Monday night at UNC Wilmington, despite no cooperation from the school (see my last post), just over 200 people showed up for part 1 of I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. Several atheists asked questions– actually made statements– and struggled greatly when I asked them to offer some objective basis for morality from their atheistic worldview. They kept trying to give tests for how we know something is moral rather than why something is moral. One atheist said “not harming people” is the standard. But why is harming people wrong if there is no God? Another said, ”happiness” is the basis for morality. (After I asked him, “Happiness according to who, Mother Teresa or Hitler?,” he said, ”I need to think about this more,” and then sat down.) This says nothing about the intelligence of these people– there just is no good answer to the question. Without God there is no basis for objective morals. It’s just Mother Teresa’s opinion against Hitler’s.
The atheists’ responses to the cosmological and design arguments– the arguments that show us that the universe exploded into being out of nothing and did so with amazing design and precision– were “we don’t know how that happened.” This is simply an evasion of the evidence that clearly points to an eternal, immaterial, powerful, intelligent, personal and moral First Cause of the universe. Since nature itself was created, this Cause must be beyond nature or ”supernatural.”
We got plenty of encouraging comments from the believers who attended. And there will be a lot more written about this event when popular columnist Mike Adams posts his next column later this week. Just to give you a preview: during the Q&A Mike, who was our host, asked all faculty members to stand up. Only one person other than himself did. Out of 400-500 professors at UNC Wilmington– a school where the faculty claims to be champions of “diversity”– only two show up to a talk about the most important subject anyone could discuss (God)? Adams will have a field day with this. Track his columns on Townhall.com here.
As to why something would be wrong from an atheistic perspective what about the idea that morals have evolved for the greater good? For example, murder is wrong because it generally harms the collective good.
Please support your assertion that “nature itself was created’ at what’s called the “Big Bang.” It seems to me you have drawn an arbitrary and convenient line in the sand with regard to nature. Why is it nature did not exist before the Big Bang? How do you know what natural laws were in effect prior ot he Big Bang? I do not accept your assertion about nature. This line in the sand is yet another example of the logical fallacy known as the straw man argument.
There is no supernatural, only natural phenomena we don’t understand. Yet. Based on current scientific knowledge and ongoing discovery, it is reasonable to think we will gradually understand what is commonly referred to as “supernatural.”
The great and grand thing about science, it’s inherent beauty, is that it’s self-correcting! Unknowns are not problems but challenges. Understanding CHANGES with new knowledge. Science, like life, can adapt. Religion is rigid; it does not adapt. And we all know what eventually happens to that which does not adapt. Good riddance to such bondage of beautiful minds.
Carl Sagan said it well: “In science it often happens that scientists say, “You know that’s a really good argument; my position is mistaken,” and then they would actually change their minds and you never hear that old view from them again. They really do it. It doesn’t happen as often as it should, because scientists are human and change is sometimes painful. But it happens every day. I cannot recall the last time something like that happened in politics or religion.”
Homage to a recently departed great mind: “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” To be clear and reamin on topic, I am equating magic with miracles. Connect the dots for yourself. No supernatural, only that which we do not yet understand.
8^)
Crowell29a..
With regard to the topic of the post, please better support your coclucsion. What is your evidence to say atheists have no basis for morals? Are you thus saying atheists have no morals?
I contend your argument is another logical fallacy, this time one of the false/weak premise. Your logic is sound, but it is built upon a poor foundation.
Christopher,
The universe– all space, all matter, and time (which would include nature itself)– exploded into being out of nothing. Einstein’s theory of General Relativity is one of the five lines of scientific evidence we give for a definite beginning of the universe in Chapter 3 of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist.” Therefore, the Cause for this must be something outside of space, matter, and time (i.e. something outside of nature, which would be supernatural).
Bondage to truth is not a vice. If something is true, you should believe it. Of course you are correct that many religious beliefs are false and should be discarded, but that does not mean we should discard those that are true. What if God really did create and design the universe and life, and what if his nature is the unchanging standard of morality? Why would it be bondage to believe it?
Blessings,
Frank.
You did not provide evidence for your claim that nature is part of the universe rather than the other way around. What is “nothing”? Why is it not part of nature? Why is the definite beginning of the universe also the definite beginning of nature? If god can “just exist, always was, always will be, etc” why can’t we keep it simple and call that NATURE instead of god? Why go with something as complex as “god”? Again, you have drawn arbitrary lines in the sand to support your assertion.
I have no issue with bondage to truth, if truth is understood to be dynamic and not static. Some truths do indeed change as new knowledge is gained. Not all truths, mind you; put away your obvious examples. Consider truths like “the world is flat” or “the sun revolves around the Earth.” I mean, doesn’t common sense tell us the sun revolves around the Earth? Common sense tells us the Earth is quite obviously standing still. The first person to suggest the TRUTH was labeled a heretic. Some truths *do* change. And that is why I pledge to the *pursuit* of truth, wherever it may lead. So far, it has led me away from xianity and then religion altogether.
To be clear, and I must as you really love straw man arguments, I take issue with the xian understanding of god. I take no issue with the possibility of a “creator” of what we know as the universe, but I take extreme issue with the concept of an all knowing, all powerful benevolent god who needs to be worshipped.
Yes, indeed, what if something did create what we know as the universe, what if its nature is from whence comes morality? What if it’s nothing like your image of god? what if you’re worshipping the wrong god? “Whenever we read the obscene stories, the voluptuous debaucheries, the cruel and torturous executions, the unrelenting vindictiveness with which more than half the Bible is filled, it would be more consistent that we call it the word of a Demon than the word of God. It is a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and brutalize [hu]mankind.” ~~ Thomas Paine
I have no use for the god of abraham. He is not worthy of worship. Really, if he’s all powerful, is THIS WORLD the BEST he can do? Like Carlin, I am just not impressed.
Even if I accept the existence of god as you define it, the ultimate question remains the same: who created the creator? Surely if the universe is too complex to “just happen”, then “god” is also far too complex to “just exist”. It’s obvious to anyone that the supreme being also had a designer. he didn’t “just happen”, did he?
Christopher,
Aristotle had a good definition of nothing: Nothing is what rocks dream about. Ontologically prior to the Big Bang, there was literally no thing– no space, no material, no time. So there was no, what we call “nature” because nothing physcial existed.
Truth doesn’t change. The earth has always revolved around the sun. Only our beliefs about truth change.
God doesn’t need to be worshipped. He needs nothing. He created us for worship. And if we do it properly, we benefit.
God who gives life can take life. He can do what we cannot do, including taking someone’s life before old age. Since he created us and can resurrect us, then he has the moral right to end our lives. In fact, God takes all of our lives at some point.
Since something exists, something must have always existed. Since the universe has not always existed (see chapter 3 of “I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist), then there must be something OUTSIDE the universe which has always existed– the uncaused First Cause. As stated before, that being must be immaterial, timeless and spaceless.
There’s more I can say, but it would cause me to spend my days rewriting my book. Do you have it?
Frank
This is the continuing illogic displayed by atheists, when you present something that science cannot explain they want to say “You just wait you big bully, science will beat your argument up in a thousand years and then you’ll see”.
They are just so mad that God refuses to limit Himself so that they can have proof using limited science. Atheists conveniently disregard faith even though their dis-belief takes more faith than by belief.
What do you have to offer outside of nothingness atheist? Freedom? Freedom from what, morals?
How about the Soviet Union and Communist China? Here you have two classic examples of institutionalized atheism. For over 70 years atheism was institutionalized in the Soviet Union. What happened after the wall fell? The Christian explosion all across Russia and it’s former sattelite nations. Can you explain the Christian explosion that is happening all across Communist China? A country that is still promoting institutionalized atheism. The problem is these people have had enough of the hopeless religion that is atheism and the nothingness it provides.
You want America to be an atheistic country? Just go to China and see how it fails.
Atheists have simply decided to be deliberately stupid. They look at evidence and say it isn’t evidence. They want to reject God, fine, they can. But when they do, they should hold themselves to their own view and not borrow from Christianity to explain morals or anything else outside of the material world. I’m not speaking of supernatural, I’m speaking of morals or logic. Atheists cannot explain how morals or logic can exist, they simply say they just happened. They can’t just happen because to an atheist they are outside the material world. Atheists are not consistent. Atheists live a contradiction and contradictions cannot be true.
Frank,
Your distinction between “truth” and “belief about truth” makes no difference to my point regarding once held “truths” such as the Earth being the center of the universe. So yes, “truth (that which we seek)” does not change AND “truth (belief about what is true)” changes as our knowledge and understanding increases. As with faith, context is important when speaking of “truth.”
We now better understand the origins and functions of mythology. We can compare and contrast the holy writs of various cultures to see how mythology has evolved. We know christianity borrows virtually all of its mythology from other mythologies. Our understanding has increased and some of what we believe to be “truth” has changed. Change is sometimes painful, often frightening and therefore some resist more than others.
We are also now privy to vast amounts of ancient and modern scientific discovery to explain the natural world, the natural world being something on which we disagree. I include in the natural world that which you call the supernatural. While science does not understand all aspects of natural law, not knowing does not threaten science. Rather, “not knowing” is the inspiration of science.
Science has brought numerous ideas out of the supernatural into the natural. Any number of modern devices would have been thought “supernatural” and not just in biblical times. One could probably still go to remote areas of the world and convince natives one was a god. I imagine a fully outfitted special ops soldier crossed with/or a street magician would be perceived as a deity, esp if he or she dropped in reinforcements from the SKY. Try that in biblical times. Instant deity. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic” [or miracle].
It is reasonable to believe science will *continue* to explain the previously unknown, or supernatural, up to and including the “Big Bang,” if that’s how it happened. That’s what science *does*. And it corrects itself when the evidence is sufficient and stands to peer review. No ONE source is the authority when it comes to science.
It has been suggested that the universe, like your God, HAS always existed. Like your God, it created us. We are all starDUST. All known elements, even the ones of which we are made, are created by supernovae. The universe is “all knowing” and “all powerful”. Strip your God of its anthropomorphic qualities and you are left with… the universe. Much simpler explanation than a supreme being.
I find it interesting you embrace the Big Bang theory. Do you reject the better supported theory of evolution? What is your opinion on the theory of gravity?
Finally, I want to examine your statement “God needs nothing.” If that is true, why do we exist?
I have added your book to my lengthy list of reading on which I am behind. My local public library should have it. I hope it isn’t full of the kind of common sense that tells us the Earth is standing still and everything else revolves around it. Just stand outside and make observations. Any fool can tell we’re not moving through space, that we don’t “revolve around the sun” as you say.
Micheal and Clay,
You seem to be projecting qaulities of believers on ahteists – illogic and willful ignorance (a nicer way to say deliberate stupidity). Somewhere deep down you folks seem to know that religious faith – belief in something despite of the lack of credible evidence – is bad. So you point your fingers and say “No I’m not, YOU are!”
We reject your “evidence” because it does not stand to reason and/or peer review. Apologetic “science” is a misunderstanding at best and willful misrepresentation at worst.
Morals and logic have ties to the physical world. It is no shame in science not to have an explanation. FINDING explanations is the purpose of science. It is a shame in science to have an answer and then look for evidence to support it.
Yes, religion is a big bully. When religion ruled the world, it was called the Dark Ages for a reason. Religion has a long history of suppressing and persecuting science, even though science is actually neutral with regard to religion. It just happens that the natural world as revealed by modern science is not always congruent with religion, and the attacks resume.
America is the most religious country on earth, yet somehow Christians feel persecuted because they aren’t allowed to infringe on the rights of others by injecting their morality into the public sphere or worse, into law. Your freedom is somehow being suppressed because your “science” doesn’t stand to reason or pass peer review. Mean ol’ atheists, always wanting proof and credible evidence, always wanting god in church instead of public schools, meetings or offices.
Yes, atheism offers freedom, including freedom from psychologically damaging religious morals such as “it’s a sin to masturbate”, “homosexuality is a sin”, “women should submit to men” and a host of other religious morals, which, by the way, is something on which christians can’t even agree. It’s funny how some xians tout 85% of America is christian even though most of those self-identified christians often wouldn’t meet the narrow definition of christianity held by the persons using the statistic.
Your examples of China and the former Soviet Union are logical fallacies, non sequiturs. Their problems stem from political and government issues, not atheism. The people have had enough of inept and oppressive governments. China is not a democratic republic, nor was the former Soviet Union. Your conclusion does not follow.
Christopher,
Thanks for agreeing to read the book. It will be easier than all of this endless typing in which we are engaged.
Blessings,
Frank
Ah, I do enjoy the endless typing, the “mental floss.” Too bad, but I know you’re busy and I appreciate the time you invested. Neither of us is likely to change the other’s view, but it would have been nice had you addressed a bit more of what I said and asked. Oh well, perhaps I’ll visit again to debate some points in your book. Perhaps you’ll consider some of what I’ve said. Perhaps you are even struggling with some of it. Meanwhile, I’ll play with my new friends as long as they’ll let me.
ttfn..
Crowell29a
Christopher,
That’s fine Chris, I like to play.
Lets look at homosexuality logically since you say it is oppresive to reject it out of hand. What about the perpetuation of the species? Doesn’t homosexuality go against the logical need to perpetuate the species?
What about moral absolutes? Is rape always wrong, because I’ve heard many atheists claim that not all rape is wrong. If that is the case when is it right? Is child murder always wrong? If not when is it okay to murder children? If you say that there are no moral absolutes then Hitler was a good guy and there was nothing wrong with the holocaust, since morals are just relative. Why do we automatically get angry when we see someone assualted on the street? Why do we get angry when we see pictures of children who have been killed by their parents through beatings and neglect? Is this just a natural response to stimulus? is this just a chemical reaction? Or is there a higher moral standard that is the basis of what we know to be “right” and “wrong”.
There is no way we will convince each other because when I look at the heavens and see the complexity of space, time, and matter I see the hand of God. When you look do you just see an accident?
If it is an accident then why is the earth in just the right orbit with just the right axial tilt, with just the right gravitational pull, with just the right rotation pattern, with just the right mixture of oxygen, nitrogen, carbon dioxide? Can you explain how this accident happened? Was it just chance? Frankly I would rather believe in something bigger than nothing. Nothing is what rocks dream about.
And getting back to the Soviet Union and China. You totally side stepped the question. No doubt the people were tired of oppressive governments and no it was not the fault of atheism. Kelly of the Rational responders would have us believe that atheism is the default position of life but she couldn’t prove it during her debate with Matt Slick. If this were true then the generations born during the Soviet era would have no need to seek God.
After 70 years of institutionalized atheism in the former Soviet Union why are people so willing to abandon it after generations of being indoctrinated that God does not exist?
I am convinced that I won’t convince you that God exists but I’m also cinvinced that you won’t convince me that God does not exist.
I guess we will find out when we die.
Christopher,
First of all this is not my own words but a paper written by Matt Slick. I was wondering what you thought of his argument.
Sometimes atheist assert that there is no proof that God exists. The only problem is that an atheist cannot logically make that claim.
In order to state that there is no proof for God’s existence, the atheist would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for God’s existence. But, since he cannot know all things, he cannot logically state there is no proof for God’s existence.
At best, an atheist can only state that of all the alleged proofs he has seen thus far, none have worked. He could even say that he believes there are no proofs for God’s existence. But then, this means that there is the possibility that there is a proof or proofs out there and that he simply has not yet encountered one.
Nevertheless, if there was a proof that truly did prove God’s existence, would the atheist be able to accept it given that his presuppositions are in opposition to the existence of God? In other words, given that the atheist has a presuppositional base that there is no God, in order for him to accept a proof for God’s existence, he would have to change his presuppositional base. This is not easy to do and would involve a major paradigm shift in the belief structure of the atheist. Therefore, an atheist is presuppositionally hostile to any proofs for God’s existence and is less likely to be objective about such attempted proofs.
Thanks,
Michael
Michael,
Homosexuality has been observed in all but one culture IIRC, generally at the same rate (percentage of the population). I am not sure WHY nature produces homosexuals, but it has and does. Again, not knowing something is ok. No shame in that. We are all ignorant, just in different areas.
Curious – When did YOU decide you like women and not men? It’s a choice, right? Problem is, I don’t recall making such a choice. I am sexaully attracted to women. Sure, I see handsome, intelligent and/or noble men and appreciate their better attributes. But I don’t want to have sex with them, hold them in my arms or gaze into their eyes.
I agree neither of us are likely to change the other’s view. I don’t care so much WHAT you believe as WHY you believe. Do you know WHY you believe?
With that said, I can help you in a way you probably won’t expect. Several arguments you choose sitting ducks, straw men at best. I can help you present better arguments against atheism by exposing the fallacies you used. Please understand I am not being sarcastic.
Let’s examine the “no proof” Matt Slick example. Notice what I have done with the argument:
“In order to state that there is no proof for ZEUS’ existence, Michael and Matt would have to know all alleged proofs that exist in order to then state that there is no proof for ZEUS’ existence. But, since they cannot know all things, they cannot logically state there is no proof for ZEUS’ existence.”
Instead of Zeus, insert pink unicorns. Or dragons, or mermaids or bigfoot, the Lock Ness Monster or aliens. This also works very well with Chick tracts like the one about why Islam is wrong.
The logic may be valid, but it is misapplied. Otherwise, you necessarily must accept the existence of ALL other mythological creatures.
“I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.” – Stephen Roberts.
Again, I am not questioning WHAT you believe as much as I am questioning WHY you believe it. Your choice of argument betrays you.
I read a bit of Matt’s testimony. He believes out of fear, said so himself – he was afraid of being left behind, (and he was a teen). Imagine how terrifying being left behind is for a younger child. Telling such a thing to a child is psychological abuse.
I agree with the assessment that there may be proof of god’s existence. I.do.not.know. More to the point, NEITHER DO YOU. The burden of proof is one the party making a claim, and I make no claim that “there is no god.” I don’t accept the existence of god for lack of credible evidence, same as any other mythological being or creature.
I would be considered a weak atheist (be sure to have fun with that), meaning like many (if not most) atheists, I stop short of saying there is no god. I/we simply don’t accept the existence of any gods.
It is a serious error to assume atheists work from a presupposed base that there is no god(s). Like christians, all atheists do not hold the same beliefs. There is a distinction in strong atheism and weak atheism. Are you aware of the diversity of belief among christians? I have tried not to assume any specific beliefs of anyone here.
Here again, you seem to be projecting qualities of believers upon non-believers, in this case presupposition and resistance to change. We are hostile to “science” that isn’t *science*. Science is quite open to change, but only after thorough review.
You say “you’ve heard many atheists claim that not all rape is wrong.” From where did you hear that? What is your source? If true, then it is disturbing. However, experience has taught me such statements are examples of the depths of dishonesty to which christians will go, despite their claim to “truth.” Is it OK to bear false witness against non-christians? I can cite numerous examples of such if you wish.
I do not see an accident when I look to the “heavens.” I do not see and unexpected or undesirable event or an unforeseen incident. Science seeks to understand these natural laws. With understanding, we no longer have an “accident.” It isn’t an accident just because it isn’t yet fully understood. Yes, science has explained how “this accident” happened, how and why the solar system formed. What you are really asking is WHY it happened. I don’t know, but that doesn’t necessarily make your answer, god, correct nor does it serve as evidence for your claim.
Thank you for clarifying about SU and China. I did not mean to sidestep. To me, the answer is an oppressed population poorly trained in rational thought faced with the promise of salvation. When people “find god” they experience very real psychological changes. Their outlook on life improves, they are generally happier and no longer suffer in despair. They can face the world and find strength to deal with events over which they have no control. They learn the power of the serenity prayer. I once took such refuge in your god. Now I don’t need god for any of that. I am free. You have nothing with your god I don’t have without your god in this life. You have no assurance of anything past this life as far as I know (God/the bible says so doesn’t count).
Back to the point, given the (false) promises of Christianity and human nature, it makes perfect sense to me that some people choose the unexamined claim. It’s emotional, not rational. It is identical to MLM (multi-level marketing). MLMs focus on dreams, stimulating emotional thought and suppressing rational thought. That’s why many, many intelligent, otherwise savvy business people fall victim to MLMs. They are immersed in an environment where they are praised for parroting what they hear. “Negativity” or doubt is not allowed and anyone telling you otherwise is just a jealous loser trying to steal your dreams. It is POWERFUL, nothing short of brainwashing. Just like religion. I could expound a bit more on the similarities of religion and MLM. The parallels are amazing, but I am already running terribly long.
Thanks for the discourse and your time. I look forward to your thoughts.
For anyone interested, I found an excellent essay on this objective basis for morality. It is from a decidedly biased source, so I should say this to be fair – I am very critical of most apologetic resources as I generally find them riddled with logical fallacies. It’s not so much WHAT you believe as WHY you believe that concerns me, to wit I offer this essay on morality:
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/michael_martin/rape.html
I am curious, almost insatiably so. This is mental floss to me. I value this discourse more than sitting around with like minds. This is far more challenging and almost impossible in meatspace.
Christopher,
Here are a couple of responses to your comments. I have reviewed the article that you suggested, and I a some problems with it. First, Martin claims that ” In order to show that atheistic morality necessarily is subjective, theists must show that all attempts to ground objective morality on a nontheistic basis fail.” I disagree with this premise, and I don’t think most theist argue this way nor do we simply suppose atheistic morality is subjective as Martin claims. Rather most arguments I have heard go something like this.
1) Objective Morality must be real standard that exist, must be able to be know, and must have an oughtness or a force to do the right thing.
2) Objective morality cannot be known through physical experience or through experimentation in the physical world, and thus if it is real must be non-material.
3) Atheism and agnosticism deny the existence of non-material things or at minimum deny that non-material things can really be known.
4) Therefore, atheists must deny objective morality, and therefore the only morality left is subjective reality.
The biggest problem I have seen for atheist trying to create a reason for objective morality is the oughtness part of the problem. Often atheist can come up with explanations of how society or even humanity wide morality may have come into being, but cannot provide the reason for why any individual should now continue to follow that morality. The oughtness factor only comes in if their is some consequence to the person that can be guaranteed, but in a purely material world, I don’t see how you can guarantee that.
In other words, for me, objective morality by its very definition is non-material, and I would say the burden of proof then is on the atheist to prove that objective morality is material or that non-material things can be real.
My second comment has to do with something you said way up in the comment section.
You said, “There is no supernatural, only natural phenomena we don’t understand. Yet. Based on current scientific knowledge and ongoing discovery, it is reasonable to think we will gradually understand what is commonly referred to as “supernatural.””
As a theist, I think you may be getting close to something here, but perhaps you need to widen your view. I think most atheist seem to have the idea that observable world is where we find out about real things, but supernatural world is the realm of the unreal. I tend to think of the supernatural world as real things, but just things that we cannot observe yet. As a sci-fi buff, I think of all the Star Trek and Dr. Who episodes that deal with different universes or different dimensions. What if, what we call the supernatural is simply real places and things that we cannot yet observe. Perhaps the realms overlap every now and then, and to us that is unexplainable, just like thunderstorms or galaxies were unexplainable to ancient people.
My question for atheists is why is the known observable universe the boundary for knowledge? What if we are simply a little bit like the ancients before the telescope? Perhaps we need a new Copernicus to help us break out of the model where we think that all things knowable must revolve around us?
For me if knowledge is not limited to just observable phenomenon, then this helps me explain why some things do not seem to have an explanation in our current understanding of the natural world. Things like morality, the existence of the universe, the laws and order in the universe, and minds all appear to need non-material explanations, for which an purely natural knowledge system does not allow.
Mike S,
Your first objection is in error – Martin clearly stated “Not all theists claim that atheistic morality is subjective.” He goes on to say theists who DO make such claim can not show atheism is NECESSARILY subjective. Martin does not suggest “most theist[sic] argue this way” or “simply suppose atheist morality is subjective” as you concluded. Rather, he says “some (theists) maintain that atheistic morality must be subjective.”
Premise number 3 is also in error. At minimum, neither all atheists nor all agnostics deny that non-material things can be known. There are several types of agnostics and for brevity, let’s distinguish between those who say we DO NOT know and those who say we CAN NOT know. That is a significant distinction, as it is with strong atheists (deny existence) and weak atheists (do not accept existence). Therefore atheism and agnosticism can allow for the non-material, whatever that is.
While your conclusion (4) follows valid logic, you are arguing from at least one false premise (3).
Number three in and of itself constitutes a straw man argument about atheists and agnostics. It assumes qualities that are not necessarily qualities of all atheists and/or all agnostics.
The oughtness, or reason to follow morailty is congruent with survival of species – it is in our collective best interest. What follows is a quote from another decidedly biased source:
“We all share the common experience of wanting to be alive, which logically translates into the desire not to be killed. It also makes sense that we cannot expect from others that which we are unwilling to give (a principle called reciprocity, which seems to be something humans innately understand). Therefore it is in everyone’s self interest to have a civilization with rules and for those rules to protect the individual’s right not to be killed. In other words, as humans it is in all our self interest to value human life. If you devalue human life in one context, that threatens the value of your own life.” Quoted from http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/?p=17
This is how I can guarantee the oughtness factor you describe.
Atheists bear no burden of proof for YOUR straw man argument. You, however, remain saddled with the burden of proof that 1) there is NECESSARILY a god; 2) said god indeed exists and 3) said god is NECESSARILY the only basis for objective morality.
SECOND COMMENT
You echo my sentiments very closely – the “supernatural” is “real” but we can not observe or interpret it with our senses or existing technology. Consider for example the visible light spectrum. We can detect with our sense only a fraction of the entire electromagnetic spectrum. We have only recently (last century or so) invented devices to detect radio waves, infra red, ultra violet, xrays and gamma rays. What else can we not yet detect?
I also enjoy ST and DW, and often wonder about things much as you describe. I don’t know if I agree that most atheists do NOT think this way, but I can not say most DO think this way. In my discussions with other atheists, I generally make the same distinctions to them I have made here. This again shows my interest in not so much WHAT you believe as WHY. I am not satisfied that others identify as atheists, I want to know WHY they do. You see, real progress in these debates is impeded by logical fallacies on both sides. Many “lay-athesits” (not that I am an expert, but obviously I have put considerable thought into WHY I accept what I accept) like the students to whom Frank speaks don’t know WHY they no longer accept god and/or deny its existence. They are easy targets for his straw man and/or false premise fallacies. The rules of logic, rational thought and even science are neutral with regard to the existence or non-existence of god(s) and serve as a reality check for our strongly held beliefs.
The known, observable universe is the boundary for our SCIENTIFIC knowledge. This is why ID is so vehemently opposed as a topic for discussion in SCIENCE classes. For the record, I think there should be extensive instruciton in PUBLIC schools with regard to religion and mythology, but I digress and there are other qualifiers for that notion.
Back to the topic, compared to what may be out there, I think we indeed are like the ancients before the telescope. The more we discover, the more we discover we don’t know. Mark Twain put it best: “Education: That which reveals to the wise, and conceals from the stupid, the vast limits of their knowledge.” I also like to consider Socrates’ assertion “the only true wisdom is in knowing we know nothing.” From my rhetoric, you should be able to tell I also subscribe to his notion “the unexamined life is not worth living.”
As for the limits of science, that’s why we philosophize, eh? One of my favorite area is theoretical physics, a topic that seems to blur the line between science and philosophy. It is certainly possible to consider that which is beyond science but still be true to the scientific method. Some of the most renowned minds of science routinely ponder concepts that are “beyond science.” God/religion is not NECESSARY to accomplish what you describe in your closing paragraph.
“A religion old or new, that stressed the magnificence of the universe as revealed by modern science, might be able to draw forth reserves of reverence and awe hardly tapped by the conventional faiths. Sooner or later, such a religion will emerge.” Carl Sagan, one of my heroes. Depsite, or perhaps because of the depth of his scientific knowledge, he often spoke about the cosmos with child-like wonder and amazement.
[...] have been a couple of posts on this blog that have spurred? quite a good discussion (see below:? Atheists Have No Basis for Morality, and? “Expelled” is a Must See: Freedom is the Victim).? While there have been some good points [...]
Christopher Crowell,
Read the article below by Dr. Paul Copan that completely refutes Michael Martin’s argument.
http://www.paulcopan.com/articles/moral-meaning.html
“But why is harming people wrong?”
Society has laws against such things and you are likely to be punished if you get caught. Unless you can convince the jury it was self-defense. Or they buy a “temporary insanity” plea.
But why is harming people wrong if there is a God? Because if you do not repent your sins right before you die, you will go to hell? That doesn’t seem like much of a deterrent. I like the “society has laws” deterrent better.
From the link above:
“Of course, the chances of something’s coming from nothing naturalistically are exactly zero.”
I get turned off by an absolute statement that I disagree with. Then I disregard everything else this author said.
Likewise, I have difficulty with pieces citing the Bible as its authority. I understand how the bible came to be, and more importantly, how the stories in the bible relate to other mythologies. Nothing really new in the bible, certainly not Jesus.
Which brings me to this.. Didn’t god NOT KNOW, even before he created everything, he would have to send his only begotten son Jesus to *die* for us?
For that matter, why is sending his only begotten son to die for us a big deal anyway? It’s not like there was any kind of gamble there, or did god NOT KNOW how the whole crucifiction thing would turn out?
Seems like the story of the widow’s mite, only with god as the rich guy. What kind of sacrifice is *anything* when you’re GOD?!? You know how the book is going to end, heck, you wrote it! Where’s the sacrifice in that?
How do you know you’re free if you never step out of the cage? Dare to disbelieve!
As for the piece, I am still looking for the answer to “Does god think murder, rape, etc is bad or is it bad because god says it’s bad?” I thought that was Martin’s best supported argument.
I must be more thorough first, as I admit I find it difficult not to follow each fallacy and stay focused on the piece as a whole.
Did god NOT KNOW…
…is how it should read. Incomplete edit – didn’t change “didn’t”. Doh!
Further reading shows I was too hasty. The references are necessary, even if not always effective. He shrugged off a big issue, what Jesus had to say about homosexuality saying anything Jesus didn’t address can be found elsewhere in holy writ.
Still looking for the answer to the question I mentioned above..
Christopher,
I missed something. Who was saying what about Jesus and homosexuality? Is there a question there?
Thanks,
Frank
Frank, SCS:
That comment was in regard to Copan’s rebuttal to Martin wherein Coban states “And while Martin is correct that Jesus did not directly address many contemporary moral issues, ample moral resources exist in the Scriptures for dealing with many of them.” (I incorrectly restated as “anything” instead of “many”)
I have a problem with SCS’s assertion that Copan “completely refutes” Martin’s argument. Copan addresses a different piece, an entire book, but fails to address the question (paraphrased) “does God think it bad becasue it’s bad, or is it bad because God says it’s bad?”
The closest Copan seems to come is this: “I suggest that God simply acts-without following some externally-prescribed rule-and it is good.”
Prior to that quote, he argues against God being constricted by his will if his will is inherently good. If his will is ingerently good, how did God create evil? Or is Copan suggesting evil IS part of God’s nature, just not dominant? Read on to see why I’m not sure it even matters what Copan thinks at all.
Here’s a real gem of persuasiveness:
“Also, Martin asserts that Paul probably did not believe in the virgin birth “since he does not mention this” (279) is quite the argument from silence. Maybe Paul took this tradition for granted and did not think it needed articulation.”
Brilliant, eh?
Christopher,
Thanks for the clarification. Have you read Augustine on evil? His argument is that evil is not a thing, it is a lack in a thing.
Evil is like rot in a tree. Take away the rot and you have a better tree; take away the tree and you have nothing. Contemporary example: Evil is like rust in a car; you take away the rust you have a better car, but if you take away the car you have nothing.
So God didn’t create evil because evil is not a thing. He created the possibility of evil when he created free creatures, but he did that because only free creatures can love. There’s no evil without free will, but there is no love either.
Blessings,
Frank
Isaiah 45:7 – I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
Am I taking that out of context? The RSV uses weal instead of evil. Which translation do you prefer?
Christopher,
Good insight. I think the better translation is “calamity” (as the New American Standard and NKJV has it) not moral evil. The context here is that God is bringing judgment through Cyrus on the enemies of Israel. It seems evil to the people being judged, but it is not an immoral act for God to judge sin. In fact, it is required by His nature.
Since God is the standard of justice, he has the right and duty to bring judgment in accordance with his nature. BTW, something isn’t right simply because God wills it; it is right because it is consistent with his unchanging nature, and that’s why He wills it. And that’s why He willed judgment in this case. Justice demands that sin is punished.
Thankfully, God is also love, which is why He provided a way to avoid punishment– Christ took it for us. By accepting His sacrifice we can avoid it for ourselves. Why would anyone not want this free gift?
Blessings,
Frank
Frank,
Then is it fair to say you don’t believe the bible is the inerrant word of god?
You took my breath away just now:
Something isn’t right because god wills it
It is right because of his unchanging nature
That’s why he wills it
I’m dizzy just thinking about how circular that is.
Try telling the Native Americans of 150 years ago “God is love.” Divine providence, y’know.
Why not accept the gift? I’m not fond of second hand gifts. Which part of the story of Jesus isn’t borrowed from another mythology?
Another perspective is to look at the sacrifice. I find it difficult to call a sacrifice. Seriously, not just trolling.
I couldn’t understand some parts of this article Atheists Have No Basis for Morality, but I guess I just need to check some more resources regarding this, because it sounds interesting.
Christopher Crowell: “Based on current scientific knowledge and ongoing discovery, it is reasonable to think we will gradually understand what is commonly referred to as “supernatural.” [made on March 26th, 2008 at 4:15 pm]
Alright. This is as far back as I will go in commenting since this is an older post.
There is not reason to believe that scientific knowledge and ongoing discovery will ever understand, even if “gradually”, the supernatural.
You have already agreed with me in a more recent post that science does not produce certain knowledge about anything, just educated guesses that suffice for now.
For someone who admits that limit to scientific knowledge, you seem to be far too willing to rely on science to bolster your atheistic viewpoint. Think reliance on strawman arguments. ; )
For the record, I am not the Clay who posted on March 27th at 2:12pm.
Clay said “You have already agreed with me in a more recent post that science does not produce certain knowledge about anything, just educated guesses that suffice for now.”
To be clear, I take issue with the phrase “educated guess.” I would now like to further clarify while many things are not known for certain, science offers the best explanation based on observable, testable evidence.
Yes, I mostly agree with the quote above. Be careful as to what else you infer from said agreement. I am finding your use of my words and sentiments to be careless at best, dishonest at worst.
Unlike religious dogma, science can and does adapt with the advent of new knowledge through observation and testing. Once accepted as a theory, there is no rest for the claim. A theory is always subject to failing, at which time it MUST be revised or discarded. If only religion was so honest.
Tell me about that on which you rely to bolster your viewpoint. Does the lack of belief in your God really take more faith? To answer that, we’ll need to examine your views, too. I’m ready when you are..
“Yes, I mostly agree with the quote above. Be careful as to what else you infer from said agreement. I am finding your use of my words and sentiments to be careless at best, dishonest at worst.”
You said what you said. I’m not “misusing” what you said.
“To be clear, I take issue with the phrase “educated guess.” I would now like to further clarify while many things are not known for certain, science offers the best explanation based on observable, testable evidence.”
Are you serious? the best explanation based on observable, testable evidence is what an educated guess is. So what is your heartache with the phrase. Is it because it doesn’t sound like certain knowledge? If so, that is disengenous of you, since you already admit that science doesn’t provide certain knowledge.
“…Does the lack of belief in your God really take more faith?”
What? That doesn’t make sense. If I know I have a God (your God) and choose to not believe in Him it wouldn’t require any faith whatsoever, just a huge dose of self deception.
Or are you mistakenly labeling me as an atheist and asking me if it requires more faith not to believe in God, which I doubt you are, since you are an atheist.
I am not an atheist. I believe in God. I have posted my take on the whole debate over the existence of God in Frank’s column entitled : “Christians Beware: Intellectual Predators At College”.
Yes, I am quite serious about the phrase “educated guess.” A HYPOTHESIS is an educated guess. A theory is an educated guess that has been extensively peer reviewed and tested.
funny
an educated guess
a guess that is likely to be correct because you have enough knowledge about a particular subject. “Scientists can do no more than make educated guesses about future climate changes.”
http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/an+educated+guess (must be run by a buncha atheists)
Crowell said (quoting for context here, as you trimmed it and thereby made it confusing):
“Tell me about that on which you rely to bolster your viewpoint. Does the lack of belief in your God really take more faith? To answer that, we’ll need to examine your views, too. I’m ready when you are..”
Clay replied:
“What? That doesn’t make sense. If I know I have a God (your God) and choose to not believe in Him it wouldn’t require any faith whatsoever, just a huge dose of self deception.”
I asked you about your belief in your god – “that on which you rely to bolster your viewpoint.” I then asked if the (my) lack of belief in your god really takes more faith. I don’t understand why that wasn’t clear as I originally wrote it.
You are correct, I certainly did not mistake you for an atheist, which leaves us back at my previous message asking about your beliefs. I’ll see if you answer them in the other thread as I thik you are suggesting. If not, I’ll be back.. 8^)
The term “Peer Review” is used as if it were a sacred high court of arbitration. It is not. Peer Review is merely the consensus of those who hold a common world view (religion) passing judgment on truth or folly based on their own perceptions. Most certainly from a purely secular point of reference, it cannot be more. Thus scientific Peer Review could be merely a jury of nothing more than gods of their own estimation or a collection of minds bent on maintaining a stipulated orthodoxy. Further, it is not hard to conceive that a Peer Review could be exactly what some scientists and secularists criticize in the behavior of the “Church” during the “Dark” or “Middle Ages” — we’ve found the enemy, and he is us.
Regardless, truth is independent of any purely human thought, belief, or consensus and cannot be rejected, altered, or confirmed by fiat of a scientific Peer Review. While Peer Review does have a legitimate place in science, it cannot determine truth or folly. It can only confirm or deny the consensus of the members of the jury. And consensus cannot (does not) determine truth or folly unless all members of the jury are omnipotent or are directed by omnipotence. Certainly, self-estimation or scientific credential cannot be construed to be omnipotence, and present day secular science does not (cannot) stipulate omnipotence.
As an aside, a conclusion that there is no “Truth” or that there cannot be a “Truth” is oxymoronic. If there is no “Truth” then the statement that there is no truth is pretentious at best, but more accurately, illogical and false. Except in esoteric speculation that there is truth in no truth, (paraphrasing Aristotle’s definition of nothing as being that which rocks dream about) nothing can “NOT BE” and “BE” at the same time. Furthermore, if truth is a myth, how can it be that it is true that truth is a myth? Is it not true that a myth is NOT true?
It seems to follow that a tyranny of Peer Reviewed science could be every bit as odious as any projected tyranny of Judeo-Christianity. Either way, it’s all a matter of faith — that to which one commits themselves. The most perfect and familiar definition of faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
Imagine a world where science, Peer Reviewed or not, determines truth. Who determines science; who “Peer Reviews” science? Who determines orthodoxy? Who determines morality? Should society wait until science discovers ultimate and perfect truth, or should society accept what is scientific orthodoxy at any given time or scientific orthodoxy to any particular group of people with power enough to rule over society? All dictatorships of the 20th Century (i.e. Hitler, Stalin, Mao, for instance) had “Science” to back its application of power. And if accepting science at any given time, what should we accept if science, Peer Reviewed or not, contradicts its previously held orthodoxy, or worse yet, holds onto an orthodoxy disputed by new or contending science? What is to prevent science from proselytizing society into a belief in untruth? What is to prevent science from inventing its own morality for society as a self-justifying statement of orthodoxy? What is to prevent science (scientists or those who believe current tenets of science) from corrupting morality/society for the sake of its own ends and declaring the corruption “Good?” What has prevented this in the past? What prevents those who hold current science (at any given time) as the norm for all conscious and intelligent thought and behavior from creating a morality , or “THE” morality for society, regardless of whether or not it is “Good?” Is it the Peer Review process? Is it that those who hold current science (at any given time) as the ultimate benchmark of truth are the omnipotent? Is it the fox who is to guard the hen house and determine the behavior of those under guard?
It is an observation that, over time, “Secular Science” ends up only proving what God has already said is truth (in spite of man’s machinations) while fighting desperately to avoid the obvious because the alternative is odious to the secular scientific, philosophical or practical, community at any given time. Thus a question comes to mind. I’ve read the Marxist view, but is “Science” merely an opiate for those who do not want to believe God?
The big question here is why does an otherwise intelligent human being believe in the supernatural? If you are to believe in the (christian) god hypothesis then you also believe in ghosts, spontaneous combusting bushes, 800 year old people, waterways that turn to blood, spontaneous generation of bread and wine, virgin births, talking snakes, sticks that turn into snakes, women being turned to a pillar of salt, the dead returning to life, the blind seeing and the lame walking. This is a mental disorder.
If the “big bang” theory isn’t correct, how does that automatically make the god hypothesis correct? If 1+1 doesn’t equal 3, does it automatically equal 4?
After millions of years and thousands of gods (none of which has been proven to exist), people continue to believe in fantasy, looking for answers to things they either fear or don’t understand.
Thanks Kurt…very well put…I have read the whole exchange and thought your comments really turned the tables around on Crowell’s ‘philosophies’…he mentions mental flossing..I like that term as we ‘all’ should be open-minded when debating and willing to reach into the corners and crevices of our minds to weed out any false or biased premises we may have etc.
If we do not have faith (hope) that we will be in a better place when we leave this earth…then what do we have to look forward to? Seems rather bleak for those that do not know or seek to know the ‘one’ true God. All will be judged, rather they deny or accept the truth of God, and will give an account of their lives. That alone makes me want to live a good and ‘moral’ life that has been set by God to live not man.
I use to suffer from anxiety and mild depression years ago and still do if I stray from studying God’s word and get pulled into the things of this world….God’s words give me hope and meaning for my life that I in turn can give to others, in how I treat them and care for humankind ,as that is what God says we should do. How can that be a bad way to live and wrong??? Take God out of the equation and you get the world that we are living in today….it can and will get worse…so thanks for fighting for our ‘Christian’ freedoms…I will keep fighting on my end. Just one person can make a world of difference…and more so when you have God on your side.
One more note: Look at all the wonderful charitable organizations out in your communities…the homeless shelters, the food banks etc…most if not all are rooted with Christian beliefs and faith…willing to put others needs before themselves. How is having such faith bad….and so threatening?
In Christ,
Rhonda
“If we do not have faith (hope) that we will be in a better place when we leave this earth…then what do we have to look forward to? ”
Reallity. If you can’t face reallity, you turn to faith.
“That alone makes me want to live a good and ‘moral’ life that has been set by God to live not man.”
If not for your faith, would you be out robbing banks, sleeping with the neighbor, molesting children, killing or attacking people? I’ve never had your faith but lead a moral life. How do you explain that?
“I use to suffer from anxiety and mild depression years ago and still do if I stray from studying God’s word and get pulled into the things of this world….God’s words give me hope and meaning for my life”
This I understand. It’s a combination of psychological weakness and intellectual immaturity. Your faith is allowing you to escape from reallity.
” Look at all the wonderful charitable organizations out in your communities…the homeless shelters, the food banks etc…most if not all are rooted with Christian beliefs and faith…willing to put others needs before themselves.”
Billionaire atheist Warren Buffet recently gave 37 BILLION dollars to a charity started by Microsoft founder Bill Gates, also an atheist. You don’t have to believe in the god hypothesis to do charitable acts. Many of these christian “charities” are used for proselityzing.
“How is having such faith bad….and so threatening?”
It would nice if we could ask that question of the 3000 that died in the World Trade Center, the 6,000,000 Jews who died in the Holocaust, the hundreds of thousands that died in the Crusades, the tens of thousands that died in the various inquisitions, the tens of thousands who were burned as witches or heretics and indiduals killed by theists simply because they don’t believe in the god thingy. Faith is threatening because can cause otherwise intelligent people to do stupid, cruel or violent things in the name of their god.
Christopher Crowell Said:
“Something isn’t right because god wills it
It is right because of his unchanging nature
That’s why he wills it
I’m dizzy just thinking about how circular that is.”
I’m curious could we posit that it is necessary that God be good?
Here’s what I’m thinking: if there was a god that was not good in any form or fashion, then over timeless causal eternity that “not good” part would either corupt the good part completely, or the good part would overcome the corrupt part completely.
If the “not good” part should win, then it would seem that such a god would eventually self destruct as its inconsistencies and dissatisfaction and pain would cause it to kill itself or go completely mad.
So over infinite causal eternity, either this god would self destruct or become completely good. Thus it would seem that in eternity the necessary trait of a bad god is to cease to exist in which case he could not be god. This leads me to postulate that the only eternal timeless causal god would have to be a good god with an hereto unchangeable good nature which would be an essential basic part of that god.
If that’s the case then the statement that moral values are based on God’s unchanging nature is not circular but a necessary condition for any God.
I realize that one could postulate that the good and bad parts eventually reach a ying and yang point where they balance each other in constant battle. But I don’t recall any of the claimed “self” revealed natures of gods in history to be a single god who self describes itself as being a single god of equal and opposite. (This is important because one is after arguing about the revealed nature of this so called god.) And my hunch is that there is a similar way to refute this ying yang premise.
Now you could go the next step and argue that there could be multiple gods who are equal but opposite. But immediately we see the problem. By definition an eternal immovable god could not co-exist with another eternal immovable god unless they had the same will. Why? Simply because if any immovable object exists in the universe then no irresistible force exist unless it is one and the same object that is also the source of the force. So by definition there can only be one god good or bad. And since bad self-destructs, we are it seems left with only a single god who has out of necessity critical to its survival to be good.
Of course I could be wrong.
P.S. Remember the definition of God is not that he can do anything, just that he is all powerful. All powerful does not imply the capability to do that which is actually impossible e.g. make 1+1 = 3.
Christopher said: “Which part of the story of Jesus isn’t borrowed from another mythology?”
Actually I’m curious to know which parts ARE borrowed from other myths. But you may wish to read Lee Strobel’s “The Case for the Real Jesus” before one quotes some un-researched myths. One must be skeptical about all things especially those that seem to side with one’s argument. Lee deals and dispatches effectively with the urban legends about Mithraism, Krishna, Diana, Hercules etc. Of course some similarities exist but just because they exist that does not disprove their validity. E.g. The stories of Moses and MLK have parallels in many cultures of a hero coming into to save their people from oppression and injustice like Kaikhosroe or Pushutan, yet we don’t abandon the historicity of one because of similarities to a myth of another.
Again I may be wrong so I’d be interested to see of there are some actual mythical similarities that are not urban legends and if these mythic links can explain the origin of the well document New Testament accounts.
Neil,
Here is some more info on borrowed mythology:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa.htm
Don’t miss the comparison to Horus:
http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm
Strobel was, well, amusing.
We can also talk about Christmas and Easter if you like. They’re good examples of dishonesty.
Neil,
God says he makes the good and he makes the evil, He the Lord does all this. Paraphrased from KJV. Isaiah 45:7 (I think).
God makes evil. Says so himself, right in your bible (KJV). RSV says weal and WOE instead of good and evil. Interesting nonetheless.
“P.S. Remember the definition of God is not that he can do anything, just that he is all powerful. All powerful does not imply the capability to do that which is actually impossible e.g. make 1+1 = 3.”
Can’t do the impossible? What about miracles?
Rhonda wrote
“If we do not have faith (hope) that we will be in a better place when we leave this earth…then what do we have to look forward to?”
When you don’t have fantasies about an afterlife, you work to make THIS life better. Atheism (lack of belief in God) makes life beautiful NOW. This is all you know for sure you have.. live it to the fullest.
“All will be judged, rather they deny or accept the truth of God, and will give an account of their lives. That alone makes me want to live a good and ‘moral’ life that has been set by God to live not man.”
So you do “the right thing” out of fear of retribution (judgment) instead of doing it just for the satisfaction of doing “the right thing” because that’s how you would want to be treated?
I don’t need the fear or eternal punishment to seek fairness and treat others as I would like to be treated.
What’s so bad about faith? Michael put it very well, but he omitted a notable example – ask the Native Americans what’s so bad about faith. Ask them about “Christian love.”
“God says ….”
God doesn’t exist therefore I don’t care what god says.
Chris said “Strobel was, well, amusing.”
Chris surely you realize that that’s an ad hominem and surely not worthy of thinking people like us.
Unless I am mistaken, there are only 2 ways to refute an argument:
1. Show the facts are wrong or incomplete
or
2. Show the logic is wrong.
I’m sure you agree that calling someone “amusing” does not refute their argument. My preference is always to deal with the facts and dispense with any sort of name calling as I feel it does not foster a spirit of understanding or of friendly banter.
More over you will notice that Strobel never quotes himself. But he interviews Craig, Copan, Evans, Licona and many other secularly distinguished scholars who not only teach and research this material but also debate against atheists on a regular basis. So even if we accepted your ad hominems and deemed Strobel himself amusing, you are still left with the weight of the evidence from the scholars he has quoted. Surely you don’t find “Craig” amusing as well.
But since you did provide some links I will take a look when I get a chance.
I will respond to your other statements when I next get some time.
Thanks
Chris said: God says he makes the good and he makes the evil, He the Lord does all this. Paraphrased from KJV. Isaiah 45:7 (I think).
I believe Frank already addressed this earlier on this page as being really the phrase “I bring calamity”. Also I am very interested in your view of the necessity of a god being all good, independent of if you believe the Bible is his message to us.
Are miracles Impossible?
I’d said;
“P.S. Remember the definition of God is not that he can do anything, just that he is all powerful. All powerful does not imply the capability to do that which is actually impossible e.g. make 1+1 = 3.”
Chris responded:
“Can’t do the impossible? What about miracles?”
Miracles are certainly not impossible they are merely not probable. Let me point you to one of my writings on this:
http://www.rationalfreethinker.com/writings/IsTheSupernaturalImpossible.pdf
I discuss in some detail the difference between Miracles which are possible and irrationalities which are impossible. This may be an important distinction to clear up prior to any debate.
I believe Frank also writes about this in his book. Frank can you point us to that.
Meanwhile Chris, I’d enjoy your comments on the paper.
Chris said: see the comparisons of Horus and Christ:
Chris, being a true skeptic of all things Christian and non-Christian and being repulsed by blind faith I always research all claims. It seems however that with some basic simple research one can easily refute that link you sent me:
First, the site shows a picture of Horus the Elder, but all the similarities seem to be to Horus the younger. Which is it? Perhaps it’s the merged version.
1. Horus: Born of a virgin: Not at all. Even the link on that site given i.e. http://ancienthistory.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite.htm?site=http://www.sculpturegallery.com/sculpture/egyptian_god_horus.html
shows us that Horus was conceived by Isis from the resurrected soul of her husband or from a reconstructed phallus. So Apparently Isis was married before hand and so no one can certainly claim she was a virgin.
2. Father: No similarity in name, Osiris vs. Yahweh.
3. Mother: The site claims it was Meri for Horus. But this is false Horus’s mother was Isis. Meri is never mentioned anywhere that I could find in any reputable place.
4. Step-Father: Seb. The site claims this is Jos-seb. But this is simply false. The etymology is all wrong Joseph is iusph in Hebrew (see http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen50.pdf). It is a Hebrew name and we know its precise origin. It comes from Joseph son of Jacob and means “Yahweh has added”. Joseph the father of Jesus was named after this Joseph. A name created by Jacob for his son, it includes the name of the LORD i.e. Yahweh “Ye or Yo”. And the word “Seb” does not mean “has added.” Seph does. This is similar to Jesus’s name Yoshua (Joshua) meaning The Lord is my salvation. In addition we have evidence that Jesus was called the Son of Joseph, so he really was the son of Joseph? In fact when you look closely at Horus he’s associated with lots of “fathers’ kinda weak that they would take THIS father? Why not Kronos or Ra? Also if they were trying to keep to a similar myth why use a Jewish name? Were they trying to find Jewish equivalents?
5. Foster father’s ancestry: Of Royal descent. But this is meaningless because everyone is claiming to be a god or king of some sort. There are only a few million of these claims around.
6. Born in a cave: First there is no record of Horus having been born in a cave you’d have to show it to me. But secondly there’s no record of Jesus having been born in a cave either. You’d have to show that to me. So the question is was Horus born in a stable. Again nothing there.
I got this far and realized that I was just wasting my time. So far they were 1 for 6. A very bad and incompetent record, as a scientist myself and the founder of 4 startup companies, if an employee of mine had started with 1 for 6, I’d fire him on the spot.
Then as I was finishing up I found this:
http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/osy.html
This person had a lot more patience with incompetent claims and did a lot more research and refuted most of them. So if you want the rest of the answers look there.
So back to my claim. Can you show me the similarities with research that you have done from reputable sources.
But barring all that remember what we have is a testimony of 11 men who went to their deaths not claiming some myth had come to life, but that they themselves had seen.
Saying that the stories of Jesus are mythological seems to indicate that some fundamental historical knowledge is missing. It sounds like you think that the story of Jesus popped out of legend a few 100 years after Jesus existed. But that is simply not the case. This story of Jesus was active within years if not days of his death and alleged resurrection and in the same community that he lived and died and ministered. There is NO time or distance for myths to develop. Especially as the book of Acts that describes much of Jesus, dates to as early as 60AD (and we know the Gospel of Luke was written before the Book of Acts and the Gospel of Mark even before Luke). Once it was written down you have no space for myth to be added. And in 60 AD people who knew Jesus would still be alive.
Then there is the gruesome stamp of validity on these gospel accounts.
Let me explain:
The difference in Witnesses
Each of the Apostles died horrible terrible deaths, and they died not because of something that Jesus had told them. After all, many followers of great teachers (good and bad) have been willing to die for what they were told by their teacher. For instance the followers of David Koresh or Jim Jones or even Hitler. The followers of Mohammed and so on. All these followers were willing to die for what they were told by their leader. Their blind faith made them follow and do things for their leader.
However when we come to the apostles, we realize that they were different. Why were they different? They were different because even after all that Jesus told them and all the time he spent with them, they ran away like scared mice. Yes, after spending 3 years with Jesus learning everything, the moment he was taken captive and even before he was killed, all this followers scrambled for cover, one even denying he ever knew the man. And then after Jesus died they stayed in hiding. But you say…they then changed their mind and started to preach because of what he’d told them. That is incorrect.
What changed their mind was now what they remembered, but that they saw him ALIVE. You see all other religions have followers who blindly believed what their leader TOLD them. It’s ONLY in Christianity that the followers of Jesus died NOT for what he TOLD them, but for what they had themselves PHYSICALLY & PERSONALLY experienced. They died claiming they’d seen him die and then saw him rise from the dead and then saw him eat, drink, hangout with them, walk through walls (in the 5th dimension), they touched his wounds and body and then they saw him physically rise into the sky. Oh and they saw lots of miracles while he was alive.
They died for this claim.
See the difference! One is hearsay (not heresy but hear-say). The other physical experience. One is just words, the other is an actual physical 4 dimensional event in the time and space continuum. One is third or second person, the other is first person.
So what did the apostles die for? They died for something physical. Not something verbal.
OK why is this important? It’s important because who would die for a lie that they’d made up themselves. A lie that brought them no power, no money and no sex.
The Generations suffer and die for experienced Truth
Here’s another reason why it is important, you see the apostles had disciples of their own. They documented their experiences both verbally and manuscript-ally, these manuscripts were passed on to churches and their own second generation disciples. And these second generation disciples first heard the testimony of what the apostles had personally experienced and then they saw these same apostles die horrible deaths. And the cause of those deaths was that the apostles insisted that they had what? Experienced Jesus die, rise, eat food, touched him and then saw him ascend into heaven.
Then the second generation disciples based on this factual testimony, went to their OWN deaths claiming that they had known and experienced the first generation’s commitment to experienced truth (not heard truth).
How do we know this though?
Well you ask but how do we know this is all true. Here’s why we know it’s true. You see despite what many people think, the Church did not suddenly show up in a vacuum out of some dark ages. For instance, did you know that each of the disciples of the disciples taught and gave sermons. Many of them wrote down those sermons. And guess what we have thousands of those sermons. You can find them on line. Just do a search for Early Church Fathers Writings” and you will find 1000’s of pages of documented sermons and writing. In fact if we just took the early church sermons and gathered all the quotes from the Scripture that they quoted, we could recreate the ENTIRE New Testament except for 11 verses. Just from their quotes. (Not to mention the 5000 Greek and 19,000 other Bible manuscripts and fragments we have on top of that).
The point: We have a clearly documented history of testimonies of the early church and the apostles, including their deaths.
OK you say, but how long did that last? Well it lasted for at least 6 generations. Well so what, you say?
Here’s why that is important. It’s important because six generations later we have Augustine (and now you know why I went on this chronology of history jaunt). You see we have an UNBROKEN line between John, Peter, Paul and James the ACTUAL Apostles to Augustine.
John to Augustine was LESS than 6 people apart.
Here’s the link: John has a disciple named Polycarp. Polycarp sees John suffer greatly claiming that Jesus rose from the dead and John claims Jesus proved he was God. Polycarp takes John’s writings and teachings and teaches it to Irenaeus, who sees Polycarp die claiming that these teachings from John are true. Again what Polycarp dies for is not what he taught, but what he also experienced about John and the other apostles’ deaths, deaths that proved Jesus is God and God exists. Polycarp has a junior named Irenaeus who has a junior named Hyppolytus who then has Gregory T and then Eusebius the Great Historian and then …..yes Augustine. There are only 5 people between John and Augustine. 5 men who suffered greatly and all who died claiming that what they passed on was true. And I have only shown one branch of the links. There are many such links.
Want an analogy (I will provide a few, here’s the first). A man “A” stands up in court and swears that a certain incident occurred. Later he is killed for that claim. But a few years later another man “B” comes into the court and says: I saw man A standup in this same court and swear that this incident occurred, he then died for that claim. Man B then dies for that claim and so it goes till Man F. Note that each man did not claim only that the event occurred, but that he also swore that he heard the man prior to him swear to that event and that that man was subsequently killed for that very claim. The claim is tied up intrinsically in the death, they cannot be separated. Thus we see immediately this is not a blind passing of facts. This is legally sound system of discerning truth. It works in a court of law.
Augustine’s Blind Faith?
So now let’s look at Augustine who goes on to help canonize the Gospels and the New Testament. Did he have blind faith or did he randomly pick and choose what to canonize? Was he following some silly made up myth derived from Horus? What was his evidence? Who were his witnesses?
His witness was the disciples of the disciples. What was his proof that God existed? The disciples of the disciples and their terrible deaths.
So Augustine has no blind faith at all and KNOWS there is a God through multiple ways, not limited to the standard Moral and Teleological proofs but through direct witnesses who died not for what they blindly believed but to pass on what they attested was given to them.
Let me see if I can give you an example.
Let’s say 400 years ago someone wrote an historical account of the arrival of the pilgrims. Imagine there existed a group of individuals who wished for some reason to suppress that information. Yet a small group of the original pilgrims wrote their biographies down and then went on to live persecuted lives to defend this information. Finally they were captured and killed. Yet while they were alive they were able to teach others this information and pass on their writings. These others then died not claiming just that what the original pilgrims said was true but that those original pilgrims died claiming that what they claimed was true. Fast forward 4 more generations, each one claiming that the past generation died for the claim that their teachers died claiming they’d received the truth. Each one signed in blood. Now any rational thinking person would realize that this wasn’t some blind faith that they irrationally believed in, but rather this was a rational logical witnessed conclusion. Would we 6 generations later in 2000 believe that what the Pilgrims wrote was true? Would we need blind faith to believe that? Or would it be logically and rationally verified. Would it not in fact be irrational to reject this witness out of hand?
And even if there WERE some weird coincidences between this and some force fitted myth, would it be of any value at all? Not at all. One doesn’t look at similarities between WWII and WWI and surmise that WWII never occurred.
Hope that helps.
Neil
Chris said: When you don’t have fantasies about an afterlife, you work to make THIS life better. Atheism (lack of belief in God) makes life beautiful NOW. This is all you know for sure you have.. live it to the fullest.
Why is it then that atheistic believing regimes have been responsible for the death of almost 100M humans over a 40 year period in the last 60 years? Not to mention the continued oppression of billions. That’s not a better life. Where as Christian regimes in their worst tragic and twisted use of the message of Salvation have been responsible for the death of less than 6 Million over the last 2000 years. That’s a ratio of 800 to 1 or more.
BTW you may claim that those Atheistic regimes did not do the killing because they were Atheistic but because they were misguided. But the fact is that they killed people because they devalued life especially weak life which is a basic atheistic principle (survival of the fiittest…ever read Nietzsche’s man and superman?). And even if I were to grant you Atheistic misguidedness, we see that even when so called Christians were tragically misguided and wrong they were still barely able to come close to 1/800th of that number of deaths. Why?
Neil. I’m not disputing the atrocities of Stalin, Mao, and Pol Pot but your statement “Where as Christian regimes in their worst tragic and twisted use of the message of Salvation have been responsible for the death of less than 6 Million over the last 2000 years. That’s a ratio of 800 to 1 or more.” is way off. Hitler was a Christian and he alone was responsible for more than 12 million deaths over only a 15 year period. Add the inquisition, the crusades, and the genocide of the Native Americans and the Christians are just as murderous as the atheists.
Kendenny,
Interesting claim. Let me see if I can give you some background on Hitler and his real beliefs.
It turns out that we can see that Hitler was not a Christian but was rather a follower of Darwin and Nietzsche (God is dead and we have killed him…alas, I have come too early, the news has not reached you).
Hitler and Darwin
Remember the elimination of the weak and Eugenics were specifically a Darwinist concept). Darwin himself said:
With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.
[Darwin, The Descent of Man (1871 edition), vol. I, p. 168); ]
Hitler was therefore convinced that the weak should be eliminated: A life not worth living.
Hitler and Nietzsche:
Every member of the Luftwaffe carried a copy of Thus Spake Zathustra, personally signed by Hitler. Have you read TSZ? Fascinating piece of work. If there is no God says Nietzsche then it is duty and destiny of the weak to die for the strong to survive (as the clown jumps over the tightrope walker and causes the tightrope walker to fall and die – but do not worry tightrope walker your place is to die for the strong…my paraphrase…but as any good researcher I advise you to read it for yourself and tell me if I have paraphrased wrong).
In fact Hitler and the Nazi’s viewed Christians as having weakened the human race ala Darwin’s comments. This led to Eugenics and the elimination of the weak to purify their race. See Ben Stein’s latest movie. It has a lot about Hitler in it.
BTW Have you ever read Mein Kampf or read about Pastor Bonhoeffer’s work against him. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietrich_Bonhoeffer
Hitler and Christianity
All of these are quotes from Adolf Hitler:
Night of 11th-12th July, 1941:
National Socialism and religion cannot exist together…. The heaviest blow that ever struck humanity was the coming of Christianity. Bolshevism is Christianity’s illegitimate child. Both are inventions of the Jew. The deliberate lie in the matter of religion was introduced into the world by Christianity…. Let it not be said that Christianity brought man the life of the soul, for that evolution was in the natural order of things. (p 6 & 7)
10th October, 1941, midday:
Christianity is a rebellion against natural law, a protest against nature. Taken to its logical extreme, Christianity would mean the systematic cultivation of the human failure. (p 43)
14th October, 1941, midday:
The best thing is to let Christianity die a natural death…. When understanding of the universe has become widespread… Christian doctrine will be convicted of absurdity…. Christianity has reached the peak of absurdity…. And that’s why someday its structure will collapse…. …the only way to get rid of Christianity is to allow it to die little by little…. Christianity the liar…. We’ll see to it that the Churches cannot spread abroad teachings in conflict with the interests of the State. (p 49-52)
19th October, 1941, night:
The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene was that it knew nothing of the two great scourges: the pox and Christianity.
13th December, 1941, midnight:
Christianity is an invention of sick brains: one could imagine nothing more senseless, nor any more indecent way of turning the idea of the Godhead into a mockery…. …. When all is said, we have no reason to wish that the Italians and Spaniards should free themselves from the drug of Christianity. Let’s be the only people who are immunised against the disease. (p 118 & 119)
14th December, 1941, midday:
Kerrl, with noblest of intentions, wanted to attempt a synthesis between National Socialism and Christianity. I don’t believe the thing’s possible, and I see the obstacle in Christianity itself…. Pure Christianity– the Christianity of the catacombs– is concerned with translating Christian doctrine into facts. It leads quite simply to the annihilation of mankind. It is merely whole-hearted Bolshevism, under a tinsel of metaphysics. (p 119 & 120)
Taken from the book Hitler’s Secret Conversations 1941-1944 published by Farrar, Straus and Young, Inc.first edition, 1953, contains definitive proof of Hitler’s real views. The book was published in Britain under the title, _Hitler’s Table Talk 1941-1944, which title was used for the Oxford University Press paperback edition in the United States.
So was Hitler a Christian?
Maybe by birth and traditions. But since when that that had any say in what he believed. No Hitler was a far and devoted Darwinist.
Christians and Atrocities
And remember we all say that any atrocity committed in the name of Christ is precisely that. An atrocity committed in violent opposition to the teachings of Christ.
Yet one cannot say that any atrocity committed is a violent opposition to Atheism. Because Atheism implies there is no standard and if there is no standard all you have is a preference. You personally may prefer that Hitler not kill anyone. But atheism has no preference. And therein lies the danger. If you have no absolute moral values you get everyone’s preferences. And mankind’s preferences without God is the law of the jungle. Kill or be killed.
I have a question I ask folks:
If there is NO absolute morality why was Hitler wrong?
But if there IS an absolute morality, why do YOU get to decide what it is and no Hitler?
To which most atheists say: “Hitler was wrong for me, but right for him.” Thus justifying that what Hitler did is justified under Atheism. No Christian would ever say that. Ever.
(Note if a Atheist says Hitler was wrong? I then ask the second part of the question: Why do you get to decide that what he did was wrong?)
Kendenny, I hope that helps clarify my views on this. Naturally I could be wrong.
Just a couple of things. There is no connection whatsoever between eugenics and the theory of evolution. That’s a nice out of context quote you have there to establish the connection. Why don’t you include the next two sentences from “Descent of Man”?
“The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly
an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally
acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered,
in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely
diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of
hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our
nature.”
Second. It is certainly arguable that Hitler was not a Christian but he most certainly was a theist as can be seen even in the quotes you provide. Also there are a number of Hitler quotes that show quite clearly that he did not accept Darwin’s theory of evolution. Here’s one from “Hitler’s Table Talk”:
“From where do we get the right to believe, that from the very beginning Man was not what he is today? Looking at Nature tells us, that in the realm of plants and animals changes and developments happen. But nowhere inside a kind shows such a development as the breadth of the jump , as Man must supposedly have made, if he has developed from an ape-like state to what he is today.”
Finally. Morality can and does exist very nicely without God. It is embedded within our very nature as human beings.
Kendenny said: There is no connection whatsoever between eugenics and the theory of evolution.
It is interesting that you claim that there is no connection between Eugenics and Darwinism. I have trouble being convinced of that. Let me show you what swayed me the other way:
1. Galton the father of Eugenics was the cousin of Darwin and says he was influenced by him. Darwin was also influenced by Galton.
2. If we look at Darwin’s full title we see: On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.
That last portion: The Preservation of Favoured Races…sounds like something out of a White Supremacist manual.
3. When Darwin published the second edition of The Descent of Man (1874), he actually added both Francis Galton’s eugenic theories and Herbert Spencer’s ‘survival of the fittest’ social philosophy to his book, calling Hereditary Genius, Galton’s treatise on the biological nature of intelligence and moral character, ‘remarkable’ and Spencer ‘our greatest philosopher’.”
Thus it seems not only was Galton influenced by Darwin but Darwin praises Galton’s work.
So I’m not sure why you say there is no connection.
In addition let me respond to that section that I did not quote: It seems to be that under the circumstances Darwin saying something is noble is meaningless. What is his standard for nobleness? We are talking about an accident of nature. What’s noble? What’s profane? What standard are you appealing to to determine that?
Kendenny said: Finally. Morality can and does exist very nicely without God. It is embedded within our very nature as human beings.
What is moral? What is not? Once we define what is moral then we can define if it is embedded in our nature.
You may also be interested in my Blog on this on the main page:
Is Morality determined by our DNA
http://crossexamined.thehuntercreative.com/?cat=16
As to Hitler being a theist, Kendenny you were the one that brought him up. I had not included him in the count of 100M in my previous post. So perhaps my post and my statement still stands:
“Chris said: When you don’t have fantasies about an afterlife, you work to make THIS life better. Atheism (lack of belief in God) makes life beautiful NOW. This is all you know for sure you have.. live it to the fullest.
Why is it then that atheistic believing regimes have been responsible for the death of almost 100M humans over a 40 year period in the last 60 years? Not to mention the continued oppression of billions. That’s not a better life. “
Neil said “Galton the father of Eugenics”. He coined the name but the concept was around for thousands of years before him. And if he was influenced by Darwin, so what. That doesn’t make Darwin’s theory responsible. It also has no bearing whatsoever on the truthfulness of Darwin’s theory.
And of course Galton never advocated murder of the “less fit. He merely proposed giving incentives for people with above average abilities to reproduce more. Galton also made a number of statistical discoveries. He was the first to describe and explain regression toward the mean. I suppose that regression toward the mean is incorrect because it was discovered by a eugenisist.
Of course Hitler took the idea of eugenics to an extreme far beyond any advocated by Galton or any of the other eugenisists. There is also well-documented proof that Hitler totally rejected Darwin’s theory.
Kendenny perhaps you can comment on my other 2 points and my final statement as well.
Thanks
OK. Your other points.
I’ll cover both of them in one sentence. Just because Darwin had some beliefs that are not in line with the way we see things today has no relevance on whether the theory of evolution is correct or not.
Your final statement is just more of the same “Morals cannot exist without God” which is 1000% wrong.
And even IF Darwin was a fervent Nazi, which he wasn’t, it has no relevance to the truthfulness of the theory of evolution. To suggest that it is is nothing more than ad hominem.
[...] on you.? You don’t have a moral obligation to chemistry. As I mentioned in an earlier post (Atheists Have No Basis for Morality), several atheists at a recent I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist event at UNC [...]
The proof is just as black and white as Good and evil God and satan . We aech have been given the same choice here , no man escapes facing this choice . No man. Those that have chosen the Good (God) chooses to reach out to those that have chosen not to follow God and those that have chosen not to follow God strive to get those following God to stop . One cares about the others enternal well being and the other just wants to lead the other to hell with them, not to be alone when they are getting what they earned in the choice they have made. Hell can be avoided ,and it wont be avoided thru denial of it . Make your choice , but know until you die You can turn to Christ .after you die its to late
How do you define “good?” Without the absolute, eternal, definative truth standard that God provides (because God’s very nature is good, and He cannot contradict His own nature), “good” is merely some individual’s or organization’s relative opinion.
Absolutely can define moral evolution. That is simple, you must have evil to understand good. Why is good a moral standard? Man has evolved for centuries fighting intimidating mastering others. Long ago, the strongest man ruled. Now its the owner of the biggest guns. Including government intimidation. Once again man evolved to that point that weapons changed the sanity factor on who pushed who around. The guns were the equalizer for more common sense engagement. still is!!!!! Chase my wife and I will kill you. Rape my family and i will kill you. Steal my horse and i will kill you.. Sets a pretty high standard for people to evolve into a more peaceful society. Lawless society was replaced with someone will pay for the crime.
Ida, how do YOU define good? If you’re just arbitrarily defining good as being ‘God’s nature’, then it’s a pretty meaningless concept.
Are you saying God is powerless to contradict his own nature? Then he cannot be all-powerfull.
Can you think of an action that God would not be able to do due to its immoral nature? In other words, an action that – were he do it – would stop him being good by nature? If you can’t, then you’re basically saying that anything God does is by definition good, regardless of what it was. Theoretically then, God could appear on earth and then go on a raping and pillaging scourge, and you would still brand him good. If so, the term ‘Good’ becomes meaningless, given that it could encompass any act at all.
(because God’s very nature is good, and He cannot contradict His own nature)
Interesting how this very idea was formulated by man to explain the inconsistency in the Bible.
Still reminds me of the old Adam West Batman show….”Quick! Use the anti-(whatever weapon the bad guy is using today) (spray/pill/gun/vehicle)!”
I don’t care what reasons you guys make up for God’s nature being totally awesome. I have no beef with you believing whatever excuse you head can come up with to make you believe that. I’m more interested in how you would justify those excuses in such a way that they hold up once they come out of your mouth (or your fingers, in the case of this forum~).
‘Good’ becomes meaningless, given that it could encompass any act at all.
“Good” in CEnglish is meaningless; it means “Godlike.”
See, they say God’s nature is unchanging, and that’s supposed to be the failsafe for when a critical thinker raises the issue of, “well, what if God does (insert offensive action here, such as mass infanticide or abortions)? Would that make (said act) “good?” The Christian can normally just respond, “Well, God’s nature is solid and unchanging, and so he can’t do something if it’s wrong. So anything He does, we know is good.”
The problem with that is, they also say that God acts in this world; in order to act, one must change. That is the definition of acting; you cannot use the word “act” in a literal sense (i.e. to act out, to perform an action) without referring to some sort of change or evolution. When you lift your finger, your finger is no longer in the same place as it was before you lifted it; the alignment of your finger within space has changed. If God was truly unchanging, then He could not act, because to act would constitute some form of change. Also, acting implies directions, which imply possibility; if you move upward, then it is also theoretically possible to move downward (unless something is physically blocking your way; but even in that case, there still exists a direction called “down” in which you could travel, were something not blocking your way). So if God can act and perform good, then He can also (by virtue of acting “up,” so to speak), even if only theoretically, perform evil. You might be able to argue that He “wouldn’t,” but that’s another case altogether; the case that He can’t simply isn’t acceptable. It makes no sense.
Bottom line: God cannot be both unchanging and “actful.” He either acts, or He is unchanging. Thus, the response is defeated soundly.
P.S.
The dumbed-down version:
If God can act, then he can change (as well as elicit change in objects). If anything can act in one direction, then it can also act in other directions whose existences are implied by the presence of that first direction (such as “up” and “down,” or “forward” and “backward”). So it follows that if God can do good, then He can also do evil. So what we have is this:
Q) What is good?
-) Whatever God does.
Q) What about God’s action makes it good?
-) The fact that God does it.
Therefore; if God does it, that makes it good, because “God did it” is the definition of “good.”
Q) So….since God can do actions that are “good” in the sense of “kind, loving, generous,” etc…..then we can take the opposite of those actions, assuming that the opposite of “good” is “evil,” and we can assume that God can do those, as well.
-) But if He did those actions, they would be “good,” not “evil.” Because God did them, and that defines them as good.
So even if we do accept the definition of “good” as “What God does,” we still have a loophole. God can still decide to order six men to skin a child alive in the woods somewhere, sit on a couch in Heaven somewhere with a bag of Dorito’s, pointing and laughing as though He were watching a particularly funny TV show, and that would be just perfect, and no Christian would have any moral standing to oppose or be disgusted by that action.
Thus, as far as I am concerned, the rationality behind this definition of “good” is completely bogus. I cannot and will not accept it, because there are certain actions in this world that I will always be opposed to (such as torture, or the live skinning of innocent children….or anyone, for that matter) that I would not accept as good, even if God performed them (or ordered me to do so, were He to actually exist).
Tim,
God is good. He would not tell six men to skin a child ( you know the rest of the sick description you told). God is far above our thoughts and our ways; therefore He does not ‘think’ like a human. Therefore, there is no opposite action with God – he only does good because it is his nature to do good. What may not look good to us in our finite state is good in God’s infinite state. There is no evil in God.
He has always given man a choice. Even in the garden of Eden man was given a choice. For true fellowship with God man must be free to reject that fellowship; which he did reject.
God also allows us to make choices in the world that we live as well. The choices we make are not always ‘good’ but that has nothing to do with God; we are fallen people. The evil did not come from him. We chose it. So for you to presume that God is saying all that happens in the world is good is not so. He is very sad about the things we humans do.
[...] I mentioned in an earlier post (Atheists Have No Basis for Morality), several atheists at a recent I Don’t Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist event at UNC Wilmington [...]
First off, the non-moral arguments purporting to demonstrate the existence of a deity are red herrings. The question here is whether or not it is rationally consistent to hold to the position that objective moral values exist while God does not.
Next, you have failed to define what qualifies as a “basis” “ground” or “foundation” for morality. Most proponents of the axiological argument seem to pre-suppose only a deity could qualify, which begs the question. And when we use terms like “basis” “ground” or “foundation” we are usually speaking about epistemology rather than ontology, which you explicitly state in your post is not the issue you are addressing.
Also, it makes no sense to insist that everything have a “basis” or “ground”. If you do not allow exceptions, we have an infinite regress problem. If you do allow exceptions (such as God’s nature) you must give a non-question-begging argument for your position as to what can be an exception and why, or you can be accused of Special pleading. Assertions like “it must be personal” are just that, assertions. They do not convince an intellectually keen atheist.
I’m quite a bit late to this blog post, but I wanted to point out that Robert Wright presents a powerful case for the naturalistic evolution of human morality in his book, “The Moral Animal.” Specifically he presents a case for the evolution of altruism, which is easily the most problematic facet of morality to justify from a materialist world view.
In my opinion, anyone who hopes to successfully challenge the materialist view on morality must be familiar with Wright’s arguments and be prepared to answer them.
Altruism is actually self-beneficial in a lot of ways.