional norms.

24. Bryan Cross on 18 Dec 2008 at 6:46 pm #

    Michael,

    You are using this “transcendence vs. imminence” paradigm, and pigeon-holing everything into one of those two categories. According to this paradigm, if something is transcendent, then, by definition it must be God. If something is imminent, then by definition it must be unstable and capable of change. But truth isn’t determined by stipulating paradigms, and shoving things into our paradigm’s categories, or doing ontology by definition.

    Notice from their website: “We can have ethics and values based on our built-in drives toward a moral life.” This is a subjective argument from immanence which is not ever stable by definition.

    It is not an argument, but a statement. You seem to be assuming that human nature can become something other than human nature. But why should anyone believe that? A tree can become a pile of ashes. But treeness cannot become something other than treeness. How could it? How could treeness become rockness? It couldn’t anymore than twoness could become threeness. This is why, for Plato and Aristotle, the forms themselves cannot change.

    If we change, evolve, discover that bestiality is beneficial, learn that there is a greater good due to the satisfaction of rape, find that having same-sex relationships is satisfying, so be it.

    You seem to think that the basis for the immorality of bestiality, rape, and homosexuality is a stipulated divine command. But bestiality and homosexuality are contrary to our nature as animals. By our nature we are fundamentally inclined sexually to the opposite sex (of our own species) for the purpose of reproduction. And rape is contrary to the personhood of the woman, since she has not *freely* given herself sexually to this man. So in all three cases, the act is contrary to our nature. And no matter how we changed biologically, so long as we remained rational animals, those actions would remain contrary to our nature.

    If, (contrary to possibility), these actions *could* become truly fulfilling of our nature, then why would God prohibit them? He would have no reason to do so, apart from withholding from us something that truly fulfilled our nature and made us truly happy.

    There cannot possibly be an argument for stability with such a philosophy, only conventional norms.

    It seems to me that you are just asserting this. But assertions don’t prove anything. The Humanist could just assert the contrary to what you assert, and nobody would be any closer to the truth, or to agreement. But the fact is that Plato and Aristotle both give good reasons to believe that forms cannot change. If forms could change, then there is no non-arbitrary reason to believe that God cannot change. You can pound the table and say, “God’s nature is immutable”, but that’s exactly what Plato and Aristotle claimed about the forms. So if you can insist that forms are mutable, then the atheist can likewise insist that God is mutable, and stick you with the tu quoque.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

25. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2008 at 7:08 pm #

    Bryan,

    Thanks for the comments.

    “According to this paradigm, if something is transcendent, then, by definition it must be God. If something is imminent, then by definition it must be unstable and capable of change.”

    Exactly, that is my presupposition (however, I would put it as “a definition of transcendence, not ‘God’”). Your presupposition is that this is false. And here is the foundation point where we would have to part ways if you don’t agree.

    “You seem to think that the basis for the immorality of bestiality, rape, and homosexuality is a stipulated divine command.”

    Not at all. I believe that they are part of God’s nature, not an arbitrary commend (which is what ‘divine command theory implied’). And that is the point. Right or wrong are justifiable when transcendence is conceded. However, I would further argue that personality is a necessity as well, but that is a different discussion.

    “It seems to me that you are just asserting this. But assertions don’t prove anything.”

    I would say that the burden of proof lies on those who claim morality. There aways has to be a transcendent basis. Therefore, the burden is not on me my friend. I would respectfully say that you are the one making assertions.

26. Carrie on 18 Dec 2008 at 7:48 pm #

    Bryan,

    You said:

    By our nature we are fundamentally inclined sexually to the opposite sex (of our own species) for the purpose of reproduction. And rape is contrary to the personhood of the woman, since she has not *freely* given herself sexually to this man. So in all three cases, the act is contrary to our nature. And no matter how we changed biologically, so long as we remained rational animals, those actions would remain contrary to our nature.

    I say:

    You have used the phrase “contrary to our nature”…

    Is this nature equipped with an intuitive understanding of right and wrong?

    Carrie

27. Bryan Cross on 18 Dec 2008 at 7:52 pm #

    Michael,

    Exactly, that is my presupposition (however, I would put it as “a definition of transcendence, not ‘God’”).

    If you are following a presuppositional epistemology, there seems to be no point in debating the Humanist. It is just preaching to the choir. On the one hand, if you are going to use your presuppositions to evaluate your presuppositions (ad infinitum), then it is fideism all the the way down. But if your starting points are not presuppositions, then there is no reason to bring in presuppositions at all.

    Your presupposition is that this is false.

    No. I don’t assume that your two-category paradigm is true. That’s not the same thing as presupposing that your two-category paradigm is false. I agree that for anything that exists, it is either God or something subordinate to God. But I don’t assume that everything other than God is unstable and changing. Nor do I assume that anything unchanging must be God. I think the number four can never be anything other than the number four. But I don’t worship the number four.

    Not at all. I believe that they are part of God’s nature, not an arbitrary commend

    Ok, but what exactly does it mean for a moral truth to be “part of God’s nature”? How many parts does God’s nature have? What holds all the parts together? How is God not contingent if He has parts? How is this anything other than “It has something to do with God’s nature, and God’s nature is unchanging, but don’t ask me any more.”? The move you’re making creates more problems, and just sweeps the problem under the rug, so to speak. It is semantic hand-waving that evades and doesn’t really answer the question.

    Aquinas argued that the divine nature is simple, and that it has no parts. The immoral actions we discussed above are wrong, because they are contrary to our nature, which is aimed at God, who is perfect goodness. So these moral prohibitions are related to God’s nature in that sense, namely, that they specify as such, types of behavior that are contrary to the fulfillment of our nature, which is necessarily aimed at God.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

28. Bryan Cross on 18 Dec 2008 at 7:59 pm #

    Carrie,

    Is this nature equipped with an intuitive understanding of right and wrong?

    The traditional Christian view is ‘yes’, humans naturally know right and wrong. This is called natural law. As applied to a particular case it is called conscience (i.e. applying knowledge to this case). We can, to some degree, sear our conscience. But we are culpable for what we do, precisely because we naturally know right and wrong through our rational capacity.

    That doesn’t mean that everybody knows right and wrong equally well, or that right and wrong in every case is equally clear to us. Our conscience can be more or less informed. But natural law (at least at the primary and secondary levels) is something we cannot *not* know. C.S. Lewis brings this out in the opening pages of Mere Christianity, and also in Abolition of Man.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

29. Scott on 18 Dec 2008 at 9:13 pm #

    Bryan,
    You seem to me to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, which would make your behavior or words on this blog ones of stubborn arrogance. I am not God, thank God, so I could be wrong. Anyway, the whole point seems to be, no matter how you argue it, you can’t argue about being good and avoid God and having him as the end point. Maybe, that’s to simply for you, if so please forgive me.

30. Carrie on 18 Dec 2008 at 9:20 pm #

    Hi Bryan,

    Thank you for your reply.

    Carrie

31. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2008 at 9:36 pm #

    Bryan,

    “On the one hand, if you are going to use your presuppositions to evaluate your presuppositions (ad infinitum), then it is fideism all the the way down.”

    But this is exactly what you have to do. Again, the burden of proof is upon the person who argues against transcendence, not me. Unless they want to live as consistent relativists, which is an option, but not one that is ever sustained.

    Without God, Romans 2 does not have any justification. Conscious, no matter what its origin, has no grounding beyond subjectivity. Form, eternal or not, are not binding to such.

32. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2008 at 9:38 pm #

    Your second part about simplicity is stretching this argument way beyond this thread. While I believe in the necessity of simplicity, it is no more worth reasoning through than creation ex nihilo. Both are mysterious necessities reality.

33. Nick on 18 Dec 2008 at 9:53 pm #

    I got busy and couldn’t address what was said. I thank you Michael for stepping in. I agree with much of what you’ve said so far. If we are going to have eternal and unchanging truths, they need to be rooted in something that is eternal and unchanging. Plato and Aristotle, we must remember, were not atheists. They were theists, although certainly not Christian theists.

    And yes, the humanists do need to back their statement. They say be good for goodness sake. I ask “What does that mean in your worldview? How do you determine what is good?” And they can tell me “Well, loving your neighbor is good. Don’t you agree?” Yes. I agree. But why, if blind material forces are all that exist?

    I do have a backing for morality in God that explains the natural law. The atheologian has yet to give me such a backing.

34. Nick on 18 Dec 2008 at 10:00 pm #

    Oh Michael. I was just checking and I find it fascinating you’re a huge superheroes fan and have a Superman game when I clicked on your name.

    We should chat sometime. I’m a Smallville fanatic.

35. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2008 at 10:15 pm #

    Amen Brother!!

    Smallville is ROCKING this year. Last year was weak…or was it the year before. Anyway, I am all things superhero.

36. Nick on 18 Dec 2008 at 10:17 pm #

    Michael. Shoot me an email sometime. We must discuss this more in-depth!

    And I am a bigger fan than you are….

37. C Michael Patton on 18 Dec 2008 at 10:20 pm #

    all your credibility is now gone for such an overstatement!!!

38. Jason C on 18 Dec 2008 at 11:40 pm #

    Bryan, may I ask.

    Why regard Aristotle and Plato as authoritative in this field?

    Can you explain their positions in layman’s language?

39. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:03 am #

    Nick,

    But why, if blind material forces are all that exist?

    Very few Humanists believe that “blind material forces are all that exist”. Just ask any of them: “Do you exist? Are you a blind material force?” Or, “Do persons exist?” Or “How can you be a Humanist if you don’t believe humans exist?” We don’t want to straw man their position — it has just the opposite effect.

    If a dog is born with only three legs, we recognize that this is not good. If a horse is born blind, we recognize this is not good. We don’t have to check and see what God thinks about them (or make sure that God exists), before determining whether these are good or bad. We recognize these as bad because they are contrary to the natures of dogs and horses. Likewise, as Socrates points out at the end of Book I of the Republic, the person who lives unjustly fails to fulfill his human nature; we recognize that an unjust person is bad in the same way that we recognize that blindness in a horse is bad. Both are contrary to the nature of that being. The horse, given his nature, *should* see. And the human, given his nature as a rational being, *should* be just. A horse *shouldn’t* be just, because his nature does not include rationality. But it is precisely our awareness of human nature (as including rationality) that allows us to perceive injustice in men as an imperfection, as something that *shouldn’t* be there.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

40. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:07 am #

    Michael,

    But this is exactly what you have to do.

    No, I’m not a presuppositionalist. We start with first principles, as Aristotle explains. In other words, we don’t start [epistemically] with a non-rational leap. We start [epistemically] with a rational apprehension of being, and from it we immediately grasp the first principle of theoretical reason, namely, the law of non-contradiction. Similarly, the first principle of practical reason (from our initial apprehension of being under the aspect of good) is that good is to be done and evil avoided. No one can deny that good should be done and evil avoided; this knowledge is not a presupposition, it is a first principle, a truth grasped by reason from the very nature of being (perceived under the aspect of goodness), and not derived from some other principle.

    Without God, Romans 2 does not have any justification. Conscious, no matter what its origin, has no grounding beyond subjectivity. Form, eternal or not, are not binding to such.

    Conscience is the act of reason applied to a case. Reason tells us what ought to be done in this case, given what we know. We are bound by reason, because we are rational creatures, and so reason is the standard or measure of our actions. This is why non-rational animals are not bound by reason. When we go against our conscience, our conscience condemns us, because our reason is telling us that what we did was wrong (i.e. contrary to reason).

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

41. C Michael Patton on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:16 am #

    Bryan, I don’t know why you have such a fascination with the authority of Platonic thought, but to each his own…

    “If a dog is born with only three legs, we recognize that this is not good. If a horse is born blind, we recognize this is not good. We don’t have to check and see what God thinks about them (or make sure that God exists), before determining whether these are good or bad. We recognize these as bad because they are contrary to the natures of dogs and horses.”

    This only because it is the conventional norm for dogness or horseness to be such. That is exactly the point of the argument. Morality is only a conventional norm with no “oughtness” that is attached in a transcendental way.

    If you are simply trying to argue for the humanist position to say “This is how they would argue” not “This is a good argument” that is fine and you should explain such. But if you are actually arguing for this position, it is, due to all that has been said so far, in my opinion, exceedingly weak.

    But, as I said, such is the gift of free will (wait, no such thing in a humanistic worldview…don’t want to go there! )

42. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:21 am #

    Jason,

    Why regard Aristotle and Plato as authoritative in this field?

    There are different kinds of authorities. One kind of authority is such by designation or stipulation. Another kind of authority is such by recognized expertise or excellence. Plato and Aristotle are philosophical authorities of the latter sort. They saw more clearly and deeply into things than do most men, and those who study these things recognize them as obviously gifted in this way. But I don’t claim that something is right because Plato or Aristotle said it. Neither did they. Rather, I make use of their insights to construct arguments, as did they.

    Can you explain their positions in layman’s language?

    In a combox, not without oversimplifying. If you want an overview sketch, read Plato’s Euthyphro, the Gorgias, and the Republic. And then read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

43. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:41 am #

    Michael,

    This only because it is the conventional norm for dogness or horseness to be such.

    Where did this conventional norm come from? Why isn’t it the “conventional norm” that dogs should be born with five legs, but that 99% of dogs are born missing a leg? Or, why isn’t it the conventional norm that dogs should be born with six legs, but that 99% of dogs are born missing two legs?

    Why do people all over the world recognize that dogs should have four legs, and that something is missing when a dog is born with three legs? Was there some secret global convention in which we all agreed that the norm for the number of legs on a dog would be four? Do veterinarians have to consult the latest status of the “conventional norm” in order to determine whether to amputate one or more legs of dogs born with four legs?

    This is where philosophical skepticism (of the nominalist sort) leads: a denial of teleology. When you deny natures, you lose teleology. You can’t say what the function of legs is. You can’t say what the function of eyes is. You can’t say what the function of the heart is; you can only say what most people expect of hearts. That’s the nominalism that comes out of William of Ockham. It is a form of skepticism, because children don’t initially think that way. They initially recognize functions as intrinsic, not extrinsic. Only after being exposed to nominalism that calls into question their ability to know natures do they translate their former knowledge of function and teleology into the language of “conventional norms”.

    no “oughtness” that is attached in a transcendental way

    Merely positing something as “transcendental” does not explain oughtness. Oughtness comes from a natural inclination of our nature toward a perfection specified by our nature. If we had no teleology, we would have no oughtness.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

44. C Michael Patton on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:49 am #

    Bryan, I don’t quite understand as your comments seem to support what I am saying. I guess I will just leave it at what you have said—conventional norms are not enough to suppose or support “oughtness.” Therefore there is no way to “be good for goodness sake” since goodness does not have a “sake.”

45. C Michael Patton on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:51 am #

    “In a combox, not without oversimplifying. If you want an overview sketch, read Plato’s Euthyphro, the Gorgias, and the Republic. And then read Aristotle’s Nicomachean Ethics.”

    You will also find Plato and Aristotle at odds on many fundamentals.

46. Jason C on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:54 am #

    Is piety loved because it is good, or good because it is loved?

    Thumps Euthyphro with a large stick.
    Quiet, you crazy Greek

    Thanks for the reading advice Bryan. I guess it’s all online now. I probably have some on a CD I bought a while back. 4000 works of literature.

    Is it legitimate to question whether humanists can agree on any morality? After all we have Peter Singer who argues for infanticide and bestiality.

47. Carrie on 19 Dec 2008 at 1:19 am #

    Ah yes… i see now…

    Bryan your suggesting that “Oughtness comes from a natural inclination of our nature toward a perfection specified by our nature. ” is tantamount to saying man is the measure of himself.

    And that is simply wrong.

    In a nutshell …

    If we have no God we have no teleology. If we have no God we have no oughtness. If we have no God we have no nature which compells us to do anything or be anything or know anything (right from wrong or any other truth for that matter).

    That is the premise of Doug’s argument and in all that you have said (and you have said a lot) you have failed to prove otherwise.

    Carrie

48. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 1:23 am #

    Jason,

    Singer goes wrong by falling into scientism. This is why he thinks there is no ontological distinction between humans and other species. (Hence we’re guilty of ’species-ism’ if we treat our species according to certain ethical principles, but treat other sentient species according to lower norms.)

    But Singer isn’t unaware of natural law, even if he wouldn’t use that term. He wouldn’t want to be treated unjustly, for example. He wouldn’t want to be robbed or murdered.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

49. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 1:37 am #

    Carrie,

    I have never denied that without God, you have nothing else. In fact, I said that very thing in my first comment here.

    What I pointed out there was the importance of distinguishing between the order of being and the order of knowing. In the order of being, nothing could exist if God didn’t exist. But in the order of knowing, we don’t have to start with knowledge of God in order to know anything else. The order of knowing is exactly the opposite of the order of being. And so in the order of knowing, we can know morality without knowing that God is the source of all things, morality included. And so the Humanist can (and does) acknowledge morality, even if he cannot explain its ultimate source in the order of being.

    As for this:

    Bryan your suggesting that “Oughtness comes from a natural inclination of our nature toward a perfection specified by our nature. ” is tantamount to saying man is the measure of himself.

    Yes and no. We are not the measure of ourselves insofar as we fall short of our nature, and thus fall short of God’s perfect holiness. But God’s standard for us is the standard He used when creating us. That is human nature. And so human nature is our measure, and at the same time, it is God’s measure of us.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

50. Jason C on 19 Dec 2008 at 1:39 am #

    Shouldn’t the ontological difference be as obvious as the nose on his face? Still I suppose that as long as we keep people like that away from any decision making power…

    I had an interesting discussion with a New Zealand High Court Judge the other night.

    I explained my view of a world without prisons, where punishments were meted out in proportion to the crime, fines, flogging or death.

    He described the concept of direct proportional punishment as natural justice.

    So natural law is that thing children appeal to when they say “it’s not fair”?

51. Jason C on 19 Dec 2008 at 1:43 am #

    Yes and no. We are not the measure of ourselves insofar as we fall short of our nature, and thus fall short of God’s perfect holiness. But God’s standard for us is the standard He used when creating us. That is human nature. And so human nature is our measure, and at the same time, it is God’s measure of us.

    So when the humanist says that nobody’s perfect he is indicting himself because he is acknowledging a standard that he knows of, but don’t measure up to?

    So Paul’s statement that “they are without excuse” still holds.

52. Carrie on 19 Dec 2008 at 2:14 am #

    Bryan you said:

    I have never denied that without God, you have nothing else. In fact, I said that very thing in my first comment here.

    I say:

    Good.

    You said:

    But in the order of knowing, we don’t have to start with knowledge of God in order to know anything else.

    I say:

    I agree with that. However that isn’t what is being said here.

    No one is denying that humanists/atheists know right from wrong. The point is (and it is a fairly straightforward and simple one) is that they can not account for why.

    And most of us who have engaged in discussions with these type of folks have been faced with the bog standard argument of “it is within human nature to do right for the pragmatic good” etc.

    These arguments always fail however because they simply can’t account for why? They can’t even account for what makes good, good when they appeal to “because it is good”.

    That is all that is being pointed out.

    As Christians are we not to point out these simple truths to those who deny them?

    That is all Doug was doing.

    So I ask, why all the hub-bub?

    Carrie

53. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 3:14 am #

    Carrie,

    The point is (and it is a fairly straightforward and simple one) is that they can not account for why.

    Yes and no. In the sense of explaining the *ultimate* source of morality, they cannot. But in the sense of explaining the *proximate* source of morality in the natures of things, yes they can, just as we can explain that hearts should pump blood, eyes should see, and humans should live according to their rational capacity.

    These arguments always fail however because they simply can’t account for why? They can’t even account for what makes good, good when they appeal to “because it is good”.

    Something is good insofar as it is desirable for the fulfilling of our appetites. Humanists can acknowledge that. They can explain that apples are good for us to eat, because apples help satisfy our appetite for food. And virtue is good because through it we satisfy our rational appetite. Virtue, as Aristotle and Aquinas teach, is its own reward — it is an intrinsic good, good for its own sake, not a mere instrumental good (i.e. good for acquiring something else).

    I presented my concerns with Doug’s post in my comments above. The primary concern has to do with avoiding the straw man. The reason behind the construction of the straw man is a divine command theory conception of ethics. And the reason behind that is a nominalism that denies that we can know natures or teleologies, and fills that philosophical vacuum with a direct grounding of ethical truths on either divine volition or divine nature. But nominalism is false. So attacking Humanism on the basis of nominalism is not good, and it makes Christians look bad, by making us seem ignorant of the proximate grounds of ethical truths in the natures of things.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

54. Jason C on 19 Dec 2008 at 3:36 am #

    So a more appropriate line of attack is to point out that while they know what is right and wrong, they cannot justify it within their paradigm?

    Your observation about the innate goodness of virtue gels with my own gut instinct that flares up whenever an atheist tries to claim that Christians are only law abiding because they’re afraid of hell.

    Christian morality, in my view, is deontological, and comes out of our obligation to God and where serving Him, regardless of benefit, is a good in and of itself.

55. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 9:05 am #

    Jason,

    I would take St. Paul’s approach, as I pointed out above. According to Aristotle and Aquinas, we are ultimately aimed (teleologically) at happiness, and, as Aquinas explains, this happiness can only be found in knowing God. So instead of telling the Humanists that he really doesn’t believe in goodness, I would grant him his belief in goodness and then seek to show him what goodness (in its ultimate, not proximate sense) is. “This goodness that you speak of, … ”

    Your observation about the innate goodness of virtue gels with my own gut instinct that flares up whenever an atheist tries to claim that Christians are only law abiding because they’re afraid of hell.

    Exactly. Unfortunately, due to divine command theory and the loss of understanding of philosophy, many contemporary Christians think of morality in a voluntaristic and stipulative fashion. Either you avoid doing immoral things in order to avoid going to hell, or you avoid doing immoral things, just to show God how grateful you are for saving you from hell. You don’t avoid doing immoral things *because you see for yourself that they are intrinsically bad for you*, contrary to the health of your soul. And you don’t do virtuous actions *because you see for yourself that they are truly desirable in themselves*.

    Christian morality, in my view, is deontological, and comes out of our obligation to God and where serving Him, regardless of benefit, is a good in and of itself.

    In my opinion, it depends on what you mean by the term ‘deontological’. This term is usually used to refer to a Kantian ethics that is based on a priori reason. It is de-ontological because it is a response to David Hume’s skepticism about the ability of reason to know any ontology, including the nature’s of things. In other words, it is built on a rejection of the epistemology of the previous 2000 years of philosophy.

    Do we have an absolute duty to God? Yes, in part because the first (and inviolable) principle of practical reason is that good is to be done. And God is perfect Goodness. Perfect obedience to God is, at the same time, perfect obedience to perfect Goodness (for God is perfect Goodness, He from whom all good things come, and in whom all perfections are found). So perfect obedience to God is perfect conformity to Goodness. And you cannot possibly go wrong (or fall short of the goodness we most deeply desire) when remaining in perfect conformity and union with Goodness Himself. Holding onto Goodness is not only good for its own sake, it is the perfection that we, by our very nature, most deeply desire, to be united to God who is perfect Goodness. Every other intrinsic good is subordinate in perfection to that Good. Aquinas explains this carefully in Questions 1-5 of the Prima Secundae of his Summa Theologica.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

56. Carrie on 19 Dec 2008 at 9:17 am #

    Hi Bryan,

    You said:

    Yes and no. In the sense of explaining the *ultimate* source of morality, they cannot.

    I say:

    Exactly. And pointing that out is not a strawman. That is the entire premise of Doug’s argument.

    They can not account for the ultimate “why”. And that is the what we are dealing with.

    You say:

    Something is good insofar as it is desirable for the fulfilling of our appetites. Humanists can acknowledge that. They can explain that apples are good for us to eat, because apples help satisfy our appetite for food.

    I say:

    In saying things are desirable for fulling our appetites, etc… that is only an example of something that is good. That does not however explain what good actually is.

    Which when asked to define good (not give example of good things) the atheists/humanists are stuck.

    You say:

    The reason behind the construction of the straw man is a divine command theory conception of ethics.

    I say:

    I don’t think Doug is relegating the concept of goodness to “divine command theory”.

    Even if he were, the statement “God defines good” is a true one. We can argue that and be well within our epistemic rights to do so.

    So again, I disagree with you.

    And the only reason we can know nature or teleoligies is because God has granted us the rational abilities to do so. We possess the imago dei…

    Our job as Christians is to point that out when it is denied.

    Again that is all Doug has done and he did a great job of it.

    (Good onya Doug.)

    Thanks for the exchange Bryan.

    Carrie

57. Nick on 19 Dec 2008 at 9:22 am #

    Bryan: Very few Humanists believe that “blind material forces are all that exist”. Just ask any of them: “Do you exist? Are you a blind material force?” Or, “Do persons exist?” Or “How can you be a Humanist if you don’t believe humans exist?” We don’t want to straw man their position — it has just the opposite effect.

    My reply: Oh! So they believe there are realities that are immaterial? I’d love to know how these are accounted for without God? They are eternal and immutable? I’d love to know how they’re accounted for without an eternal and immutable origin. This isn’t just about what humanists believe, but if they’re consistent in their belief. In the end, I would argue that their belief breaks down to that, as even Russell would have argued.

    Bryan: If a dog is born with only three legs, we recognize that this is not good. If a horse is born blind, we recognize this is not good. We don’t have to check and see what God thinks about them (or make sure that God exists), before determining whether these are good or bad. We recognize these as bad because they are contrary to the natures of dogs and horses.

    Me: But what is the nature of a dog and a horse? We see this as bad because things ought to be different, but where does this ought come from? I agree with the humanist that it’s bad. I just don’t think they have an epistemic base for it. There is no way the universe is. As Dawkins would say “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”

    Bryan: Likewise, as Socrates points out at the end of Book I of the Republic, the person who lives unjustly fails to fulfill his human nature; we recognize that an unjust person is bad in the same way that we recognize that blindness in a horse is bad. Both are contrary to the nature of that being. The horse, given his nature, *should* see. And the human, given his nature as a rational being, *should* be just. A horse *shouldn’t* be just, because his nature does not include rationality. But it is precisely our awareness of human nature (as including rationality) that allows us to perceive injustice in men as an imperfection, as something that *shouldn’t* be there.

    Me: Should not be there implies a standard that the human being is to follow and C.S. Lewis brings this out in Mere Christianity. I agree there is a way humanity ought to be but that is because I believe in an eternal God who knows what humanity is to be and all knowledge such as what humanity is rooted to be is in him.

58. Nick on 19 Dec 2008 at 9:23 am #

    Michael,

    If you ever come to TheologyWeb, just ask about me and if I’m the biggest Smallville fan there is and you’ll find ample agreement.

    Seriously. Shoot me an email sometime. I have included mine when I make a post and I think you should see it.

59. Doug Powell on 19 Dec 2008 at 9:28 am #

    Carrie wrote: (Good onya Doug.)

    Thanks, Carry! But would that be a teleological “good,” a divine command theory “good,” a deontological “good,” or an arbitray “good”?

    dp

60. Carrie on 19 Dec 2008 at 10:29 am #

    Haha Doug!

    Yes I reckon I should have qualified…

    Good …

    [as God defines the nature of good (divine command), good as it posseses the natural designed faculties of that which is good (teleolgical), good because it is obligated to be good(deonotologically good), and finally good just 'cause it is good or because it is not bound by anything other than itself - as if goodness were itself transcendent (arbitraily good)...]

    onya…
    

61. Scott on 19 Dec 2008 at 11:35 am #

    Bryan,
    I said 30 comments ago, “You seem to me to be arguing just for the sake of arguing, which would make your behavior or words on this blog ones of stubborn arrogance.” In those 30 comments that has only been reinforced. Carrie, Michael, and the others, seems to me, have been trying to say more intellectually than I ever could, and more tactfully what I said before, the whole point seems to be, no matter how you argue it, you can’t argue about being good and avoid God and having him as the end point. Maybe, that’s to simply for you, but it seems that in stubbornness and pride you have to have the last word and will not really listen. I find your stubbornness very irritating, but I am a sinner, which means I am definitely no better than you, and compared to Carrie, Michael, and the others not nearly as tactful. Hopefully I’m being honest and transparent if not too blunt, and would want someone to tell me clearly when I’m being stubborn and prideful. So my question to you, with all your arguing, putting it simply so it can be easily understood by both those with your superior knowledge and reasoning skills and those without, what are you trying to prove?

62. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:09 pm #

    Nick,

    I don’t think we substantively disagree. You are appealing to examples of Russell and Dawkins, and both of them were/are adherents of scientism. In fact, they are prime examples, in my opinion of advocates of scientism. As I tried to point out above, there is (in principle) a difference between Humanism and scientism. A Humanist does not have to affirm scientism. But, insofar as persons do hold to a scientistic position, then the sorts of criticisms you are raising are exactly right. There is a contradiction between the entire personal domain of human life, and the limits of what can be known through the scientific method (or an attempt to explain all things according to that method). And that is a very serious problem for people like Dennett and Dawkins.

    Scott, I’m sorry that you think I’m stubborn and prideful. Try to keep in mind that it is very difficult to know someone’s heart, especially in such an impersonal and abstract context as a combox. Try and give me the benefit of the doubt, according to the principle of charity. If we were to have a face to face conversation, it might be easier to avoid such misimpressions. (And if you think anything I said is false, please point that out to me.)

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

63. Nick on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:14 pm #

    Bryan. You’re still missing the point. A humanist does not have to hold to scientism. I just think it’s inconsistent of them to not do so. A humanist can believe in moral absolutes. Do they have any epistemic base though if they jettison God? That’s what’s being called into question and I’ve yet to see a humanist give such a base.

64. Jason C on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:38 pm #

    As Dawkins would say “DNA neither knows nor cares. DNA just is, and we dance to its music.”

    With respect Nick, it’s a little unfair bringing people like Dawkins into the mix. Although he’s a popular level writer (well popular for atheists anyway) he’s not a philosopher and his arguments are so bad that I seriously doubt that the atheist philosophers that Bryan is talking about would regard them with anything more than contempt. I believe Michael Ruse commented about The God Delusion that it made him ashamed to be an atheist.

    Bryan is presenting arguments that are acceptable to those philosophers and (it must be said) the kind of person who is impressed by Dawkins would probably be completely confused by them. Bryan is calling on us to lift our game, which I think is fair enough.

    I would question whether atheists raised in Christian societies are actually seeing moral virtues as innately good, or whether they’re simply following the example of their Christian neighbours.

    Bryan, have you ever had to argue with someone who insisted that reality itself might not exist? That we can’t even know if we exist?

65. Nick on 19 Dec 2008 at 12:48 pm #

    Jason. I agree about the God Delusion. I wasn’t referring to it though but River Out of Eden. Yes. Dawkins isn’t a philosopher. I do think though he is more consistent in his humanism in that quote than many other humanists are and Russell would say the same thing in his essay “A Free Man’s Worship.” Note that in the debate with Copleston he said he knew right from wrong on the basis of feeling, what else?

    Frankly, I’ve found my feelings aren’t always the best guide.

    No. I’m not quoting Dawkins as a philosopher but simply a line that I think is consistent with humanism. There are times he does get right what it means if atheism is true.

66. Jason C on 19 Dec 2008 at 1:10 pm #

    I’ve found my feelings are a perfect guide of morality.

    At least as long as slaughtering tens of thousands of people who annoy me is moral… It is, isn’t it?

67. Nick on 19 Dec 2008 at 1:14 pm #

    Absolutely.

    Now those feelings concerning that beautiful lady I saw today…..

    I suppose it’d be perfectly moral to just act…..

68. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 5:54 pm #

    Nick,

    A humanist can believe in moral absolutes. Do they have any epistemic base though if they jettison God?

    Keep in mind the distinction between the order of being and the order of knowing. Grounding in the order of being is not the same as grounding in the order of knowing. So, for example, in the order of being, my being has its ultimate grounding in God, since all my being comes from God. But in the order of knowing, my [epistemic] grounding for my knowledge of my existence is my direct experience of myself; I don’t have to check with God to know whether I exist. Similarly, in the order of being, the ground of morality (and of all things) is God. But in the order of knowing, the ground of our knowledge of morality is our experience of the natures of things (including ourselves) and their intrinsic teleology.

    So, in the order of being, the Humanist does not have (or has not acknowledged) the ultimate ground of all things, which is God. But in the order of knowing, the Humanist has the same ground that we have, our direct rational recognition of good and evil from the very natures of things according to their intrinsic teleology.

    For example, when I was in high school, I knew a guy who took some cats, and buried them alive with just their heads sticking out of the ground, and then ran over them with the lawn mower. We recognize that there is nothing wrong with mowing grass. But we also recognize that there is something very wrong with mowing cats. On what basis? Because of the difference in natures between cats and grass. That is why it is fine to mow grass, but not fine to mow cats. But Humanists can justifiably make the same moral determinations, because they have no less epistemic access to the natures of things than do theists. We all share this epistemic basis in the order of knowing.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

69. Bryan Cross on 19 Dec 2008 at 6:03 pm #

    Jason,

    Bryan, have you ever had to argue with someone who insisted that reality itself might not exist? That we can’t even know if we exist?

    Sure. There are many different forms and degrees of skepticism, and that sort of global skepticism is one sort. My way of arguing with them is not to start with their present belief system, but with their memory, particularly with their memory of the process by which they became a skeptic. I use their memory of the process by which they became a skeptic to show them that they acted irrationally in doing so. No rational argument or line of reasoning leads from where they started [epistemically] as children to their present epistemic state of skepticism.

    In the peace of Christ,

    - Bryan

70. rayner markley on 20 Dec 2008 at 12:44 am #

    In Christian belief, all people naturally do good because that is the way God created the world (Genesis 1). In addition, Christian believers do good because of their love of God and desire to follow God’s commands along that line. The real question for Christians is why people sometimes do bad things, and that is taken up in Genesis 3.

    But there is also a secular reason why people naturally do good and that is because of love. I believe the point of origin is that all people love and care for babies. This is a completely natural instinct (though Christians might call it an impulse instilled by God at creation). Good expands from this point: We love and take good care of children, we love and care for our family members who are all involved and necessary for a child’s survival. This pattern of good is applied in all areas of life and doing good is seen as superior to doing bad.

    In scripture, God is characterized as good but He is not equated with goodness itself. However God IS equated with love: God is love (noun), as well as loving (adjective). Therefore, I believe goodness in both secular and Christian views can be based in love.

    In this kind of discussion the Nazi holocaust is often mentioned as an example of what may happen if God is rejected as the basis of goodness. It is said that people may rationalize any degree of evil. Yet there was the Israelite holocaust against the Canaanites, the flood holocaust, the Sodom holocaust. It turns out that God has not always been a guarantee against such evil. In some cases apparently the end does justify the means.

71. Jason C on 20 Dec 2008 at 4:28 am #

    Yet there was the Israelite holocaust against the Canaanites, the flood holocaust, the Sodom holocaust. It turns out that God has not always been a guarantee against such evil. In some cases apparently the end does justify the means.

    This is what is known as moral equivalence. That is, when an action that is expressly a judgement of God on the unrighteous is equated with the actions of evil men.

    It is the same line of thought that sees execution of murderers as equivalent to the murders themselves.

    The destruction of Canaan, of the pre-flood peoples, and of Sodom where all expressions of God’s justice. His forbearance is seen throughout the accounts. The Canaanites had 400 years to mend their ways, they didn’t. If 10 righteous men had been found in Sodom it would have been spared, they weren’t. During the century that Noah was building the Ark his people had the chance to repent, they didn’t.

    Justice is not evil. It is the ultimate judgement upon evil.

72. Nick on 20 Dec 2008 at 10:12 am #

    Rayner: In Christian belief, all people naturally do good because that is the way God created the world (Genesis 1).

    Me: False. You are confusing ontological goodness with moral goodness. I do not say about the sun for instance, “The sun is moral.” I say it is good because it has being. Also, we do not naturally do good. We tend to naturally go the other way. Augustine once said that if infants were as big as adults are, they would be the most dangerous beings on the planet.

    Rayner: In addition, Christian believers do good because of their love of God and desire to follow God’s commands along that line. The real question for Christians is why people sometimes do bad things, and that is taken up in Genesis 3.

    Me: I agree that we do good because of the love of God. Why we do bad is indeed answered. We have fallen from our status. I would argue that while we are fully human we are the creature that acts against its own nature. Christ is the truest human being who ever lived.

    Rayner: But there is also a secular reason why people naturally do good and that is because of love.

    Me: Could you define this term “Good” for me from a secular position? Could you tell me what “love” is from a secular position?

    Rayner: I believe the point of origin is that all people love and care for babies.

    Me: False. To begin with, in ancient Roman society before the Christian church rose up, it was a common practice to leave female babies abandoned out in the wilderness to be destroyed by animals and nature. In America today, 4,500 babies are killed every year in what is called “A woman’s right.”

    Rayner: This is a completely natural instinct (though Christians might call it an impulse instilled by God at creation).

    Me: If it is an instinct, then why was it not followed by ancient Rome or by mothers today who abort their children? Can you tell what an instinct is?

    Rayner: Good expands from this point: We love and take good care of children, we love and care for our family members who are all involved and necessary for a child’s survival. This pattern of good is applied in all areas of life and doing good is seen as superior to doing bad.

    Me: I agree that good is superior to bad, but my questions are first still if you have not yet answered, what is this “good” that you speak of? Could you define this term from a secular position? Second, is good superior simply because of the results that it brings about?

    Rayner: In scripture, God is characterized as good but He is not equated with goodness itself.

    Me: However, I will contend that he is goodness itself nor does Scripture need to spell it out. Have you ever read the doctrine of God in the Summa Theologica?

    Rayner: However God IS equated with love: God is love (noun), as well as loving (adjective). Therefore, I believe goodness in both secular and Christian views can be based in love.

    Me: But do you have a modern view of love or an ancient view of love?

    Rayner: In this kind of discussion the Nazi holocaust is often mentioned as an example of what may happen if God is rejected as the basis of goodness. It is said that people may rationalize any degree of evil.

    Me: They may? They do. Consider Stalin and Mao as well. Nietzsche would condemn many of the atheists today as being lightweights for wanting to cling to morality when there is no God to base it in.

    Rayner: Yet there was the Israelite holocaust against the Canaanites, the flood holocaust, the Sodom holocaust.

    Me: False assumption. You assume that because something is wrong for man to do, it is wrong for God to do. Let’s consider it like this, if the Christian God exists, it is perfectly right for him to receive worship. That does not mean it is perfectly right for me to receive worship.

    Now I would be glad to go into any one of these events one at a time in detail to show the problems with your view on them, but note that these involve the taking of life and you assume it is wrong for God to take life. However, in Christian thought, God is the cause not just of the beginning of our existence but our continual existence. Here’s something to ponder on first. Does God owe anyone their lives? My question really is not “How can God take so many lives?” but “How is it that he can let so many live?”

    You see, if God is goodness itself, love itself, truth itself, etc., then to sin against him is to sin against goodness, love, and truth and to say you don’t want any part in any of those. You may not realize you are saying it, but you are. I am saying the same every time I sin. If God is life itself also, which he is as he is one whose essence is existence, then we have committed divine treason in wanting to usurp the throne of God and he has every right to take back what he’s freely given us. Note this also. God can take life because he can freely restore life as well. We can’t.

    Rayner: It turns out that God has not always been a guarantee against such evil. In some cases apparently the end does justify the means.

    Me: The argument only works if such is shown to be evil from the actions of God. You have not demonstrated it. You have only asserted it.

73. scott gray on 20 Dec 2008 at 10:24 am #

    bryan–

    your ‘order of being/order of knowing’ dichotomy is most interesting, nd your comments are full of good thinking. of all the explanations and arguments offered to a poor, tired old agnostic like myself for the existence of god, this one resonates best. you’ve given me a lot to think about here; i need time with your comments. i don’t want to wrestle further here; cmp is most gracious to allow the wrangling that goes on, but my responses will take the discussion even farther afield. i’ll come find an appropriate post at your blog to weigh in on.

    cmp–

    thank you for your hospitality by hosting these fascinating conversations at your blog.

    peace–

    scott

74. rayner markley on 20 Dec 2008 at 12:10 pm #

    Nick, thank you for your close consideration of the points, many of which we don’t agree on however. I’ll try numbering these responses.

    1) Good in Genesis 1. Do you say that ‘good’ means merely that God created things in good working order and there is no moral component with regard to the creation of man? So God simply brought man into existence, like the animals, which had no morality and still do not.

    2) All people naturally choose good. I mean that God originally created man to do good and Adam did so until the fall. Otherwise, Adam may have failed to follow God’s other commands—to tend the garden and populate the earth—but that wouldn’t have resulted in a fall.

    3) You wrote, ‘…we are the creature that acts against its own nature.’ It seems you are saying that that nature is good and it is human nature to do good. I can agree with that.

    4) People love babies. Yes, many outrages have been committed against babies, but these are done for perceived dire circumstances. Do you think parents didn’t suffer because of those decisions? That they suffered would be evidence of universal human love. Surely you won’t deny that care of babies is a natural instinct; it is so even among animals.

    5) Define the secular good. I’ve tried to define it in terms of love. Good is that which shows love or enables love. The problem with defining good in terms of God and His purposes is that we have only our own understanding of what those are even if we are helped by scripture. So we are nearly in the same position as the humanists.

    6) You wrote, ‘You assume that because something is wrong for man to do, it is wrong for God to do.’ If we cannot have God as a guide, what do we do? In fact, Jesus is our perfect guide, but unbelievers still have the instinctive knowledge. Why else is there much agreement on moral issues among all people—with notable divergences of course?

75. Nick on 20 Dec 2008 at 12:23 pm #

    Nick, thank you for your close consideration of the points, many of which we don’t agree on however. I’ll try numbering these responses.

    Me: I try. I hope the formatting I choose to use is proper. If there is a way to do quotes here, I would like to know it. Until then, this is what I use.

    You: 1) Good in Genesis 1. Do you say that ‘good’ means merely that God created things in good working order and there is no moral component with regard to the creation of man? So God simply brought man into existence, like the animals, which had no morality and still do not.

    Me: No. There are different kinds of good. Let us suppose that you go out to eat one night and get pizza and say “My! This is a good pizza!” That does not mean “This is a moral pizza.” When it is said that creation is good, it is good simply because it is being. Man is good also insofar as man has being. It is my contention that we are good in our being insofar as we are truly human. When we sin, we are not truly being human.

    Now there is a moral component to men also. Men are good in their being but they are also called to be good in their actions. The former does not invalidate the latter, but man being a free-will being with rational capacity for good and evil does have that ability and responsibility. (Also, if anyone disagrees with me on the free-will, let us make sure we save it for another discussion.)

    You: 2) All people naturally choose good. I mean that God originally created man to do good and Adam did so until the fall. Otherwise, Adam may have failed to follow God’s other commands—to tend the garden and populate the earth—but that wouldn’t have resulted in a fall.

    Me: Because we are created to do good, does it follow that was our natural bent? I think we might have been on a more neutral position when the choice was given. I do not think the angels were created with a bent, for instance, but when angels sin, they become eternally locked in that choice. See Aquinas on this point. The same as when they do good. I do not believe man was created perfect, as a perfect being wouldn’t sin, but he was created good.

    You: 3) You wrote, ‘…we are the creature that acts against its own nature.’ It seems you are saying that that nature is good and it is human nature to do good. I can agree with that.

    Me: Yes. Human nature is good. When we act against it in sin, that is not good.

    You: 4) People love babies. Yes, many outrages have been committed against babies, but these are done for perceived dire circumstances. Do you think parents didn’t suffer because of those decisions? That they suffered would be evidence of universal human love. Surely you won’t deny that care of babies is a natural instinct; it is so even among animals.

    Me: I would actually say that, no, they didn’t suffer. The Romans were quite callous about their children. Plato had no problem with taking the children away and not having them know who their parents were. The love of the family unit is really so strong to us now because of Christianity. It seems unthinkable to us today, but it was thinkable back then. We would never sacrifice our children to Molech, but a lot of Canaanite people did.

    Also, I see evidence of the contrary today in that the mother can take that little child in her womb and agreed to have its life killed for her own desires. I know we can say some are done out of rape, incest, or to save the mother’s life, but I think we all know that most abortions are not done for those reasons.

    You: 5) Define the secular good. I’ve tried to define it in terms of love. Good is that which shows love or enables love. The problem with defining good in terms of God and His purposes is that we have only our own understanding of what those are even if we are helped by scripture. So we are nearly in the same position as the humanists.

    Me: The problem though is that why believe that love is good and what even is love? Now we have our own understanding with God. I do not see how that is a problem. We have what God has revealed to us in the moral law written on the heart and some things he has said outright. Note I do not believe something is evil because the Bible says so. I believe the Bible says something is evil because it is evil and the same with good. You need a definition of good by which you recognize love is good.

    You: 6) You wrote, ‘You assume that because something is wrong for man to do, it is wrong for God to do.’ If we cannot have God as a guide, what do we do? In fact, Jesus is our perfect guide, but unbelievers still have the instinctive knowledge. Why else is there much agreement on moral issues among all people—with notable divergences of course?

    Me: God is the moral standard, but I would not say guide because we are not God. Even Jesus could do things morally that we cannot do. Because he is God, he can go into the temple and throw the tables around. We cannot. Because he is God, he can accept worship. We cannot. In his humanity though, he is our guide and we would do well to follow him. We all know some things are the prerogative of the divine and some are not. I also do not believe Jesus came to teach us morality. He didn’t come to make bad people good but to make dead people live and as we live, we are good.

76. Nick on 20 Dec 2008 at 12:25 pm #

    Michael. I believe though I must return to an important point to deal with you.

    I can quote all 169 episode titles in order, and I’ve done it with numerous people before. I have all the books, comics, magazines, and DVDs. I have my room covered with Smallville photos. (Especially Chloe, who is proof that beauty is objective and God exists.) I am the bigger fan.

    (Note: If you show up on TheologyWeb, there is a world of witnesses that will testify to that.)

    Just had to get that clarification out….

77. C Michael Patton on 20 Dec 2008 at 2:49 pm #

    Don’t make me break out all of my Justice League figures and put you to shame.

78. Nick on 20 Dec 2008 at 3:36 pm #

    I never claimed to be a bigger superhero fan or Justice League fan. Just the bigger Smallville fan.

79. C Michael Patton on 20 Dec 2008 at 4:19 pm #

    Well, I might concede such then.

80. rayner markley on 20 Dec 2008 at 11:05 pm #

    Nick, particular cultures can condition people to act against their natural instincts and even to do it willingly. Until that conditioning is hardened however, there certainly is pain. Are you saying that love of babies involves no natural instinct but is a product of Christian conditioning? In fact, it is exactly because love of babies is a natural instinct that God called child sacrifice an abomination. It is against nature as He intended nature to be.

81. Nick on 21 Dec 2008 at 7:58 am #

    No Rayner. However, I would not use the word instinct. If it’s instinct to do something, we don’t need to be taught to do it. C.S. Lewis explains this well in “The Abolition of Man.”

    I believe that love of our own children (And I stress our own for while I am a single man with no children, I’ll also admit that like Lewis, the children of others, as a former cashier especially, can drive me nuts.) is something built into us just as the knowledge of good and evil is, but that these are parts that we can “kill” over time as we lose track of morality. We deaden the sense of shame over time so that immorality becomes commonplace. This happened in Rome and it is happening today with the abortion movement. It was the rise of Christianity that reminded the people of what they already knew. Christ didn’t need to give any argument I believe on why abortion would be wrong. It simply comes with the knowledge of the love of God and the practice of that and the love of one’s neighbor that one sees it is wrong.

82. Nick Hedgpeth on 21 Dec 2008 at 9:04 am #

    Just wanted notification of any follow up comments as checked below. Is not the intrinsic goodness of man an Pelagian teaching?

83. jinteh on 21 Dec 2008 at 6:14 pm #

    Nazi Germany was based on Christianity. You should check out the real evidence:

    http://www.nobeliefs.com/mementoes.htm
    http://www.nobeliefs.com/speeches.htm

    9/11 perpetrators were devout believers in Creator God.

    The idea that you can’t be moral without believing in a Creator God makes no sense at all. Why would the Creator of a universe of Billions of Galaxies pay any attention to the quibbles of a few life forms on a minor planet?

    Morality comes from humans own experience. We are the creators of morality, and humans are the judges of morality as well. Morality is a human construct.

    Everything in the Bible was written by human beings.

84. jinteh on 21 Dec 2008 at 6:22 pm #

    Question from a non-Christian: Do any Christian sects follow Pelagian teachings? (learned a new word today, Thanks to you and Wikipedia!)

85. C Michael Patton on 21 Dec 2008 at 6:31 pm #

    Jinteh,

    You said:
    “The idea that you can’t be moral without believing in a Creator God makes no sense at all.”

    No one is saying that you cannot be moral without believing in God. The entire point behind presuppositionalism is that people who don’t believe in God do believe in a transcendent morality without God but they have no justification for doing so.

    I don’t think anyone has argued that you cannot be moral without believing in God have they? In fact, a belief in morality, as it has been demonstrated very well in this thread, evidences the existence of God. Without God, there is no justification for stable morality.

86. Jason C on 22 Dec 2008 at 1:09 am #

    jinteh, Nazi Germany was based on Teutonic paganism with a healthy dash of Haeckelian Darwinism. Go read a real scholar and stop relying on internet atheists.

    The idea that you can’t be moral without believing in a Creator God makes no sense at all. Why would the Creator of a universe of Billions of Galaxies pay any attention to the quibbles of a few life forms on a minor planet?

    What are billions of galaxies to a being who (to use an anthropomorphism) can hold the heavens in the palm of his hand? Atheists look at the universe and say how small we are. I look up and see how big my God is. As the Creator he has the right to set the standards of morality that people live by, he could even be completely arbitrary if he chose, perhaps we would be required to stand on our hands for an hour each day, but instead the law seems to be “honour God, and care for each other”. Not bad laws all things considered. He demands it of us because we are the only free agents carrying his likeness; that is, bearing his authority. We are accountable because we are significant.

    Morality comes from humans own experience. We are the creators of morality, and humans are the judges of morality as well. Morality is a human construct.

    That’s what the Nazis and Stalinists believed too. Strangely enough 150 to 200 million people were murdered in the last century by people who believed as you do.

    Everything in the Bible was written by human beings.

    No one is disputing that. However a document written by a human being can still be an accurate portrayal of history, and Christianity rests on the historical event of the resurrection of Jesus.

87. jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 2:22 pm #

    JasonC,

    Nazi’s were based on paganism? Nuts! Their insignia as shown in the pictures have “God is with us”, their mementos to the fallen are covered with crosses. The vast majority of German citizens were Christians. You are nuts. To say Nazi germany was more pagan than christian is nuts. The members of the nazi party attended church. CHRISTIAN CHURCH! NOT PAGAN CHURCH!

    So who do you trust to report the word of god? So why do you think that whatever monk wrote stuff in the bible 1500 years ago had a better connection with god then Jerry Falwell? Then muhammed? then whatever other two bit preacher who claims divine inspiration… Joseph Smith?

    “Historical Event” like when Joseph Smith got the gold books that had good stuff on Polygamy. Heh, polygamy sounds great!

88. jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 2:31 pm #

    simple way to see about religion of nazis. look at bitburg cemetary where the ss guys are buried. LOTS OF CROSSES, pagan symbols? nope.

89. jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 3:12 pm #

    “That’s what the Nazis and Stalinists believed too. Strangely enough 150 to 200 million people were murdered in the last century by people who believed as you do.”

    So atheists murdered 200 Million people? Oh my gosh… Whose doing all the murdering in history… Well its those god aweful atheists like Hitler! You have to be kidding. Besides our discussion about the Nazis, religious wars have killed plenty. To try to pin that on anything involving non-theists is totally nuts. Its just like in Orwell’s book 1984 where big brother makes up whatever history and everybody just chants it.

    Anybody who claims that morality stems from a supernatural source is immediately stuck in the bind that they have to assert communication from the supernatural to some person. You just happen to be someone who thinks that the Bible has the supernatural wisdom and that Christians received the supernatural guidance.

    Well… plenty of other cultures and religious traditions have asserted a supernatural connection as well. I guess they were just misguided right? Do you think the Egyptian Pharoahs were gods? Well, they said they were. They even built cool pyramids to send their souls to wherever. Do you think they are in heavan now?

90. Nick on 22 Dec 2008 at 3:24 pm #

    Oh geez. What nonsense. Warning Jinteh. What you get from me is what you give out.

    I find it so amazing that you think “The Nazis claimed they were Christian! Therefore they were!” Well first off, I don’t see anything like that. Secondly, you’ve never heard of the idea of a politician using religion to suit his purposes? This little guy named Machiavelli endorsed such a practice. (But it’d be a huge assumption to think you’ve read something other than a website.)

    Now as for why would God care about a small planet in a huge universe, I find this amazing. I’m a guy that weighs around 120. Is a man who weighs 165 more valuable than I am? Where did you get this ludicrous idea that with everything, size always determines value?

    Now if you want to argue against the historicity of the Bible, I say “Bring it.” Besides, you speak of it being written 1,500 years ago. The Bible was written around 1,900-2,000 years ago. (Unless you’re one of these crazies that think it was put togeter at Nicea which even then was 1,683 years ago.)

    As for believing God is the source of morality, that does not require God speaking to us. I have never once heard God speak to me and I believe him to be the source of morality as I believe him to be the source of logic and truth. For the Bible and morality, I don’t believe something is moral because the Bible says it is. I believe the Bible says it is moral because it is moral. Morality exists outside the special revelation of Scripture as any believer in Natural Law knows.

    And most wars being a result of religion, I refer to my friend the Curtmudgeon from TheologyWeb who has a list of wars:

    1. The current war in Iraq
    2. The Anti-Taliban war in Afghanistan (note: it’s not sufficient to say that the Taliban is a religious group, since it wasn’t their religious beliefs that got them attacked)
    3. Gulf War I
    4. Gulf War II
    5. The US invasion of Grenada
    6. The US invasion of Panama (Noriega)
    7. The Vietnam War
    8. The ‘Soccer’ War (okay, maybe in some countries football/soccer does count as a religion!)
    9. The Korean War
    10. World War II
    11. The Nigerian Civil War (Biafra)
    12. The Kinshasa Rebellion
    13. The Angolan War of Independence
    14. The Algerian War of Independence
    15. The Rwandan Civil War
    16. World War I
    17. The Chechnyan Rebellion
    18. The Soviet-Afghan War
    19. The Hungarian Rising
    20. The Chinese Civil War (Communist v. Nationalist)
    21. The Manchurian Invasion
    22. The Russian Revolution
    23. The Russian Civil War (including invasions by various outside powers, such as the US, Britain and Japan)
    24. The American Civil War
    25. The Irish Civil War
    26. The Anglo-Irish (“Black and Tan”) War
    27. The Easter Rising
    28. The Fenian Raid into Canada
    29. The Metis Wars
    30. The Indian Wars
    31. The Mexican Revolution
    32. The Texan Revolution
    33. The Franco-Prussian War
    34. The Austro-Prussian War
    35. The First War of Schleswig (Denmark)
    36. The Second War of Schleswig
    37. The War of 1812
    38. Queen Anne’s War
    39. The American Revolution
    40. The French Revolution
    41. The Wars of the Coalition (post-French Revolution)
    42. The English Civil War
    43. The Scottish Wars of Independence
    44. King Philip’s War
    45. Tecumseh’s War
    46. The Black Hawk War
    47. The Mexican War
    48. The Spanish-American War
    49. Various wars of South American Independence
    50. The Boxer Rebellion
    51. The Opium War
    52. The War of the Spanish Succession
    53. The War of the Austrian Succession
    54. The Great Northern War
    55. The Mahratta Wars
    56. The Afghan Wars (British)
    57. The Crimean War
    58. The Abyssinian War (Italian)
    59. The Abyssinian War (British)
    60. The Sikh Wars
    61. The First Boer War
    62. The Second Boer War
    63. The Zulu War (Boer)
    64. The Zulu War (British)
    65. The Wars of Mfecane
    66. The Paraguayan War
    67. The War of the Pacific (South America)
    68. The Chaco War
    69. The First Balkan War
    70. The Second Balkan War
    71. The Greek War of Independence
    72. The Yemen Civil War
    73. The First through the Ninth Kaffir Wars

    And these are not even going back to ancient wars of the past. Could you please help out and tell what religious disputes were going on with each of these wars? It’d be appreciated!

    And oh yes, do give us your standard of morality or just admit you’re talking nonsense. Thanks!

91. jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 3:38 pm #

    Hmm… Supernatural morality… Well, the Aztecs believed human sacrifice was what God wanted. I guess their god has different morals then yours.

    God = universal morals… no way. that’s nuts too. Aztec god morals seem pretty different then Christian god morals. Now in the grand scheme of things, judeo christian morals are not that bad. What’s nuts is to assert that they come from a supernatural source.

    Every culture has its own set of morals, some things overlap, some things don’t. If you assert that your god has the only “true” morals, you are effectively asserting the superiority of your culture over another culture. That is the essence of fascism. The insistence that one group is superior to another.

    The truth of the matter is that each group has its pro’s and con’s and sharing the “pro” gets everybody ahead. Any kind of “morality comes from god discussion” is basically veiled chauvinism, because you are saying morality comes from YOUR GOD.

92. jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 3:57 pm #

    Wars from religion… Well George Bush used his machiavellian tool of fundementalist religion to get into power and then happily invaded Iraq. BTW, one of the things that pissed off Iraqi’s about the invasion was that aid afterwords came from Christian groups (who were there to get converts). No wonder Sadr was so pissed off. Nothing worse for a fundie then other fundies trying to take over.

    How about Afghanistan? That’s a current one! The nutto fundie Taliban supports Islamic fundies to go attack USA and whabam! We got a war!

    Gee that wasn’t too hard. The last two wars have a pretty strong religious component already.

    War on terror? Islamo-fascism? Hmmmm, do you really think that Al Queda is not a religious organization?

    “I believe the Bible says it is moral because it is moral. Morality exists outside the special revelation of Scripture as any believer in Natural Law knows”

    The kind of natural law you are talking about comes from Aquinas 800 years ago. Ideas from a guy who thought the earth was the center of the universe and who probably put leeches on himself when he felt bad. I bet he didn’t bathe either! and he definitely had messed up teeth.

    oh wait… the bible was written even before that! back when slaves were a-okay and

    Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”

    Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”

    Mark 10:11 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”

    so then… logically…. 50% of people in the USA need to be put to death right?

    Yikes! That’s some harsh universal morality.

93. jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 4:07 pm #

    If you want to talk about something sane… you should talk about how many judeo-christian values make sense from a social point of view. Asserting “divine wisdom” just marks you as a bigot. A bigot who thinks that only your viewpoint is just. A bigot who thinks everybody who differs from you is going to burn in hell.

    Shoot, most of the people who cite the bible think that everybody else who cites the bible is going to burn in hell! Let alone, those who don’t even read the bible.

    You are not Mormon are you? Joseph Smith? Hell, Purgatory or Heavan? What do you think?

    Ghandi: Hell, Purgatory or Heavan or ?

    Hey this would be a fun game…

    Jim Jones (of Peoples temple fame): Hell, Purgatory or Heavan or ?

    All those unbaptized Chinese people: Hell, Purg, or Heavan?

94. jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 4:15 pm #

    Alright, I won’t flame anymore. At least you are willing to take the time to discuss with me. I appreciate it! Seriously. I do. To be public with your viewpoint is actually admirable. It opens the issue up to critical discussion. The truly scary thought, is that lots of people who feel like you do and have power, keep their true feelings secret and say nice diplomatic things on the surface.

95. C. Barton on 22 Dec 2008 at 5:03 pm #

    Well, as many have said, moral absolutism is pivotal forlief in God, so this synthesis of “human moral evolution” is the next best alternative for many, like using margarine with “real milk” in it for that authentic flavor.
    Let’s look at what the Bible says about personal accountability before God:
    1) Those who choose to be their own god, following right or wrong according to their own taste, will reject and literally hide from the light of spiritual truth and moral absolutes.
    2) Those who choose to follow God will turn toward spiritual light (knowledge, wisdom, experience, etc.) and their response towards evil will be repentance, or turning away from evil.
    Do you see the major difference? Walk in darkness: anything goes. Walk in light: take responsibility for sin and turn from it to a higher standard.
    Repentance doesn’t mean we become perfect, it means we want perfection – I’ll never bat 1,000 in a season (baseball for you Brits), but I won’t give up the standard of a perfect season just because I fail. But in darkness, you can’t even measure your progress.

96. Nick on 22 Dec 2008 at 6:01 pm #

    Jin: Hmm… Supernatural morality… Well, the Aztecs believed human sacrifice was what God wanted. I guess their god has different morals then yours.

    Reply: First off, the Aztecs were polytheists.

    Second, do you think that this was wrong? The only way is with absolute morality. Absolute morality does not mean everyone obeys absolute morality or that everything is black and white. There are many things the Aztecs would agree with us on, for instance, courage in battle.

    Jin: God = universal morals… no way. that’s nuts too. Aztec god morals seem pretty different then Christian god morals. Now in the grand scheme of things, judeo christian morals are not that bad. What’s nuts is to assert that they come from a supernatural source.

    Reply: To say they are not that bad implies that there is some standard of good and evil again. This standard would have to be eternal and immutable. If it is created, it can be uncreated. If it is mutable, then tomorrow rape could be fully justified. Also, to say God means universal morals is nuts does not count as an argument. It counts as an assertion only.

    Jin: Every culture has its own set of morals, some things overlap, some things don’t. If you assert that your god has the only “true” morals, you are effectively asserting the superiority of your culture over another culture. That is the essence of fascism. The insistence that one group is superior to another.

    Reply: And you are asserting that your “tolerance” is superior to such fascism, making you a fascist as well. And yes, I do believe some moral systems are superior to others. I think the system of Jesus Christ is superior to that of Hitler. Also, I will assert that true morality is only found in God and if that statement is true, well it’s true and it’s not false just because you think it’s fascist.

    Jin: The truth of the matter is that each group has its pro’s and con’s and sharing the “pro” gets everybody ahead. Any kind of “morality comes from god discussion” is basically veiled chauvinism, because you are saying morality comes from YOUR GOD.

    Me: Yeah. I am saying that. That somehow makes it false? You’re saying your morality comes from man. I think that’s pretty chauvinistic on people throughout the ages who have believed in a divine law as we will see later.

    Jin: Wars from religion… Well George Bush used his machiavellian tool of fundementalist religion to get into power and then happily invaded Iraq. BTW, one of the things that pissed off Iraqi’s about the invasion was that aid afterwords came from Christian groups (who were there to get converts). No wonder Sadr was so pissed off. Nothing worse for a fundie then other fundies trying to take over.

    Me: Wow. You really think the war in Iraq is about Christianity vs. Islam? Not at all. It just happens to be that the terrorists we meet are Muslims. It isn’t the war against Islam but the war against terror. We’re not attacking Indonesia for instance.

    You: How about Afghanistan? That’s a current one! The nutto fundie Taliban supports Islamic fundies to go attack USA and whabam! We got a war!

    Reply: Are we over there for religious differences or because they attacked us?

    Jin: Gee that wasn’t too hard. The last two wars have a pretty strong religious component already.

    Reply: A religious war is where both sides are fighting based on religion. The truth is that people who make assertions like that about wars are just ignorant of history. Now religion has been used often times as an excuse for war, but it is rarely the reason for war if ever.

    Jin: War on terror? Islamo-fascism? Hmmmm, do you really think that Al Queda is not a religious organization?

    Reply: Sure it is. We’re not fighting it because it’s a Muslim organization though but because it’s a terrorist organization.

    Jin: The kind of natural law you are talking about comes from Aquinas 800 years ago. Ideas from a guy who thought the earth was the center of the universe and who probably put leeches on himself when he felt bad. I bet he didn’t bathe either! and he definitely had messed up teeth.

    Reply: You wanna make any more ridiculous statements like this? Go read Antigone back centuries before Christ and how she spoke of a law higher than the law of Creon. Go read Paul who spoke about the Natural Law. (Wanna know who was most quoted by John Locke?) Aquinas refined the idea of Natural Law, but he didn’t develop it.

    Also, back then, to believe the sun was the center of the solar system was quite rational. Galileo’s main battles were not fought with the church but with the Aristotleans, the empiricists of the day, and his best argument for the Earth revolving around the sun was the rising of the tides, which was a pathetic argument. Obler’s paradox, the greatest objection to heliocentrism, was not answered until the 19th century. Hindsight is 20/20, but the empiricists screaming today would have been screaming against Galileo back then.

    And either way, you have simply committed the genetic fallacy. If you want to deny a natural law and just have moral relativism, that’s fine. It just means you can’t complain about fascism any more.

    Jin: oh wait… the bible was written even before that! back when slaves were a-okay and

    Reply: Apparently, you do want to make more ignorant statements. Slavery in the ANE was not what it was in Civil War America. Slavery in Civil War America was done to benefit the rich and take advantage of the blacks. In the ANE, slavery was an institution for the benefit of the poor where they could make a living. It was closer to the indentured servant model and it was not done against a particular race. Furthermore, in the Israelite system, the slaves had excellent rights. You really should try learning something about the lifestyle in the ANE.

    Jin: Deuteronomy 22:22 “If a man is found sleeping with another man’s wife, both the man who slept with her and the woman must die.”

    Leviticus 20:10 “If a man commits adultery with another man’s wife–with the wife of his neighbor–both the adulterer and the adulteress must be put to death.”

    Reply: And your problem is? I mean, you’re not going to be fascist and chauvinistic towards another culture are you? Or, are you going to posit a moral law, oh wait. You have no basis for a Natural Law. That’s right.

    Furthermore, this was also in Israel that was meant to be a pure nation in the eyes of the world so they could show the world YHWH. God treats sin seriously. You want to tell me why he shouldn’t? Remember, saying “I don’t like this passage” does not count as an argument.

    Jin: Mark 10:11 “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her.”

    so then… logically…. 50% of people in the USA need to be put to death right?

    Reply: Only if you live in a theocracy, which we don’t.

    Jin: Yikes! That’s some harsh universal morality.

    Reply: Here’s the truth also. Those actions are still immoral! How they’re punished has changed, but the actions are still immoral.

    jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 4:07 pm #
    If you want to talk about something sane… you should talk about how many judeo-christian values make sense from a social point of view. Asserting “divine wisdom” just marks you as a bigot. A bigot who thinks that only your viewpoint is just. A bigot who thinks everybody who differs from you is going to burn in hell.

    Reply: First off, I don’t believe anyone is going to burn in Hell because I believe Hell is not a fiery furnace but more an eternal quarantine. The flames are a figure of speech and Hell fits in perfectly in an honor/shame paradigm.

    Second, How does saying divine wisdom make someone a bigot? If it’s true, it’s true. Is it bigotry to hold to something that’s true?

    Third, the Judeo-Christian values do make sense from a social point of view. So a lot of 21st century people disagree. So what? It’s simply chronological snobbery that denies the Democracy of the Dead.

    Jin: Shoot, most of the people who cite the bible think that everybody else who cites the bible is going to burn in hell! Let alone, those who don’t even read the bible.

    Reply: You’ve taken a survey I suppose? I’d like to know how many people you interviewed and your statistics. I know several Christians and that statement wouldn’t apply to anyone I know.

    Jin: You are not Mormon are you? Joseph Smith? Hell, Purgatory or Heavan? What do you think?

    Reply: Hell. He denies essential Christian doctrine. It’s really quite simple.

    Jin: Ghandi: Hell, Purgatory or Heavan or ?

    Reply: I don’t expect to see him actually. Ghandi did have a lot of immorality going on in his life and he did know the gospel and he rejected it. Yes. Some Christians didn’t treat him right, but he still bears responsibility for himself.

    Jin: Jim Jones (of Peoples temple fame): Hell, Purgatory or Heavan or ?

    Reply: Hell. He denied essential Christian doctrine and sought his own glory.

    Jin: All those unbaptized Chinese people: Hell, Purg, or Heavan?

    Reply: For those who never heard, the judge of all the Earth will do right.

    Now please, give an argument instead of emotion.

97. jinteh on 22 Dec 2008 at 7:57 pm #

    Questions for Nick:
    1) How old do you think the Earth is?
    2) What do you think about teaching children about Evolution? (as in Darwin style evolution)
    3) What happened to the souls of all the humans who died thousands of years before 0 BC (i.e. way before the jews or jesus)
    4) Do you think the United States should be a theocracy?
    5) If laws passed by the US Government are against universal morality, what would you do about it? For example, many think that Abortion (which is explicitly legalized by US Gov, via Roe vs Wade) is against the will of God.
    6) Where on the internet is the list of “Essential Christian Doctrine” that I have to make sure not to deny so I don’t go to hell.

    Thanks!
    Jinteh

98. Jason C on 22 Dec 2008 at 10:14 pm #

    The usual answer of an atheist caught out of his depth. Change the subject and hurl elephants to hide the fact he’s completely ignorant.

    Alright jinteh, you pusillanimous pustule.

    Gott mit uns was the motto the German soldiers inherited from the Prussian empire. It was Otto Von Bismarck from 1870 who gave it to them and was engraved on the buckles of soldiers from World War One. The motto of the SS, Hitler’s elite, was Meine Ehre heißt Treue or “My honour is named loyalty”. The use of crosses on graveyards is part of western culture and is no more significant than Goths wearing crosses around their necks.

    In their three volume Encyclopedia of Wars Charles Phillips and Alan Axelrod detail 1763 wars from history. 123 or less than 7% they attribute to religion. Don’t like the facts, take it up with them.

    The Spanish Inquisition, an organisation reviled by atheists, is now believed to have been responsible for the deaths of about 3200 people over 350 years.

    Religious people have killed others in war, what makes the atheists of the Communist countries unique is that their 150-200 million victims were murdered during peacetime. Indeed their murderous inclinations caused about three times as many casualties as all the twentieth century wars put together.

    If government pass immoral law then the obligation of Christians is to act as the constitution permits and assemble together to obtain redress. Especially if their tax monies are being taken and used to support immoral practises like infanticide.

    The age of the Earth, and belief in evolution, is irrelevant to the subject of moral law. You merely demonstrate how mentally deficient you are.

99. jinteh on 23 Dec 2008 at 1:20 am #

    “The use of crosses on graveyards is part of western culture and is no more significant than Goths wearing crosses around their necks.” Nuts!

    When you go to a WWII cemetery, the soldiers who were Christians have crosses. The Jewish soldiers have stars of David. It is clear that the cross identifies the religious persuasion of the fallen soldier.

    The point being, that the SS gravestones (not just crosses around the cemetery in general) have crosses on them.

    Why do you equate communism with atheism? Are you saying that all atheists are communists? Are you saying that all atheists will behave as communists? Are you saying that all atheists are communist murderers?

    20% of people in the European Union today are atheists. Are they going to break out in WWIII soon?

    80% of Swedes are atheists. Maybe Sweden is a danger to world peace!

    “The age of the Earth, and belief in evolution, is irrelevant to the subject of moral law. You merely demonstrate how mentally deficient you are.”

    Tsk… Tsk… mentally deficient… I would think that not recognizing basic facts about our world (like birds and bees and things like why does sex exist or the age of the earth) makes one mentally deficient.

    Evolution has EVERYTHING to do with moral law. The formation of society itself (which needs the moral law to function) is due to evolution. See below religious history paragraphs.

    Speaking of moral law… Do you think that homosexuality is immoral? But of course! God says its immoral! Well, as it turns out, animals can be homosexual also… and even better, scientists have identified a gene which can change an animal from heterosexual to bisexual and also to homosexual. So that means that some people who have the appropriate allele of this gene (and thus are homosexual) would be born immoral! I guess that’s what you guys call “original sin”.

    As far as “atheist caught out of his depth”. You are absolutely right! I have very little knowledge of the strange religious philosophies that you espouse! As far as history goes… You might want to broaden your sources, because it sounds like you need to read some Howard Zinn.

    I am all for the study of history, especially religious history. Religious history is a great source of information on how people in the past used to think. People on this web site are a treasure trove of expertise on western religious history! You definitely know far more about it then I do.

    Obviously you want to justify your beliefs in moral law using your knowledge of religious history. This makes perfect sense. Our current thoughts on morality came from past thoughts on morality which were created by people who believed in god. What is really interesting though, is that had history been a little different, maybe Paul gets sick and dies young, then we would have different thoughts on morality today. So how can the morality from religious tradition be universal? It depends on the evolution of the concepts over time. As such, you cannot predict its outcome and it is impossible for it to be universal.

100. jinteh on 23 Dec 2008 at 1:44 am #

     To Nick,

     “And either way, you have simply committed the genetic fallacy. If you want to deny a natural law and just have moral relativism, that’s fine. It just means you can’t complain about fascism any more.”

     Thanks for above comment. I don’t totally understand it, but would like to! From a philosophical point of view, how is fascism related to moral relativism?

     Thanks!

101. C Michael Patton on 23 Dec 2008 at 2:01 am #

     “The age of the Earth, and belief in evolution, is irrelevant to the subject of moral law. You merely demonstrate how mentally deficient you are.”

     Friends, this is a civil blog which approaches things the best we can with gentleness and respect. Comments like are neither gentle or respectful.

     With this (barring any comments from Doug), I will close this thread. Thank you all for your participation.

Trackback URI |