Religion Does Not Poison Everything by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 02/26/2008 at 11:29 AM

In his book God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens says, "Religion poisons everything." Touchstone writer Logan Paul Gage set out to test the accuracy of Hitchens's claim. Do the religious really have a negative impact on society? The answer is no. In fact, it's the opposite. For starters, regular church attenders are more likely to do good -- particularly men.

According to the 2002–2004 GSS, for every 100 altruistic acts—like giving blood or letting someone ahead of you in the checkout line—performed by nonreligious people, the religious perform 144.

Volunteerism also benefits from religion, according to Baylor's Christopher Bader and F. Carson Mencken (finally, a religion-friendly Mencken), who cited the Baylor Religion Survey. Weekly church attendees volunteer more often in their communities, both through the church and through secular organizations.

The correlation is most striking among men. The volunteer rate for weekly-attending men is nearly ten percent higher than for weekly-attending women, whereas on the whole women volunteer much more than men. And while income has very little connection with volunteering, among those with higher incomes (i.e., a family income of $100,000 or more), weekly attendance noticeably correlates with volunteerism.

Studies show that regular church attendance has a stronger tie to volunteerism than education, income or class. Additionally, the religious exhibit more ethical behavior.

For nearly 40 years, psychologists and sociologists have studied the connection between religion and various negative outcomes in adolescents. According to one meta-study (a study of the studies), 97 percent of studies found a negative relationship between religion and sexual activity; 94 percent claimed a negative link between alcohol use and religion; and 87 percent alleged a negative correlation between suicide and religion.

Using a sophisticated methodology, Pennsylvania State's Jeffery Ulmer, Purdue's Scott Desmond, and Baylor's Christopher Bader tried to answer  why religion tends to inhibit delinquency. Following psychological research showing that self-control is like a muscle, which will grow or atrophy with use or disuse, they concluded that religious observance inhibits deviant behavior in two ways: It increases individuals' self-control, and it provides moral norms. Religious youth display higher self-control against cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than their nonreligious peers.

Clearly religion does not poison society as Hitchens would have us believe. In my article "Hypocrite," I considered this same question. Some of my unbelieving friends try to convince me that Christianity is fake, oppressive and bad for society. The truth is religion -- and faith in Christ specifically -- produces good fruit; it's hypocrisy that does the damage.

Religion Does Not Poison Everything by Suzanne Hadley Gosselin on 02/26/2008 at 11:29 AM

In his book God is Not Great, Christopher Hitchens says, "Religion poisons everything." Touchstone writer Logan Paul Gage set out to test the accuracy of Hitchens's claim. Do the religious really have a negative impact on society? The answer is no. In fact, it's the opposite. For starters, regular church attenders are more likely to do good -- particularly men.

According to the 2002–2004 GSS, for every 100 altruistic acts—like giving blood or letting someone ahead of you in the checkout line—performed by nonreligious people, the religious perform 144.

Volunteerism also benefits from religion, according to Baylor's Christopher Bader and F. Carson Mencken (finally, a religion-friendly Mencken), who cited the Baylor Religion Survey. Weekly church attendees volunteer more often in their communities, both through the church and through secular organizations.

The correlation is most striking among men. The volunteer rate for weekly-attending men is nearly ten percent higher than for weekly-attending women, whereas on the whole women volunteer much more than men. And while income has very little connection with volunteering, among those with higher incomes (i.e., a family income of $100,000 or more), weekly attendance noticeably correlates with volunteerism.

Studies show that regular church attendance has a stronger tie to volunteerism than education, income or class. Additionally, the religious exhibit more ethical behavior.

For nearly 40 years, psychologists and sociologists have studied the connection between religion and various negative outcomes in adolescents. According to one meta-study (a study of the studies), 97 percent of studies found a negative relationship between religion and sexual activity; 94 percent claimed a negative link between alcohol use and religion; and 87 percent alleged a negative correlation between suicide and religion.

Using a sophisticated methodology, Pennsylvania State's Jeffery Ulmer, Purdue's Scott Desmond, and Baylor's Christopher Bader tried to answer  why religion tends to inhibit delinquency. Following psychological research showing that self-control is like a muscle, which will grow or atrophy with use or disuse, they concluded that religious observance inhibits deviant behavior in two ways: It increases individuals' self-control, and it provides moral norms. Religious youth display higher self-control against cigarettes, alcohol, and marijuana than their nonreligious peers.

Clearly religion does not poison society as Hitchens would have us believe. In my article "Hypocrite," I considered this same question. Some of my unbelieving friends try to convince me that Christianity is fake, oppressive and bad for society. The truth is religion -- and faith in Christ specifically -- produces good fruit; it's hypocrisy that does the damage.

Comments

[1. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:20 PM on Feb 26:]

1

Suzanne:

Vox Day, in his recent book The Irrational Atheist, provided a very systematic, methodical smackdown of Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins on that front.

And he did it using everything from FBI uniform crime statistics, historical records, and empirical studies.

Granted, he's outside the typical theological box, but his is perhaps the best rebuttal to the Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris trinity in print.

[2. Christina said the following at 12:35 PM on Feb 26:]

2

That's good to know.

But what about religion on a personal and relational level? Yeah, society as a whole is better off with Christianity/Religion, but how is it when trying to interact on a relational level with other people?

[3. Sara said the following at 1:14 PM on Feb 26:]

3

I would argue that the discrete acts of volunteerism by churchgoing individuals aren't as effective as the programs of liberal governments who conservative Christians tend to keep out of office.

Christina, good question. I've read many psychologists who say things like, "I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the Catholic Church", and so on. Too often, the price for that self-control is guilt and repression. And then there's the divorce statistics, and the nasty events in Christian history we'd rather forget, and so on.

[4. Kelley said the following at 5:57 PM on Feb 26:]

4

There are terrible historic events that were done in the name of religion, but I don't think we should overlook the risks taken by those who would identify themselves as true believers against those acts. I'm thinking of Corrie ten Boom and her family hiding Jews during WWII and the christians who were conductors on the Underground Railroad. Those are just a few among many others.

[5. Amanda said the following at 6:23 PM on Feb 26:]

5

To Christina (2):

If I understand correctly, Christina, you’re raising a question about how religion affects relationships. It is an important question. From your wording, I infer that you believe Christianity/Religion has had a less-than-positive effect on them. But I’d rather hear from you than make inferences. What are your personal observations on the matter?

To Sara (3):

Although I think your first point is worth a discussion, I am probably not knowledgeable enough to be the one to discuss it. But about your second point—you bring up something that I think is important: Christian “failure.” But your comment left me hanging—I’m curious about your conclusions. In other words, I see it as a question of “Does Christianity work?” Looking at the “credits” and “debits,” so to speak, what is your estimation of the sum?

[6. Nate said the following at 10:28 PM on Feb 26:]

6

Sara (3),

A close reading of history will reveal that the programs of "liberal" governments are actually based on the teachings of Christ. The concept of caring for the poor, women's rights, looking after the welfare of widows and orphans, etc. all have their origin in Christ. When the Church comes alive, government programs become unnecessary. One example of this was hurricane Katrina. The Church responded almost immediately and with such efficiency that it put government agencies to shame.

To address your second point, I'm sure there are many religious people who are repressed. But, there is a world of difference between religion and a relationship with Jesus Christ. Jesus said He came to give his followers freedom and abundant life. You can't get that from following rules, but you can get it from a living, interactive relationship with the author of life.

Also, most psychological studies in the last couple decades have served to affirm the teachings of Jesus. (For example, Jesus' teachings on worry.) Repression doesn't come from following Christ's teachings, but from ignoring them.

[7. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 11:18 PM on Feb 26:]

7

If religion is so great, and causes people to do good things... then why is the perception of it the opposite?

[8. Jen said the following at 4:19 AM on Feb 27:]

8

In response to Christina's comment, I think Christianity can greatly enhance relationships (it has tremendously enhanced my own). We are called to be humble, patient, loving, and other-centered; studies have shown that altruistic marriages are happier, and all of these things are important in a healthy relationship. We are also admonished not to be proud and arrogant or to harbor bitterness or keep a record of past wrongs, or to be deceitful or to gossip, all things which can contribute to serious problems in any relationship. But all of us struggle with these things and no one can do all of them all of the time, and I could see our struggles with these things causing difficulties.

In response to Sara's first comment, that is something I used to believe myself but not only have not seen much evidence that many of them work (with the possible exception of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which I think is a great idea), but that there is evidence to suggest they can do more harm than good; welfare is a particularly tragic example; also, historians have shown that many of FDR's programs made the Great Depression worse than it had to be. Such programs tend to look at things and try to solve things in a very materialistic manner, while not always able to deal with or aware of non-material issues and things deeply rooted in human nature (such as the fact that stable families are intimately tied with the well-being of individuals and society as a whole). Volunteer efforts by churches, communities, and individuals, however, are better equipped to deal with these non-material issues because they can connect with people and deal with them face-to-face; they can tell when people need material support and when people need other kinds of help. People who know you and love you-family members, neighbors, fellow church members-are going to do a much better job of caring for you than people who don't, and that's one reason many of us believe that strong family and community ties are vital to the well-being of people and to society, and that government programs tend to weaken these ties, which has not been good for us. I should also point out that many of us recognize the problems of our current economic situation and wish for a more humane economy; if we do not embrace left-liberal solutions it is because we believe they does not work/are contrary to the common good, not because we wish to maintain ideological purity at all costs. I could actually go on for quite some time with this, but this is probably already getting too long.

I should mention some history here; back in Roman times, Christians were pretty much the only people taking care of the poor and sick; with the exception of the Jewish people it was very uncommon in the ancient world. The Roman government started doing more for the poor just to compete with the Christians. In the Middle Ages, the desperately poor were taken care of by monks in monastaries. After Henry VIII shut many of them down, the poor were released into society and left on their own, and since then we have not come up with a way of caring for them as effective and humane as the monastaries were. I should also mention that the Middle Ages is one of the most misunderstood periods in history and that much good happened as a result of Christians during that time (hospitals, universities, inventions, more humane ways of fighting wars, the civilization of once violent peoples, the scientific method, the preservation of classical texts), and that, the more maligned aspects of it, while some of the things done were wicked and inexcusable, tend to be misunderstood/not examined in the context of that time and exaggerated, do not follow from Christian principles, and pale in comparison to the horrors of the 20th century.

To Sara's second comment, I do not really see that there is a problem with self-control if it means trying to do the right thing/avoid sin. Morality is not arbitrary; it is rooted in God's goodness and we do what is right out of love for God and our neighbors. Certainly Christians have not always done a good job in the past of conveying this, but this has changed quite a bit-a good example is JPII's Theology of the Body, which explains many Catholic teachings with great depth and clarity. And from a more secular standpoint, what people take for granted is that such self-control is what sustains civilization and, though it may seem paradoxical, liberty. When people do not control themselves, when we let our appetites and passions-our greed, lust, anger, etc., control us (and it is human nature that we will) it becomes more dangerous, volatile, and instable, and starts to effect people in a way that requires greater policing and more and tougher laws-that is, less liberty. And what many don't realize is just how much people, especially extroverts, are influenced by others and by the culture around them. If they see others engaging harmful/reckless/irresponsible behavior, if they see it being promoted, and there is no sense of guilt, no shame, no caring friends and neighbors willing stop them or discourage them, they may very well too. And it is the poor and less educated who stand the most to lose. The abandonment of virtue, of customs and mores like selflessness, frugality, chastity, patience (which make civilization possible for many reasons) and others has had a very negative economic impact on them, and a sometimes terrible emotional and spiritual impact on all of us. Guilt and shame are not bad things if they are properly ordered reactions to things that actually are wrong, and they are an incredibly small price to pay for liberty, civilization, and well-being.

[9. Erin said the following at 4:36 AM on Feb 27:]

9

Christianity is reviled as poison by so many not because it IS poison, but because it points out all of the nastiness in ourselves. Sin seeks to destroy us..slowly. Like an excruciatingly slow acting poison. But when everyone around us is dying of the same condition, then we can conclude that there is nothing wrong, and that everything is 'normal.'
When people are personally convicted by Christianity, they see the poision, and try to blame religion.

[10. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:52 AM on Feb 27:]

10

Erin: I absolutely agree.

At the end of the day, people generally accept religion, as long as it does not buck society. In other words, as long as religion affirms people, promotes "societal unity" and pluralism, and does not confront the modus operandi of the world, the world does not have a problem with religion.

On the other hand, religion that confronts the human condition, tells you that the only hope for humanity rests in the grace of a supernatural entity Whose favor we cannot earn, demands allegiance to a power higher than any human ruler, and tells us that the sum total of all our greatest achievements is good enough to land us in hell, is enough to drive the world to declare war against it.

Still, such religion has had a peculiarly sanitizing effect on the human race, as the Christian is responsible for the first universities, the first hospitals, the abolition of slavery in the West, the leader in providing charitable services to the poor, and the leader in the fight against human trafficking.

[11. Sara said the following at 1:44 PM on Feb 27:]

11

To all you who say that caring for the poor, women's rights, etc. etc. are rooted in Christianity, you're about 300 years out of date. Modern ethics philosophy is based on totally extra-relgious grounds like utilitarianism, or respect for human beings' rational nature; things like that, not a belief in God.

"When the Church comes alive, government programs become unnecessary" :

Two thousand years later we've proved what a solid hope that is. Maybe it will happen if we give it 3000 years? Human beings are by nature free-riders. Charity does good, but it can never do all the things we hope, especially large-scale projects like, say, research, unless it's coordinated, and unless everyone is forced to contribute (like through taxes). Why? Because look at this:

say there's a large-scale cause you value above all else that won't work unless many people contribute along with you. There are also lesser, more short-lived projects you could do on your own. Unless you can be SURE that others will help you with the greater cause, it's a *more rational choice* for you to give to the lesser cause because that's the only way you can know your money won't be wasted.

Add to that the tendency for humans to increasingly free-ride relative to the number of other people they think are available to contribute, and you see why private charity will never cut it on its own.

Some beneficiance must be enforced if we want to maximize the 'power of love' (for all you ardent Celine Dion fans)

[12. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:16 PM on Feb 27:]

12

With all due respect Sara, the empirical evidence is at variance with your claims. Religious conservatives are more charitable--fourfold more so--than their liberal, secular counterparts. (Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University has provided that in very stark detail for the whole world to see.)

Charity is not a secular value; in fact, it's the other way around: eugenics and genocide are secular values tied directly to reform Darwinism whereas Christians have led the way in terms of charitable efforts.

Even the United Nations--through its "population control" programs (read: incentive-based sterilization and abortion)--is a leading promoter of eugenics.

To the secularist, compassion is neither logically nor morally necessary. To the Christian, they are obligatory.

In fact, the Darwinian/utilitarian paradigm--a product of secular throught--makes eugenics and genocide of poorer, less-intelligent, and net consumers a more moral option, if God is left out of the equation.

As for so-called "women's rights", that is just another modern-day code word for more abortions. Ergo, even "women's rights" is an affirmation of mass murder.

[13. Sara said the following at 4:18 PM on Feb 27:]

13

"Guilt and shame are not bad things if they are properly ordered reactions to things that actually are wrong, and they are an incredibly small price to pay for liberty, civilization, and well-being."

Even setting aside my own preference for governing people through incentives, not shame--like making gasoline cost ten bucks a gallon instead of urging them to 'save the planet'--, and assuming that you're right, I would still argue that the most gentle AND effective shame is non-religious shame because of what I'll call the middleman problem, with God being the time- and energy-wasting middleman (bear with me here).

It's important to look at how Christianity affects the morality of *specific types of personalities*, because if Christianity doesn't work well in imperfect people, it doens't work well, period. If it's only good in theory, all it's good for is art.

Let's take.... me, for an example. I'm fairly obsessive and introverted, and when I was a Christian that translated into me spending huge amounts of time worrying/praying (whatever you want to call it) about my attitudes, and whether they were full enough of lovejoypeacepatiencekindnesssgoodndsdfksjhlf; and fine-tooth-combing my motivations for everything; and writhing on the floor over my inescapable pride; and above all concerning myself with correctly receiving grace (ha), and my 'personal relationship with God'.

Here's the kicker: all of this without leaving my room, while the real problems of the world weren't benefiting in the least! Non-Christian do-gooders can skip all of this and get right to figuring out what action they should take.

(You say that people like me miss the point; that we were freed from condemnation and judgment when we received the God’s mercy in the cleansing blood of Jesus on Calvary? How often do Christians who earnestly seek to receive this feeling of liberation actually succeed? Too few for me to believe that that doctrine, however appealing in theory, is actually effective and useful in practice. In general, it seems that Christians who aren’t troubled by guilt are that way by nature.)

[just to clarify, these arguments aren’t why I reject Christianity]

[14. Yipeng said the following at 4:22 PM on Feb 27:]

14

Erin: Great thought!

The depth of sinfulness of sin...
Have you realised how much the truth is staring at us? Its straight out of the bible as Jesus said it wld be.

John 15:18-19,22,24

"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you... I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

If I had not come and spoken to them... If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well."

The world hates God because he is the good righteous Judge, if we would just plead guilty we cld accept Jesus as our Saviour but we do not because we refuse to recognize him as King.

I use "we" as though I speak for the human race.

[15. Sara said the following at 5:12 PM on Feb 27:]

15

Amir,

Yes, conservative Christians give more to charity via private contributions. In the last 3 paragraphs of my #12 post I argue that these private contributions aren’t enough.

“Charity is not a secular value”??? Show me one non-sociopathic non-Christian other than Ayn Rand who would agree with you.

“To the secularist, compassion is neither logically nor morally necessary. To the Christian, they are obligatory.” I’m an atheist, and I think compassion is logically and morally necessary because it helps us live together peacefully. Your criticisms of non-Christians are valid in the same way my pointing out the evils of the Crusades and the Inquisition are valid: they don’t tell the whole story.

“Women’s rights are a code for abortion”? How do you feel about honor killing, foot binding, burkas, female genital mutilation, pornography, aborting girl babies, sex slavery, and on and on… All misplaced feminist concerns?

I’m with you in being against incentive-based sterilization and using abortion as a birth control, but do you know what factor most closely correlates with lowering birthrates? It’s the education of girls and women.

[16. Katie B said the following at 5:18 PM on Feb 27:]

16

Erin (#9) I agree with you.... in theory. I agree that religion based on the truth that there is terrible spiritual, moral and emotional decay that can only be restored and regenerated through the work of a all powerful, all loving God and savior, will rub people the wrong way if they are deep in bondage and/or enjoying their 'liberties' and 'pleasures'.

However, that has not been my, nor many other actual experience of the church. Judgment runs amok, selective morality (i.e. we condemn the unwed mother, but not those who gossip about her) is norm, and programs and slick marketing have taken the mission away from the church and made the church the mission. that is poisonous.

[17. Rachael said the following at 5:56 PM on Feb 27:]

17

Hi Sara,

Would love to talk with you instead of post a comment to you, but, for what it's worth...

I'd be curious to know why you reject Christianity.

About guilt...my opinion is that more people are plagued (or slightly plagued) by this than what meets the eye. And if they're not plagued by guilt, likely they have some other life difficuty(s). The deeper I get to know people, the more I see or become aware of their struggles. This world is full of uglies.

Back to guilt, though. I used to have an extremely sensitive conscience about small things, and I still do to an extent, but it seems to have toned down tremendously.

Did your difficulty lie between understanding how to rest in God's grace and knowing how much to struggle in your efforts to serve Him? We may never fully be able to understand exactly how it works; and there does indeed seem to be something paradoxical about the two. How can they both work?

...It's important to understand that salvation comes by grace, through believing that Jesus has paid the price through His death on the cross for the sinners who place their trust on Him. Likely you're familiar with this idea.

There's nothing we can do to save ourselves; we're profoundly powerless. But...He has *conquered* death and is alive today! Yes, we are powerless. But HE has power, and, the *same* Spirit who raised Christ from the dead lives in people who trust in Him for their salvation. (see Rom. 8:11) The Spirit helps develop our character and fruits. I love a passage in 2 Peter 1 where the author, after talking about great qualities, in vs. 9 points out that people who lack those qualities have "forgotten that [they] was cleansed from [their] former sins."
There's something powerful in remembering forgiveness. I hope to reflect upon this more often.

All good in theory, right? You mention liberation and theory vs. practice.

I guess to that I'd say, in my opinion, the Christian walk isn't equivalent to a 24-7 feeling of liberation. Perhaps some would disagree with me. There are many passages in the Bible that talk about the difficulties, the endurance, the race, the fight, the trial...Do Christians always *feel* liberated in all those times? My guess is that they don't.

In my case, I think hope is more deeply engrained into my heart than liberation. There's something comforting and assuring about having this hope. And that in a sense is liberating...even when the rains come down strong. There is hope for this life and the next. If I didn't bank my hope on Christ I might feel empty and wonder about the meaning of life.

To end on a positive note, it seems you care about governements making a positive impact on the community. Just wanted to say, that's great that you seem to care for those in need...

[18. Rachael said the following at 6:31 PM on Feb 27:]

18

P.S. Sara, though you point out that the issues of guilt, etc., aren't the reasons for your rejection of Christianity, I'd still like to mention one more thing. Probably others on here or/and you know more about Luther than myself, but, he had an extreme conscience, but later discovered that righteousness comes through faith. You can check out Luther's testimony here if you like: http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mlconversion.htm

Perhaps meditating on the book of Romans and verses of salvation would be good for all of us to do more often, to remember forgiveness and the power of Him who saves, indwells, and grows...

[19. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:41 AM on Feb 28:]

19

Sara says:
Yes, conservative Christians give more to charity via private contributions. In the last 3 paragraphs of my #12 post I argue that these private contributions aren’t enough.

Enough to do what? Quite frankly, if we didn't lose over half our paychecks to taxes, private charitable contributions would be much higher, and such contributions carry more bang for the buck than those which go to governmental enterprises, which are notorious for their inefficiencies.

Moreover, this governmental experiment with the Bismarckian welfare state has had little effect on poverty. Fact is, poverty rates have been stable since 1975, rising during times of recession and falling during times of prosperity.

In fact, one could make the case that welfare reform and free markets--staples of conservatism that have been the direction of America since 1981--have done more to keep poverty down and prosperity up than any governmental efforts.

Sara continues: “Charity is not a secular value”??? Show me one non-sociopathic non-Christian other than Ayn Rand who would agree with you.

In a secular framework, charity is neither morally nor logically necessary. This is not to say that atheists are not compassionate; I know many who are. However, their compassion is hardly a product of their atheism.

Sara continues: I’m an atheist, and I think compassion is logically and morally necessary because it helps us live together peacefully.

Peace is neither morally nor logically necessary in an Atheist framework. After all, take God out of the equation and morality is merely a question of who has the better artillery.

Fact is, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot--atheists all-- slaughtered millions of their own people in pursuit of "peaceful", communist Utopia.

While we would both agree that they were evil, your framework leaves no objective basis to conclude so.

It's not about what you "think" about morality, or even whether you are a moral or ethical person yourself. However, your secular framework demands none of that from you.

Sara continues: Your criticisms of non-Christians are valid in the same way my pointing out the evils of the Crusades and the Inquisition are valid: they don’t tell the whole story.

While there is no Christian defense of the Inquisition or the Crusades, your argument fails on a couple of points:

(1) In a secular framework, there is no moral basis to condemn the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, in historical context those were quite benign. The Crusades were merely a more barbaric version of today's neoconservative agenda--and were in fact quite mild for their time.

(I would also submit that our military efforts in the Middle East and Afghanistan--irrespective of where one stands on their legitimacy--are also quite humane by any historical metric, to include World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.)

Moreover, as I have pointed out on other threads, the annual execution rate during the Spanish Inquisition was lower than that of the state of Texas.

(2) The second issue is one of scope. Every implementation of secular Utopia has been a grand disaster in both humanitarian and economic terms. We're talking tens of millions of dead.

Less than ten percent of all wars in world history have had anything to do with religion, and if you add up all the carnage committed in the name of Christianity, it is a Sunday School picnic next to the mass carnage of Atheist regimes.

Sara continues: “Women’s rights are a code for abortion”? How do you feel about honor killing, foot binding, burkas, female genital mutilation, pornography, aborting girl babies, sex slavery, and on and on… All misplaced feminist concerns?

I'm against all those things too, but in a secular framework, opposition to those things is hardly a moral necessity any more than opposition to eugenics is.

(In fact, in a purely secular framework, there is an ample case to be made for eugenics.)

Moreover, the feminist establishment could care less what a candidate thinks of these issues: unless a candidate supports abortion rights, they are "anti-choice extremists".

Sara continues: I’m with you in being against incentive-based sterilization and using abortion as a birth control, but do you know what factor most closely correlates with lowering birthrates? It’s the education of girls and women.

The issue is "education" in what? Feminism? Women's studies? Social dogmas of the left? Of course education in each of those arenas would be conducive to lower birth rates, as that is a societal goal of the secularist. And Western Civilization is worse off for those things, as SAT scores are lower today than they were 40 years ago.

In fact, the low birth rate--lauded by feminists--is leading is into a demographic quagmire that is only starting to materialize. As the number of retirees begins to overtake those working and producing value for the economy, you will see the telos of secular, utilitarian thought in the form of active euthanasia.

You could certainly find yourself on the receiving end of that needle...

[20. Eliza said the following at 11:07 AM on Feb 28:]

20

I am not an atheist, but I feel compelled to argue on Sara's behalf.

">http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/02/religion-does-n.html#comment-105017886"> Amir said: In a secular framework, charity is neither morally nor logically necessary. This is not to say that atheists are not compassionate; I know many who are. However, their compassion is hardly a product of their atheism.

"Atheism" does not automatically equate "amorality". I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who see no reason for morality because there is no God, but I haven't met any of them. On the contrary, all the atheists I know have very strong ethical and moral standards, which fit nicely into their secular humanist worldview. Compassion is essentially empathy, which is a natural response to recognizing the inherent humanity of another person. Secular ethics are typically based on the Golden Rule, which can logically be argued is a smart evolutionary standard. Consistently caring for oneself and one's neighbor falls neatly within a worldview which values human life and accomplishment over all. Peace and civility is indeed required by such a framework.

While there is no Christian defense of the Inquisition or the Crusades, your argument fails on a couple of points:

1) I have never heard the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades called "mild". That statement is extremely inaccurate, regardless of whatever other atrocities anyone else committed. Just because Joe doesn't torture people as badly as Tom doesn't make what Joe does "mild".

2) Like Sara said, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hiter, etc. are not the whole atheist story. They were insane megalomaniacs and do not represent Sara's or any other atheists' perspective, just like a Christian would not like to be represented by leaders of the Crusades.

Moreover, the feminist establishment could care less what a candidate thinks of these issues: unless a candidate supports abortion rights, they are "anti-choice extremists".

"Feminism" is a lot more nuanced than that. There are loud-mouths in every camp who make their cohorts cringe, but people who label all pro-lifers as "anti-choice extremists" in no way speak for the entire feminist movement. Feminism is about respect for women, period. There is a lot of discussion about what that should mean, and many feminists vehemently disagree even with one another. Lumping "feminist agenda" all under one cliché umbrella is to mischaracterize and diminish the phenomenal contributions the feminist movement has made in western society.

And SAT scores do not actually report true educational status. They are artificial and mostly arbitrary, which is leading several liberal arts colleges to drop that requirement altogether. Education of women (meaning simply "literacy") is, I think, the defining skill Sara is talking about.

Again, I am not an atheist, but there is as much logic to an atheist's "faith" as their is to Christianity.

[21. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:16 AM on Feb 28:]

21

Sara says: "When the Church comes alive, government programs become unnecessary" :

Two thousand years later we've proved what a solid hope that is. Maybe it will happen if we give it 3000 years? Human beings are by nature free-riders. Charity does good, but it can never do all the things we hope, especially large-scale projects like, say, research, unless it's coordinated, and unless everyone is forced to contribute (like through taxes). Why? Because look at this:

say there's a large-scale cause you value above all else that won't work unless many people contribute along with you. There are also lesser, more short-lived projects you could do on your own. Unless you can be SURE that others will help you with the greater cause, it's a *more rational choice* for you to give to the lesser cause because that's the only way you can know your money won't be wasted.

Sara, that's why we have markets. In general, the free market is rational, as investors can determine which "research projects" are worth pursuing and which are not. While this is hardly a perfect system, it sure beats the heck out of a governmental system that has no accountability to anyone.

And that's the problem with these big government enterprises: accountability, or lack thereof. You say "research" in the same posting that you cite "utilitarian" ethics. Do you have any idea what can of worms you are opening?

Who decides what research projects ought to be pursued, and on what bases? I can legitimize any research project--however abusive it may be--in the name of "progress" and "utilitarian" ethics. This is because in a utilitarian framework, we have a real-life Animal Farm in which "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Do we pay women to breed so we can abort the children and harvest the tissue for "research"? In an Atheist framework, there is no compelling reason to prohibit this practice.

Do we take foster children and use experimental drugs to sedate them? In an Atheist framework, we have no compelling reason to prohibit this, and in fact this has been practiced here. (We have done this. Don't believe me? Google "Chemical straitjackets")

Do we take military Special Forces operators and subject them to medical experimentation such as "blood doping"? (We have done this.)

How about allowing "researchers" to molest children just to study sexual responses? (We have done this, too.)

In your utilitarian framework, government holds all the cards and has little--if any--accountability. Government workers--especially at the federal level--almost never have to face the music when they commit atrocities against the American people.

Besides, in your framework, there is no moral case against government atrocities, as anything they do--no matter how evil--is construable as "pursuit of the best interests of the people."

[22. Sara said the following at 11:44 AM on Feb 28:]

22

Rachel,
that's funny: I swear I just handed in an essay this Tuesday written solely about Luther's conversion experience! Maybe not too-too surprising; it's a big event in Western history.

(As a freak-show side note, if you're into Martin Luther, check out Erik Erikson and others' take on Luther's conversion: some believe it was all about Luther's anal retentiveness and that Luther's sudden release from guilt coincided with his sudden release from a bout of constipation! Of course it's historically questionable, but it's interestingly conherent when you read about it. Erikson wrote 'Young Man Luther'. [Robert Coles did a great biography of Erik Erikson so that's why I know of him.])

Amir,
as I understand it, what's behind your main arguments is the point that athiests aren't forced by their atheism alone to be charitable. That's true, I agree with that. But neither is someone who believes in a God forced by their belief in Him alone to be charitable. The decision to enter into a Christian relationship with God and to be charitable is analogous to the decision made by some atheists on non-Christian philosophical grounds to be charitable.

I can't believe you think there's no secular basis for condemning genocide. What about simply the 'belief' that unnecessary pain is bad and ought to be prevented? That's just to begin with, without getting philosophical at all. Apart from logic and reasoning, altruism can make good evolutionary sense. The 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' kind of idea, or in less reciprocal cases, as a kind of insurance policy, or because (at least with humans) it makes me feel good to help other people, and any other number of non-religious reasons.

About the economic and distributive justice things, we just don't agree. I'm not a communist, for what it's worth, though I'm certainly not a libertarian either.

[23. Sara said the following at 11:50 AM on Feb 28:]

23

(sorry, just missed your post)
Amir, I don't go for strict utilitarianism, either: I was just using that as an example.

Eliza puts it better than me.

[24. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:02 PM on Feb 28:]

24

Eliza says:
"Atheism" does not automatically equate "amorality". I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who see no reason for morality because there is no God, but I haven't met any of them. On the contrary, all the atheists I know have very strong ethical and moral standards, which fit nicely into their secular humanist worldview.

Your reasoning is failing in that you are trying to impute the particular (I know atheists who are moral) on the general (therefore atheism is moral)

That there are moral atheists does not imply that Atheism requires morality. In fact, Atheism demands none of that, as Atheism provides no objective basis for morality.

Eliza continues: Compassion is essentially empathy, which is a natural response to recognizing the inherent humanity of another person. Secular ethics are typically based on the Golden Rule, which can logically be argued is a smart evolutionary standard. Consistently caring for oneself and one's neighbor falls neatly within a worldview which values human life and accomplishment over all. Peace and civility is indeed required by such a framework.

No it is not. Atheism makes no claim to value with respect to human life, as such respect is not a logical necessity. In fact, using government to impose societal transformation--which almost always results in mass murder--is a hallmark of Atheist regimes. To such leaders, the mass death amounts to cracking eggs to make a proverbial omelet.

1) I have never heard the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades called "mild". That statement is extremely inaccurate, regardless of whatever other atrocities anyone else committed. Just because Joe doesn't torture people as badly as Tom doesn't make what Joe does "mild".

I said "mild for its time", not "mild". I have no qualms debating you, but please be intellectually honest in your representations of what I said.

And, using the qualifiers I used, my statement is very correct. Put the Inquisition--in which the annual execution rate was less than the annual execution rate of the state of Texas--in context with mass slaughters that occurred in the same regions, due to attacks by non-Christians against Christians, and you'll understand what I am talking about.

It is perfectly fair to ask the question, "Compared to what?" And that is all I did here. Compare the historical record of Atheist governments with the worst atrocities of Christian governments, and the record is not even close: Atheist governments are the biggest out-and-out humanitarian and economic disasters in history.

2) Like Sara said, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hiter, etc. are not the whole atheist story. They were insane megalomaniacs and do not represent Sara's or any other atheists' perspective, just like a Christian would not like to be represented by leaders of the Crusades.

In actuality, Hitler only implemented as policy--in terms of eugenics and the strive for racial purity--what the leading academics of the West had been trumpeting at the time. We call Stalin an insane man today, but we tend to forget that he merely implemented frameworks that our leading academics romanticized at the time (and in many cases still romanticize.) Don't believe me? Look at the modern-day fascination with Che Guevara.

And no...the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition are nothing compared to the atrocities of Atheist governments.

"Feminism" is a lot more nuanced than that. There are loud-mouths in every camp who make their cohorts cringe, but people who label all pro-lifers as "anti-choice extremists" in no way speak for the entire feminist movement. Feminism is about respect for women, period. There is a lot of discussion about what that should mean, and many feminists vehemently disagree even with one another. Lumping "feminist agenda" all under one cliché umbrella is to mischaracterize and diminish the phenomenal contributions the feminist movement has made in western society.

Yep...phenomenal contributions, such as the murder of 50 million children and a declining birth rate that threatens the economic stability of America.

The admirable qualities of feminism--women's suffrage and equal-job/equal-pay--were not worth the price of 50 million deaths.

And SAT scores do not actually report true educational status. They are artificial and mostly arbitrary, which is leading several liberal arts colleges to drop that requirement altogether.

That's not true: SAT scores are generally a good predictor of success at college-level academic rigor. The SAT--combined with high school grades--provides a better metric for correlating academic potential than HS grades alone.

Education of women (meaning simply "literacy") is, I think, the defining skill Sara is talking about.

Even then, the declining birth rate in the West--to which she correlates the "education of women"--is an economic and demographic storm that is only beginning to brew.

Personally, I'm all for educating women, but feminism is only a shade below communism in terms of its damage on humanity in such s short period of time.

[25. Sara said the following at 12:10 PM on Feb 28:]

25

"Investors can determine which "research projects" are worth pursuing and which are not"

...that's just the problem! In that system, 'worth pursuing' means 'most profitable', not 'most health-promoting'. Look at all the research the free market does on aging skin for the benefit of narcissistic rich people, while illnesses more affecting the poor go unfunded.

The free market is great for some things, and bad for others. Look at the inefficiencies in the American healthcare system: The States spends almost twice as much GDP on healthcare--much of it on insurance overhead, not medical services--than countries like the UK and Canada, yet has a lower life expectancy. The US probably has the most technologically superior system, but...it's not exactly equally accessible.

I wish you'd stop saying "Atheist framework"! Just as theism can lead to many very, very different positions, so can atheism. Be charitable and choose the most altruistic atheist framework, and argue against that.

[26. Adam said the following at 2:17 PM on Feb 28:]

26

Sara,

To all you who say that caring for the poor, women's rights, etc. etc. are rooted in Christianity, you're about 300 years out of date. Modern ethics philosophy is based on totally extra-relgious grounds like utilitarianism, or respect for human beings' rational nature; things like that, not a belief in God.

I am well familiar with both of those things, and the first one doesn't work, and the second one begs the question. Utilitarianism tells us that an action's measure is good or evil depending upon whether or not it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. First, one action can produce a variety of results. For instance, it may be that giving a poor person food will cause them to not be hungry anyomore. Of course, it also might be that giving a poor person food will cause them to choke on it, and end up dying. Now, in one instance the giving of the food to the poor person produced a good result that brought the most amount of people happiness, and in the other instance it produced a horrible result that brought pain to the person and their family. Within the Utilitarian system, there is no way to know the end result of any given action, and thus, like all systems of teleological ethics, cannot tell us what is right and what is wrong. The only way it would work is if you were omnicient and could tell every possible result of every single action.

Secondly, the "respect for human beings' rational nature" just simply begs the question. Why is it that we should respect human beings' rational nature?

I’m an atheist, and I think compassion is logically and morally necessary because it helps us live together peacefully.

Again, why is it that we should live peacefully together if there is no authority of God to bind our contience to his law? Now, I agree with you that we should live peacefully together. The only difference is that, because I believe in a sovereign God who has the authority by virtue of who he is to bind my contience to his law, I can therefore make sense out of moral obligation.

Eliza,

"Atheism" does not automatically equate "amorality". I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who see no reason for morality because there is no God, but I haven't met any of them. On the contrary, all the atheists I know have very strong ethical and moral standards, which fit nicely into their secular humanist worldview. Compassion is essentially empathy, which is a natural response to recognizing the inherent humanity of another person. Secular ethics are typically based on the Golden Rule, which can logically be argued is a smart evolutionary standard. Consistently caring for oneself and one's neighbor falls neatly within a worldview which values human life and accomplishment over all. Peace and civility is indeed required by such a framework.

First of all, to clarify, I am not saying that atheists are immoral people. What I am saying is that their moral behavior is inconsistent with the rest of their worldview. In other words, secular humanism may have morality of one the beliefs within its worldview, but it does so out of arbitariness and inconsistency.

For instance, you mention evolution. I thought we were talking about survival of the fittest in such a system. Why shouldn't we murder others who are weaker than us so that only the "fittest" will survive? What is wrong with killing other human beings if, indeed, the strongest will be the last ones standing? It sounds to me that such a system encourages immorality.

However, even if you want to suggest otherwise, I again have to ask why it is that we should promote the survival of the human race? Where does our obligation come from? Why should we be obligated to see the human race survive?

There are other problems as well which we may get into as time allows. For right now, suffice it to say that what I am arguing is that Hitchens' antitheism presupposes Christian theism. That is, to even argue against the existence of God, you have got to assume that he exists. Hitchen's main argument is that we should be moral, and the theism does not lead to morality. Of course, what I have been showing is that the assumption that we should be moral only makes sense if Christianity is true.

God Bless,
Adam

[27. Eliza said the following at 3:45 PM on Feb 28:]

27

Hello Amir (#24),

Your reasoning is failing in that you are trying to impute the particular (I know atheists who are moral) on the general (therefore atheism is moral).

The opposite is also true. The fact that some atheists are amoral does not mean that it is the objective truth. My point was that simply that not all atheists are philosophically amoral.

I also would like to point out that there are lots of different kinds of atheists. " Atheism" is simply a disbelief in God. Some atheists are secular humanists, some are Buddhists, some are naturalists. It just so happens that these three categories do indeed have a strong moral/ethical core. "Atheism" does not "demand" a specific morality because that is not its purpose. It is a description of something a person does not believe in rather than something a person does. Therefore, the word "atheist" is not inherently helpful in describing a person's belief system.

The admirable qualities of feminism--women's suffrage and equal-job/equal-pay--were not worth the price of 50 million deaths.

Not all feminists are pro-choice. A certain sect of the feminist activists perhaps paved the way for the pro-choice movement, but the two really are separate. The mother of the women's rights movement herself was avidly pro-life. Abortion kills future women as well as future men, and "equal rights for women" does not automatically mean "my body-my decision". That is separate, more extreme line of thinking. I am a feminist, and I have plenty of VERY rational thought about why I am pro-life.

Hello Adam (#26),

In other words, secular humanism may have morality of one the beliefs within its worldview, but it does so out of arbitariness and inconsistency.

From a secular humanist's perspective, there is as much if not more arbitrariness in the Christian worldview as you seen in their own. I see plenty of consistency in a secular humanist perspective, so I guess I'm confused as to what you're referring to? Values such as love, fairness, respect, moderation, etc. are applied out of acknowledgment of the specialness of humanity. (Specialness is a word; I just looked it up!)

"Survival of the fittest" is not a hard and fast rule. Animals care for and protect each other in nature. Some species of spider might kill and eat each other just to get ahead, but I don't think that's common practice. Camaraderie and nurturing do exist in the wild.

Likewise, humans do not make a habit of killing off their own. We choose to protect, defend and care for each other because we have this thing called "empathy". We can see ourselves in someone else's shoes. You can say this is God-given, or you can say that this is an evolutionary development. Neither statement is provable, and neither statement is inherently illogical.

~~~~~~~

I see that a lot of people like to tell Sara what she does or does not believe. Instead of informing her of what her alleged worldview is, I think a better method would be to ask her questions, and let her inform us.

[28. Sara said the following at 4:13 PM on Feb 28:]

28

Adam,
I do actually agree with you; I'd call myself a moral skeptic... Without a belief in God, life is pretty meaningless as long as it contains any more pain than a person is willing to bear.

The idea that humans are 'over-evolved' really resonates with me, that is, the idea that we've got so much gray matter that, unlike other animals, we can see how meaningless it is to be alive for no other reason than because we've so far survived the evolutionary process. While I'd have no arguments against people in favour of trying to slowly make ourselves extinct, more mildly, and just for myself, there's no way I'd ever, ever have children (hence my extreme pro-adoption and education-of-women stance).

Again, I agree that most non-religious bases for charity are shaky; for me it comes down to a matter of wanting their to be as little unnecessary pain as possible in the world.

[29. Sara said the following at 4:40 PM on Feb 28:]

29

(though I still think my adoption argument is just as compatible with Christianity, or even moreso, what with its obligation to charity)

Adam and Amir,
To you, it looks like: Christian = unshakeable basis for morality; atheist = shaky basis for morality.

To atheists, though, that belief in a god that your own morality rests on is about as shaky as it gets!

Just a matter of perspective I think you're missing.

Eliza,
if you keep asking questions long enough, it's true that atheist bases for altruism don't have anything to stand on if you're not willing to take things like the reduction of pain, or survival itself, as being good in and of themselves.

I accept this fundamental uncertainty to be part of what it means to be alive. And again, there's no way I'd ever have children.

I even went as far as to care more about the well-being of elderly people than children in some ways, out of fear that making children happier would make them more likely to have children of their own, and therefore increase the net pain in the world.

Then I looked more into birth rate patterns and saw that things like increased education of women (yes, looking at literacy rate) and increased economic and employment opportunities for women is what most closely correlates to lowering birth rates.

[30. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:47 PM on Feb 28:]

30

Sara says:...that's just the problem! In that system, 'worth pursuing' means 'most profitable', not 'most health-promoting'. Look at all the research the free market does on aging skin for the benefit of narcissistic rich people, while illnesses more affecting the poor go unfunded.

Quite the contrary, Sara. The best cancer treatments are the result of the free markets, not government enterprise. Similarly, advancements in heart treatments, diabetes treatments, forms of cancer that have largely been regarded as incurable, are largely the result of our private sector.

The larger issues are (a) who decides which projects get funded?; (b) what research methodologies are allowed?; (c) which projects get the priority?; and (d) what recourse do the people have to hold such entities accountable?

I'm old enough to know what kinds of politics goes into deciding research priorities, and--quite frankly--know enough about how government funds very shady research that allows for the most hideous abuses with no accountability.

The free market is great for some things, and bad for others. Look at the inefficiencies in the American healthcare system: The States spends almost twice as much GDP on healthcare--much of it on insurance overhead, not medical services--than countries like the UK and Canada, yet has a lower life expectancy.

I've debated that issue many times, and would love to discuss it at more length here, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion thread. Suffice it to say that issues such as life expectancy have more to do with lifestyle choices than with the quality of health care available.

Sara continues: The US probably has the most technologically superior system, but...it's not exactly equally accessible.

In the UK and Canada, it's a lot like an HMO: if all you need is your regular checkups, it's great. If anything goes wrong, you will find that health care is far more accessible here in the States.

Sara continues: I wish you'd stop saying "Atheist framework"! Just as theism can lead to many very, very different positions, so can atheism. Be charitable and choose the most altruistic atheist framework, and argue against that.

No, I will not stop using the term "atheist framework". I insist on this because your framework provides no objective basis for the definition or even the necessity for moral action. Quite frankly, Onfray and Nietcshke are/were closer to the telos of atheism than you are.

And don't get me wrong, Sara, I'm not putting you down, as this is not to say that all Atheists lack a moral compass; like you, I know many who are moral people.

However, the framework itself does not require it.

For example, I have an atheist co-worker who is quite the hedonist: he doesn't give to charity, he would rather let all AIDS victims--including his own brother--die, he was a meth addict for many years, and has cheated on his wife.

While you and I would certainly agree that his actions--and attitudes--are very immoral, you have no objective basis to conclude it whereas the Christian does.

In fact, you have no objective basis to conclude that Ayn Rand's morality is any better than yours.

[31. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:02 PM on Feb 28:]

31

Eliza says: The opposite is also true. The fact that some atheists are amoral does not mean that it is the objective truth. My point was that simply that not all atheists are philosophically amoral.

I said that atheism is amoral, not that atheists are amoral.

Eliza continues: I also would like to point out that there are lots of different kinds of atheists. " Atheism" is simply a disbelief in God. Some atheists are secular humanists, some are Buddhists, some are naturalists. It just so happens that these three categories do indeed have a strong moral/ethical core. "Atheism" does not "demand" a specific morality because that is not its purpose. It is a description of something a person does not believe in rather than something a person does. Therefore, the word "atheist" is not inherently helpful in describing a person's belief system.

Completely irrelevant. The point is that atheism makes no objective claim to morality.

Eliza continues: Not all feminists are pro-choice. A certain sect of the feminist activists perhaps paved the way for the pro-choice movement, but the two really are separate. The mother of the women's rights movement herself was avidly pro-life.

Teh feminist movement is overwhelmingly pro-abortion.

Feminists for Life, a group I used to support financially, is but a drop in the bucket in numerical terms. The big money in the feminist movement--from academia to the political realm--is overwhemingly pro-abortion.

Eliza continues: Abortion kills future women as well as future men, and "equal rights for women" does not automatically mean "my body-my decision". That is separate, more extreme line of thinking. I am a feminist, and I have plenty of VERY rational thought about why I am pro-life.

I am glad that you are pro-life; on the other hand, the feminist movement is overwhelmingly pro-abortion. The movers and shakers in your movement--whom you did not necessarily support--paved the way for its forced legalization, without any recourse by voters.

In addition, the movers and shakers in your movement--whom you did not necessarily support--have led the way to force taxpayers to fund abortions.

The larger feminist establishment has a lot for which to answer. And no, the benefits of the feminist movement are not justified by the costs born--50 million chhildren dead--by our society.

[32. Eliza said the following at 6:23 PM on Feb 28:]

32

Sara,

I recognize that I am only defending things that make sense to me, and I didn't mean to put any words in your mouth. I hope you didn't take it that way.

I am curious...why do you visit this decidedly conservative Christian blog? I recognize that I'm definitely on the more liberal end of things, and like to participate in discussions for my own reasons. But I'm really curious as to what yours are?

I admit I still do not understand your deep aversion to the concept of children (note: I don't want to imply that you don't like children in general). Yes, charity (in the "taking care of the poor" sense, not in the King James "perfect love of God" sense) is a strong--and I would say pivotal--value in the Christian faith. But it does not supersede other values, like the inherent blessing, desirability, and sacredness of procreation as a part of life--and even worship. There are a couple theological reasons for this, one of them reflected in the word "pro-creation" itself. God exhibits his role as Creator through us. I would say that the example of God as Trinity is another theological reflection of the "family unit." God chose not to pick a "Son" or create one, but to "beget" one. There is something divine in the "begetting".

However, in the sense that we are all "adopted" into the family of God, there is something equally divine in the adoption and merger of two families that were once separate. Adoption is a kind of beautiful familial salvation.

It's interesting to note that Jesus doesn't always do the obvious charitable thing. When a woman poured a jar of really expensive perfume on him (his feet no less!) the disciples argued he should have given it to the poor. But he replied that what she did was a beautiful thing. I take that to mean that--while the poor are vitally important--there are some things God appreciates just for the beauty of the thing. I think children (natural-born as well as adopted) are one of those things.

This is obviously off topic, so if you want to talk about it more maybe we should go back to an older blog.

[33. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:24 PM on Feb 28:]

33

Sara says: as I understand it, what's behind your main arguments is the point that athiests aren't forced by their atheism alone to be charitable. That's true, I agree with that. But neither is someone who believes in a God forced by their belief in Him alone to be charitable.

Depends. Accepting that there is a God is one thing; accepting the implications of that--that we have a Transcendent authority to Whom we are accountable, and Who specifically commands charity is a different matter.

To accept the premise that there is a God Who transcends ourselves carries the logical implication regarding our relationship to that God, that God's expectations of us, and the ramifications of our compliance or non-compliance.

Sara continues: The decision to enter into a Christian relationship with God and to be charitable is analogous to the decision made by some atheists on non-Christian philosophical grounds to be charitable.

Not necessarily. The decision to receive Christ is not separable from the requirement to be charitable. One cannot choose (a) and eschew (b) (1 John 4).

One can say, "I'm a Christian, but I could care less about the poor." But, according to Scipture, such a one is not a Christian.

Sarah continues: I can't believe you think there's no secular basis for condemning genocide. What about simply the 'belief' that unnecessary pain is bad and ought to be prevented?

Who defines what is necessary and what is not? In the Darwinian/Utilitarian/Atheist framework, anythiing is permissible in the pursuit of "progress". I can rationalize anything--from infanticide to forced (or incentive-based) sterilizations in the name of minimizing unnecessary pain.

After all, many of the movers and shakers in your stratus are constantly telling us that the collective is more important than the individual.

Ergo, one can rationalize the basis for killing large numbers of people in the interests of a defined collective. (Sam Harris has even suggested this.)

Sara continues: That's just to begin with, without getting philosophical at all. Apart from logic and reasoning, altruism can make good evolutionary sense.

So can eugenics. And a secularist can market that in terms of altruism.

Sara continues: The 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' kind of idea, or in less reciprocal cases, as a kind of insurance policy, or because (at least with humans) it makes me feel good to help other people, and any other number of non-religious reasons.

The trouble is, what makes you and me feel good is not what makes a group of academics devoted to eugenics feel good.

Sara continues: About the economic and distributive justice things, we just don't agree. I'm not a communist, for what it's worth, though I'm certainly not a libertarian either.

Fair enough. I am a Ron Paul-supporting libertarian, and fundamentally anti-tyranny. My dad's side of the family is from a country--Iran--that has been in the grip of tyranny for nearly 30 years.

[34. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:28 PM on Feb 28:]

34

Sara says: Adam and Amir,
To you, it looks like: Christian = unshakeable basis for morality; atheist = shaky basis for morality.

To atheists, though, that belief in a god that your own morality rests on is about as shaky as it gets!

Just a matter of perspective I think you're missing.

On what basis do you conclude that a transcendent God--serving as the objective basis for what is moral--is "shaky"?

[35. Al said the following at 6:45 PM on Feb 28:]

35

Sara,

As much as the idea that humanity's futile search for meaning is a phenomenon of being over-evolved fascinates me, I can't say I find it very compelling. It seems unlikely that the capacity to understand meaning and the hunger for significance arose as an adaptation and simultaneously became a vistage within the same species. Animals don't seem to yearn for "meaning" as far as we can tell, and if meaning was such an immediate evolutionary dead end, I would have expected humans to have developed into rational, utilitarian creatures satisfied with baser pleasures and their pursuits without ever longing and searching for transcendence. They should never have noticed that there was something askew with running on life's treadmill if that's what they were made to do. It seems that the question of "Why?" should never have come up.

C.S. Lewis states it this way. "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

And here's an odd question for ya. If you believe that your worldview is most beneficial to mankind as a whole, and that at least some of your conscientiousness, disposition, and selflessness are genetic and inborn, wouldn't you in a great sense be depriving humanity by forcibly ending your biological line? =) Wouldn't this be counterproductive by leaving the world to the less thoughtful and more selfish, and allowing their offspring to define humanity and potentially cause more suffering than if there were *more* like you?

Also, I personally have great difficulty with the idea of the reduction of pain being an absolute "good" on its own, especially when prioritized above life. I see it having value only in context of human dignity (or the dignity of other creatues, I suppose), and human dignity necessitates humans, and the increase in human life can still be celebrated, though not recklessly. I also find it gravely troubling for us to be able to determine whether future humans should or should not exist solely on the basis of sparing them (and others) potential pain, as I feel that this in a great sense undermines their dignity as well. It's true that some in times of pain wish that they had never been born. But this hardly defines the human experience at large, and I can't feel but presumptuous in deciding that future humans should or should not exist for their own good without ever giving them a choice in the matter. Of course they wouldn't have a choice if somehow my actions cause them to be born-- but at least they would be granted the immense priviledge of making choices and decisions rather than none at all. Then again, if they were never born there would never have been a person whose freedom to choose was denied.

My brain might explode.

[36. John said the following at 7:49 PM on Feb 28:]

36

One only needs to read up to post 3 to see that this thread isn't going anywhere.

There are too many logical fallacies, historical misconceptions and gross mischaracterizations to even begin having a decent conversation.

"I would argue that the discrete acts of volunteerism by churchgoing individuals..."

"Discrete"? That's the first mistake. There's nothing discrete about the church's charity. It's not simply sister Ann baking pies to raise money for VBS. Nobody, I repeat, nobody out gives the church on the aggregate. Not one single country in this entire world donates more money than the church. Not one! The church gave more time and money during Katrina and Tsunami than any government could begin to even think about giving.

Strike 1, Sarah.

"...aren't as effective as the programs of liberal governments who conservative Christians tend to keep out of office."

Just two recent and well known examples that I gave above were magnificent examples of the exact opposite. When there is a disaster, the first, most efficient and effective responders are Christians, Christian organizations, or Christian inspired organizations.

At least you have other examples of "effective" liberal government programs, like the postal service, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA. Oh, wait; all of those are bloated, poorly run, financially mishandled, bureaucratic nightmares. All well.

Strike 2.

"Christina, good question. I've read many psychologists who say things like, "I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the Catholic Church", and so on. Too often, the price for that self-control is guilt and repression."

True.

Foul tip.

"And then there's the divorce statistics, and the nasty events in Christian history we'd rather forget, and so on."

Divorce statistics for whom? If you're referring to that oft touted nonsense about rates among Christians being similar to those among non-believers, you'd be gullible.

There are few and very very minor "nasty" events in Christian history, as it is a history of imperfect sinners, redeemed, yet still human. It would be foolish to say that believers have never made mistakes or even outright sinned, but it is far more foolish to characterize the history of Christ's body as anything less than glorious. Remember the usually often tired refrain of Crusades, Inquisition, Galileo, etc. involved the Roman Catholic Church NOT Christianity.
Besides that, the scales are decidedly tipped towards the immensely positive effects of His body. (Red Cross, hospitals, cemeteries, orphanages, schools, universities, working with the untouchables of society (lepers) ending chattel slavery, ending gladiatorial fighting, ending foot binding in China, widow burning in India, etc.) I could go on, but hopefully, even you get the point.

Liberal government programs pervert incentives and replace personal charity and personal responsibility and accountability with impersonal income redistribution without personal responsibility or accountability.

Strike 3, yer out!

But something tells me you're not here to learn. You're here to try to trip people up, no matter how well intentioned you may be. It's alright, I'm sure you're far smarted than Aquinus, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, D. James Kennedy, Falwell, Colson, Pearcey, etc. etc. I'm sure you've tangled with their treaties and came away thinking, "Poor sad Christians".

Haha. LOL. :)

[37. Adam said the following at 7:55 PM on Feb 28:]

37

Eliza,

From a secular humanist's perspective, there is as much if not more arbitrariness in the Christian worldview as you seen in their own. I see plenty of consistency in a secular humanist perspective, so I guess I'm confused as to what you're referring to? Values such as love, fairness, respect, moderation, etc. are applied out of acknowledgment of the specialness of humanity. (Specialness is a word; I just looked it up!)

I am talking about moral obligation. Given a secularistic humanistic worldview, what is the obligation to love people and treat people with fairness and respect? What one ball of chemicals does to another ball of chemicals is ethically irrelevant. So, you might say that we should take care of others, but the question is *why* should we take care of others. How does this kind of moral obligation make sense in a world where there is no ultimate, infallible authority? I can make sense out of this as a Christian, given that I believe in a sovereign God who has the right to bind his people's contiences to his law on the basis of the fact that he is our creator, but how does an atheist make sense out of this?

Also, if you believe that there is arbitrariness in my worldview, could you please show it?

"Survival of the fittest" is not a hard and fast rule. Animals care for and protect each other in nature. Some species of spider might kill and eat each other just to get ahead, but I don't think that's common practice. Camaraderie and nurturing do exist in the wild.

Which begs the question as to how evolution and survival of the fittest can account for such care and nurture. That is the whole point. You say it is not a hard and fast rule. The problem is that survival of the fittest is the way in which Darwin was able to explain how it is that randomness became order. If you say that survival of the fittest is not a hard and fast rule, then you have just destroyed the very foundation of evolutionary theory. If it is not a hard and fast rule, then how do we get from randomness to the current situation today?

Likewise, humans do not make a habit of killing off their own. We choose to protect, defend and care for each other because we have this thing called "empathy". We can see ourselves in someone else's shoes. You can say this is God-given, or you can say that this is an evolutionary development. Neither statement is provable, and neither statement is inherently illogical.

Actually, if you say it is evolutionary, then who cares if we violate it? If it is just a matter of natural chemicals in the brain developing over time, then why can't we go around violating it at will? Schitzophrenics see things all of the time that are simply a result of chemical problems in the brain, and yet we contradict their idea of reality all of the time. You see, once it is lowered down to either the idea of a cultural convention, or evolution of the grey matter, then it is nothing more than a human convention that has no relevance outside of the person who has received the evolution. So, while we all might desire to care for each other, again, given an evolutionary worldview, there is no obligation for us to do so. In other words, you either have to believe that God put it there, or give up the idea that it is obligatory to every human being.

Sara,

To you, it looks like: Christian = unshakeable basis for morality; atheist = shaky basis for morality.

To atheists, though, that belief in a god that your own morality rests on is about as shaky as it gets!

Just a matter of perspective I think you're missing.

I understand that. They simply don't share my worldview. However, just as a clarification, the challange I am making is that they cannot have any foundation for morality given their atheistic presuppositions. Again, remove the Christian God from the equation, and how is it that you can make sense out of universal moral obligation? Because of atheism's inherent lack of the king of kings and lord of lords, they cannot make sense out of the very thing they are trying to use to argue against Christianity.

I do actually agree with you; I'd call myself a moral skeptic... Without a belief in God, life is pretty meaningless as long as it contains any more pain than a person is willing to bear.

The idea that humans are 'over-evolved' really resonates with me, that is, the idea that we've got so much gray matter that, unlike other animals, we can see how meaningless it is to be alive for no other reason than because we've so far survived the evolutionary process. While I'd have no arguments against people in favour of trying to slowly make ourselves extinct, more mildly, and just for myself, there's no way I'd ever, ever have children (hence my extreme pro-adoption and education-of-women stance).

Again, I agree that most non-religious bases for charity are shaky; for me it comes down to a matter of wanting their to be as little unnecessary pain as possible in the world.

I actually agree with you about needless pain. I myself am very concerned about how we are turning into a nation of violence with violent video games, television shows, and even the emotional pain that is caused by women and men wanting to enjoy sexual relations, but being unwilling to commit to one another, a wife who manipulates her husband, and a husband who beats their wife. These things are an abomination to the Lord.

However, let me ask you, given that you are a moral skeptic, why should their be as little unecessary pain as possible in the world? If you are going to be a moral skeptic, then how do you know that inflicting needless pain on another human is wrong? What I am pointing out is that even on the matter it comes down to for you, you cannot make sense of what you want. It becomes nothing more than a personal preference.

Sara, that is why the gospel is there, to save us from all this. You don't have to be a skeptic if you submit your mind to God, and think his thoughts after him. I guess the issue comes down to the fact that one must choose between a position that leaves you as a moral skeptic [atheism], and a position that can provide you with a foundation for morality so that you can stop the unnecessary pain in the world [submitting your mind to God].

God Bless,
Adam

[38. Al said the following at 5:00 PM on Feb 29:]

38

John,

As a Christian brother, I have to say that your combative response was uncalled for. Frankly, portions of it were rude, and love is not. As far as I can tell, there was a dialogue and conversation in progress, one that Amir and Eliza chose to engage in so that they *could* attempt to clear up possible mischaracterizations and gross generalizations. It might not have progressed and resolved in a manner and with a quickness and finality you would have preferred, but it was a challenging one that I hope benefitted and sharpened those involved. I know it did me.

But it seems that you saw fit to jump in and judge whether that conversation was one worth having and hoped to end it for all of us by pinning on Sara motives that you don't know and haven't confirmed, and made no effort here to confirm yourself by respectfully questioning Sara and considering her response. That's just a little bit screwed up. I would even consider it slander.

I mean, how would you like it if I had said that something tells me that you're not here to teach or edify out of love, but to take others down a notch out of pride in your own rightness?

Frankly, I think Sara's owed an apology, one that only you can extend.

[39. Sara said the following at 2:51 PM on Mar 1:]

39

(I'm choosing a bad time to write just now; I'll try to answer more fully on Monday if there's any activity here still!)

Eliza, I guess I visit this website because I miss discussing things within a Christian framework; because this discussion board is really well run; because I'm a procrastinator and its SO easy to click over to Boundless and waste time in what's usually a really interesting way; because I like being able to think about things from an atheist and christian perspective, and probably other reasons.

About God liking children and procreation for their own sake, I'd say it would be better for Him in his all-powerfulness to change his tastes towards something that doesn't inherently involve suffering.

Amir, thanks for explicitly saying you're a libertarian; I was confused... I still think you're pigeonholing atheists.

Al, I agree with your 'odd question'. Then again, I'm so very sure that I'm right that I'd be worried about that! Besides, you can also 'procreate' through education and writing. I want to answer you more; again I look at what you wrote on Monday.

Adam, I don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented. I can only say that it's self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions)

No apology necessary, John: I'm not a believer in apologies at all, except when you really hurt someone. Either accept your actions or change or be quiet! Still, the way you argue just makes me tired. I'm sure it would be fun playing baseball with you, though.

[40. John said the following at 8:38 AM on Mar 3:]

40

Al,

Sarah thinks she has it all figured out and clearly is not even wanting to consider that she's wrong.

For her, government stealing is better than charitable giving. What kind of dialogue can be had?

Al, you need to apologize to all of us for your self-righteous finger wave. It is an apology only you can extend.

[41. John said the following at 8:46 AM on Mar 3:]

41

Sarah,

It's good that you're tired, that way I won't have to spend as much time pointing out your errors, so others won't repeat them.

My hope is that you would learn something, but obviously, like I said, that's not why you're here.

It seems you're here only to be contrary to biblical morality and ethics.

You present unbiblical ideas, I show how they are so and the biblical principles that should be followed and that makes you tired.

Go figure.

[42. Adam said the following at 10:35 AM on Mar 3:]

42

Sara,

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I have been very busy. Anyway, here is my response to what you have said:

Adam, I don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented. I can only say that it's self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions)

Well, then, I can just say that I don't have any rational reason to believe that the Christian God exists, and that he has revealed himself in his inerrant word, the Bible. I can only say that these things are self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions).

You see, once you get down to the idea of what is self evident, then there is no way to refute anything. If a person just says a fact is self-evident, then you cannot refute anything they have to say.

That is why I have to keep pointing out to you that you need to come to Christ to save your rationality. I mean, if you want to admit that, in order to be rational, you have to become a Christian, I can live with that. Of course, I would rather see you come to know Christ "in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3].

However, either way you have proven my point that Christopher Hitchens' argument is irrational from the beginning, because an atheist cannot account for moral obligation.

God Bless,
Adam

[43. Eliza said the following at 11:29 AM on Mar 3:]

43

Sara,

RE: God changing his tastes

I totally know what you mean :).

[44. Eliza said the following at 12:11 PM on Mar 3:]

44

Adam

I'm not actually an atheist, so I agree with all of your points. The reason I was making the arguments I did was because Sara strikes me as being an intellectual person who has thought about this a lot. Obviously people come to different conclusions based on their own analysis of facts and opinions, their own experiences and on how they value their priorities. Having toyed with joining the atheist camp myself, I know that generalizations about anyone's logical capabilities is dangerous.

Having said that, my conclusions continue to rest with Christianity, although it certainly does not answer all of my questions.

As far as the arbitrariness of God's law goes, there are strange commands (communion? the Sabbath?) as well as the fact that rules often seems to come down to what we think God's law is (swearing? women's roles in church?). Many of the laws/commands seem to have no rationale outside a Christian worldview. Such as God's frequent command to stone people in the OT. Putting to death is one thing...stoning is definitely a "cruel and unusual punishment" in my book. And seems to promote a culture of violence.

Also, the rules and lifestyle only make sense if you are in the worldview. From an outsider's perspective, Christianity is no less arbitrary than any other religion. It certainly looks like we just decided to made it all up.

[45. Al said the following at 12:38 PM on Mar 3:]

45

John,

My response to you wasn't because I was trying to declare my own righteousness. I am the biggest, most wretched sinner I personally know. And I loudly proclaim that because it's the truest thing I know. And in that particular truth I find the greatest and most unfathomable, incomprehensible Grace I know-- so when it comes to most things, I'm not exactly in a position to have illusions about myself or my own righteousness. Heh.

I will confess to you that there is always a hint of pride present when I'm convinced that I'm in the right-- and I will also confess that what I perceive to be your unfair and ungracious treatment of Sara got me slightly hot under the collar-- but at this point, I believe most of it was justified. In spite of being personally prone to mixed motivations, I still believe that we are also called to call each other out in hopes of edifying each other in love, and I'm sure you would agree that not all attempts at correction stem from self-righteousness. And just as I often have a trace of sin in the motivation of much of what I do, I will also admit that I've a bit of a ego and enjoy seeing my words in print. Nonetheless, I felt that it was necessary to defend Sara against what seemed to be an uncharitable, unloving, and unverified attack on her character and person.

I also responded to you because the very attitude you accuse Sara of-- that she knew all there was and was unwilling to reconsider her thinking-- was what I detected in your response to her. Except in your case, it concerned her motivation and heart, which when wrong, would essentially be slander. If I'm incorrect about your motivations, and you too, are truly here to learn and are open to correction, then you have my apology. Like C.S. Lewis says, it's a certainty that we all have wrong ideas about things. We just don't know which things we're wrong about.

If there are others in addition to John that feels that I am being self-righteous here, please let me know-- I could use a clue on how I could have better handled the situation. If apporpriate, as John recommends, I will issue you an apology.

I'm also going to have to make this my last post regarding John's response to Sara. If there's any ongoing discussion still, it doesn't need to be derailed by us.

[46. Al said the following at 1:38 PM on Mar 3:]

46

Hah, Sara-- the very fact that you're convinced you're right about your world view is the very reason you *should* be worried about not having offspring. =) And procreating those who are most like you stands a better chance with like genetics in addition to education, I'd think (though that doesn't always work out).

And from a biblical world view, God didn't exactly "choose" children and childbirth to inherently involve suffering. As you're probably aware, it was an affect of the "Fall" and a curse for man's disobedience, as is the general brokenness of the world. Saying that God arbitrarily chose something painful mischaracterizes the Christian understanding of God a bit. It's weird that most animals seem to have a pretty easy time of having offspring. I've seen footage of calves literally drop from cows that were grazing. It's not all fun and games for the male black window spider though.

I would also argue that with the world as it is, pain is necessary for life-- and to presuppose that the pain human life will cause and endure is unnecessary is somewhat dangerous, because we end up with very shaky, arbitrary, and sentimental definitions of "unnecessary pain" that ends up nearly wishing that others disappear so that we would not have to witness or endure their pain--presuming that we are relieving them when we're really relieving ourselves. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing a bit, but I think I see shades of that in some philosophies elevating pain relief above human life. Instead I would rather argue human life and dignity necessary first and much more valuable than the mere elimination of pain, and seek practical solutions from there-- rather than presume that it is something that should be traded away for less suffering.

I'm going to have to reference Lewis again. The man is brilliant when it comes to human nature. He observes that in the past we used to value "Charity" and "Love"-- the fierce, hearty sort of love that would even allow the object loved to experience pain for its own good and its own life. Now that has been replaced by mere "Kindness", which just desires that a creature be happy and escape suffering. He remarks that mere Kindness and Love are not the same thing, as Love longs ultimately for the life of the creature while Kindness divorced from Love would gladly kill it to spare it pain.

And in your response to John, I realized that you were more gracious and had a thicker skin than I gave you credit for.

[47. Adam said the following at 3:04 PM on Mar 3:]

47

Eliza,

I'm not actually an atheist, so I agree with all of your points. The reason I was making the arguments I did was because Sara strikes me as being an intellectual person who has thought about this a lot. Obviously people come to different conclusions based on their own analysis of facts and opinions, their own experiences and on how they value their priorities. Having toyed with joining the atheist camp myself, I know that generalizations about anyone's logical capabilities is dangerous.

That depends on what you mean by "logical capabilities." You see, I don't believe that atheists truly exist. There are many people who profess to be atheists, but I believe that they have to rely on the very God of the Bible to even live their lives.

So, in other words, I am not saying that Sara does not have the capacity to reason, but that she does so in a manner that is inconsistent with her worldview, and relies upon my worldview for its validity. Sure, I believe that atheists can reason, and do a very good job of it. However, in order to reason, they are having to rely upon the God they know exists, because they are created in his image [Romans 1:21]. Thus, atheists might reason very well, but it is their reasoning for which they cannot give an account. Given their worldview, there should be no such thing as moral obligation. The only worldview that can make sense out of moral obligation is the Christian worldview, and thus, all unbelievers must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to reason about morality.

As far as the arbitrariness of God's law goes, there are strange commands (communion? the Sabbath?) as well as the fact that rules often seems to come down to what we think God's law is (swearing? women's roles in church?). Many of the laws/commands seem to have no rationale outside a Christian worldview. Such as God's frequent command to stone people in the OT. Putting to death is one thing...stoning is definitely a "cruel and unusual punishment" in my book. And seems to promote a culture of violence.

Also, the rules and lifestyle only make sense if you are in the worldview. From an outsider's perspective, Christianity is no less arbitrary than any other religion. It certainly looks like we just decided to made it all up.

Well, that is why we don't look outside of a Christian worldview. That is the whole point. That is why I am saying that we need to compare the two worldviews, and show the impossibility of moral obligation at all given any other worldview than Christianity. As others who argue for Christianity in the way I do are fond of saying: The proof of the existance of the Christian God is in this, that without him, you cannot prove anything. In other words, what you call "strange" commands, and commands for "cruel and unusual punishment" are the very preconditions for moral obligation en toto. They might seem strange, and they might seem cruel and unusual, but, unless you accept their morality, you cannot have moral obligation at all. Thus, people who try to formulate worldviews other than the Christian worldview must be constantly relying upon the Christian worldview in order to formulate these other worldviews.

In other words, what I am saying is that we need to compare the two worldviews, and show that only the Christian worldview can make sense out of reasoning. That is why I have consistently told Sara that she needs a savior for her reasoning. Only Christianity can save her from her moral skepticism, because only Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, can provide her with the ultimate, infallible authority needed for moral obligation.

God Bless,
Adam

[48. Jethro said the following at 3:18 PM on Mar 3:]

48

John,

Quote "Not one single country in this entire world donates more money than the church. Not one!"

Provide me with some figures to back this up please. I would be quite intrigued to see how the money donated by the church (not to John, by, that's the word you used) stacks up against spending on internal and foreign aid by countries like the US. I trust you have these figures handy given the forceful and ungracious tone of your response.

[49. Eliza said the following at 4:15 PM on Mar 3:]

49

Adam,

I see you are very passionate about your beliefs, and I generally agree with your conclusions. And yet I disagree with the value you place on the religion of Christianity (as opposed to the One True God). Perhaps you just used "Christian" when you meant "God".

The only worldview that can make sense out of moral obligation is the Christian worldview, and thus, all unbelievers must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to reason about morality.

"To make sense" is a subjective term. What makes sense to you is not necessarily what makes sense to me. The process of making order out of one's world is shaped by language, culture, family, education, etc. Therefore something might make total sense to Sara and/or I, and not make sense to you. There are many things in Christianity that make NO sense to me, and yet I choose to believe them. In some cases, against what I would call my "better judgment". Does that mean they are not true because they do not make sense to me? (answer to rhetorical question = no.)

There is no such thing as a unified "Christian" worldview. Also, there were coherent (allegedly God-fearing) worldviews before Christ. So it is difficult to say that all unbelievers borrow from the "Christian" worldview.

The proof of the existance of the Christian God is in this, that without him, you cannot prove anything.

It is also true that you cannot "prove" anything with the Christian God. He can only be accepted on faith. Granted, faith with an intellectual background, but faith nonetheless. Likewise, atheism is a faith (or loss of faith) in God. Also backed up by intellectualism, also not provable.

I have to say, I do find your logic difficult to follow. I do not see how rejecting the morality of stoning forces you to reject all moral obligation. I also do not see how all peoples--even those who have never encountered Christianity as well as those whose ideas are so far removed from Christianity as to be practically incomparable (Hinduism, Buddhism) must base their ideas about moral obligation on Christian principles. Their foundations are sound and logical to them (make perfect sense) and have lasted thousands of years. Their moral obligations are somewhat different than ours (not killing cows, sacrificing to ancestors, etc.)

Finally, I believe that Sara conceded the point that atheism does not have any moral obligations, only nice-to-haves. Wouldn't you consider that a consistent worldview?

[50. Adam said the following at 6:00 PM on Mar 3:]

50

Eliza,

"To make sense" is a subjective term. What makes sense to you is not necessarily what makes sense to me. The process of making order out of one's world is shaped by language, culture, family, education, etc. Therefore something might make total sense to Sara and/or I, and not make sense to you. There are many things in Christianity that make NO sense to me, and yet I choose to believe them. In some cases, against what I would call my "better judgment". Does that mean they are not true because they do not make sense to me? (answer to rhetorical question = no.)

Well, is there is any way for a self-contradiction to make sense, or for arbitrariness to make sense? No, both of those are logical fallacies. That is what I am talking about. The point is that, unless the Christian God is a part of any given worldview, that worldview will never be able to make *rational* sense out of the question of moral obligation.

There is no such thing as a unified "Christian" worldview. Also, there were coherent (allegedly God-fearing) worldviews before Christ. So it is difficult to say that all unbelievers borrow from the "Christian" worldview.

Well, you are talking to a covenant theologian here, so, I do believe that the Christian worldview existed before the time of Christ. Now, did we have a full knowledge of every single detail of God's revelation at that time? No. However, the Christian worldview did, indeed, exist before the time of Christ, because the essential elements of the Christian worldview were present even in the Hebrew scriptures. That is how the apostle Paul could witness to the Jews from the Hebrew scriptures themselves.

Secondly, there does not need to be a "unified" Christian worldview in the sense that all Christians necessarily agree on everything. Even atheists don't have that. When I talk about the Christian worldview, I am talking about the very foundations of the Christian faith, and the things which all Christians hold in common. Imparticular, I am speaking about Bible as the inerrant revelation of God to man. Can there be differences on those issues which the Bible does not deem as definitional to the Christian faith? Most definitely. However, what we are talking about here is the foundational doctrines that the scriptures say one must believe in order to be a Christian. When these are rejected, one cannot make sense out of moral obligation.

It is also true that you cannot "prove" anything with the Christian God. He can only be accepted on faith. Granted, faith with an intellectual background, but faith nonetheless. Likewise, atheism is a faith (or loss of faith) in God. Also backed up by intellectualism, also not provable.

Well, I don't agree. I know that perspective is very popular. However, the Bible tells us that God has created the world so that man is without excuse to not believe in God. I believe that I have proven that God exists.

Now, we need to make a distinction between proof and persuasion. Just because there may be people that do not accept my proof does not mean that I have not proven that God exists. Persuasion is subjectively qualified. Proof is not.

I have to say, I do find your logic difficult to follow. I do not see how rejecting the morality of stoning forces you to reject all moral obligation. I also do not see how all peoples--even those who have never encountered Christianity as well as those whose ideas are so far removed from Christianity as to be practically incomparable (Hinduism, Buddhism) must base their ideas about moral obligation on Christian principles. Their foundations are sound and logical to them (make perfect sense) and have lasted thousands of years. Their moral obligations are somewhat different than ours (not killing cows, sacrificing to ancestors, etc.)

Well, again, I have to get back to the distinction between what moral obligations they have, and whether or not they can make sense out of the *concept* of moral obligation. In other words, it is not that they do not have moral obligations, but that they cannot make rational sense out of the very concept of moral obligation itself.

Where I would want to go with the Hindu is to discuss their idea that all of our experience of distinction is illusion, and everything is one. Well, if everything is one, then all premises are one, rationality and irrationality are one, morality, and immorality are one, and thus, the whole system breaks down so that reason, moral or otherwise breaks down. For the Buddhist, I would want to stress the fact that his religion is atheistic, and thus, why is it that I have any obligation to obey what the guru says?

Again, I am not arguing that these people do not have moral obligations. I am arguing that they cannot make sense out of their moral obligations, because the entire *concept* of moral obligation does not make rational sense given their worldview. Given their worldview, moral obligation is something that is totally arbitrary.

So, in other words, the reason why it is that their foundations have lasted as long as they have is because they are relying upon the Christian worldview to even be able to make sense out of the concept moral obligation. The point I am trying to make is the same point as was made by Paul in Romans 1:

Romans 1:18-25 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Thus, I am arguing that unbelievers know God, but refuse to aknowledge him in their thinking. This is how a person can say that they have a different foundation other than the Christian worldview, and yet, still build their moral obligations upon the Christian worldview. They know him, but because of sin, they suppress this knowledge, and will not give him the credit he deserves.

The result is that they become, as Paul says, fools. Now, this is not engaging in name-calling. It is talking about one's reasoning when you will not aknowledge God as the foundation of your reasoning. The concept of moral obligation becomes rationally impossible. Yet, this is the very same thing that Hitchens wants to use against the existance of God????? This is what I believe is incoherent.

Finally, I believe that Sara conceded the point that atheism does not have any moral obligations, only nice-to-haves. Wouldn't you consider that a consistent worldview?

No, because no one views the world in that way. Even she admitted that people should stop all unnecessary suffering. She also admitted that it was inconsistent for her to say that. Thus, she does not view the world in any kind of a consistent manner at this point, and she acknowledged as much.

God Bless,
Adam

[51. Sara said the following at 7:03 PM on Mar 3:]

51

I think I'm a little late, and maybe talking to dead air here but oh, well.

Adam,
I want to talk to you about how you think that God "has revealed himself in his inerrant word, the Bible". Hopefully it won't be a too off-topic thing to talk about in some upcoming post. Basically, I think that the 'Holy Spirit' is an anthropomorphisizing of our own emotions, and that any appeal to proof by the Spirit is really yet another intellectual or emotional proof offered up; and also that the Bible isn't inerrant, and doesn't even claim to be: the canon wasn't totally finalized until the 4th century, so when the Bible talks about 'itself' it isn't necessarily talking about all 66 books.

Eliza,
I like all the friction I get here ('iron sharpens iron' and so forth), but it was very nice to be understood for once :) about the 'God changing his tastes' thing. Just you personally, what most strongly keeps you Christian? Apart from 'is-there-a-God', and just about Christianity, I find redaction criticism of the NT the most compelling evidence against Christianity (far from the only, though). If you can look into something like the Synoptic Problem and come out a Christian, I'd be very eager to understand how! Here's a summary of the method (written by a pretty conservative Christian, oddly enough: it seems some Christians can accept it and keep their faith; I can't) http://www.cresourcei.org/synoptic.html

Al,
If God chose to make humans such that they were able to succumb to a Fall and subsequent consequences, that's as good as having caused their pain. I agree that in this world we have now, certain pains are valuable and useful -- again, I'd say, your God isn't so limited that He couldn't conceive of a world where pain wasn't necessary. Arguments along the lines of 'God couldn't get realy love from us if he didn't test our faithfulness through trials' smack of a ascribing a very curtailed creativity to an all-powerful God!
[and as an aside, I've seen many cows die giving birth, including one cow have her pelvis crack. Not to be too glib, but I'd put the praying mantis on the pro-God side of evidence. They are just so cool. Black widows are creepy.]

John,
Just about your style, I want to say that I agree with you that there needs to be people in this world who are willing to stand up and speak out loudly and angrily against what's wrong (and for you, my ideas are one of those things). The risk in doing that, though, is that if your arguing style is too abrasive or otherwise distracting, you'll ironically draw attention away from your cause, and put it back on yourself.

[52. Sara said the following at 7:31 PM on Mar 3:]

52

Adam,
just on your last point: actually, I do see the world that way, and believe that there 'aren't any objective moral obligations, only nice-to-haves'. When I say that people should stop unnecessary suffering, I'm just saying that it seems that way to me, not that it's a definite universal truth. I didn't say that my view is inconsistant, I said that it isn't intellectually solid enough to withstand criticism from moral skeptics. I don't think anybody's views are.

[53. Sara said the following at 8:01 PM on Mar 3:]

53

[the following is very boring; I just don’t like C.S. Lewis’ logic, and wanted to respond to the three quotes and paraphrases of his that people have used here]

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

-Would he say that the reverse is true? If the whole universe has meaning, we should never know that it has meaning because everything would be so infused with meaningfulness that we couldn’t conceive of meaninglessness? Also, he doesn’t distinguish between the possibilities of not being able to know the ‘meaning of the universe’ on a grand scale, and being able to know ‘meaning’ on a smaller scale events which, just by being non-universal, could still be ‘seen’ under his metaphor, and which, taken together, might make up the meaning of the whole universe. And what on earth is ‘meaning’? I only believe in ‘cause and effect’, and that’s something that, even if it’s a universe-wide phenomenon, we could be expected to be able to observe to some extent.

“it's a certainty that we all have wrong ideas about things. We just don't know which things we're wrong about.”
-Hopefully he’s aware of the joke he’s making by calling this belief of his a ‘certainty’.

“in the past we used to value "Charity" and "Love"-- the fierce, hearty sort of love that would even allow the object loved to experience pain for its own good and its own life. Now that has been replaced by mere "Kindness", which just desires that a creature be happy and escape suffering. He remarks that mere Kindness and Love are not the same thing, as Love longs ultimately for the life of the creature while Kindness divorced from Love would gladly kill it to spare it pain.”

-Apart from his romanticizing of the past, and apart from the straw man he’s picking on (I for one, could conceive of a world where I’d want more for people than mere pain-free happiness), he’s not addressing the possibilities that: people might have a different definition of love than his(!); and that there could be a world where lessons could be learned without pain; and that the world could be so bad a place that it’s more noble to reject it than to stay in it; and that you could long for the life of a creature, but not the kind of life that’s available to it!

[54. John said the following at 8:39 PM on Mar 3:]

54

Jethro,

Even though you still tried to insult me, that's perhaps the nicest post you've ever addressed to me.

Here's a place to start:

http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=312

[55. Sara said the following at 9:09 AM on Mar 4:]

55

oops, Adam, I meant to say that I think the Holy Spirit is nothing more than a 'personification' (as in, persons of the Trinity) of a certain set of our own emotions, not an 'anthropomorphisizing'.

Eliza: I didn't mean to so glibly suggest that you read like 30 pages of stuff on the internet, however good it is. :)

John, interesting website. It's off-topic, but isn't it interesting that "only 30 percent of affluent families survive into the second generation, and only 10 percent into the third." Also very surprising: " Senior pastors in the U.S. earn an average salary of over $80,000 a year, including benefits." Crazy! My old pastor only gets like $10 000 a year (it's a very small church).

[56. Hope said the following at 10:23 AM on Mar 4:]

56

Wow, these are long posts with some heavy content! Rather intimidating for a newcomer to jump in, but post #13 got stuck in my head and so I wanted to thank Sara for sharing what her Christian life was like. It reminds me of my own focus on self perfection (for example, my current train of thought is "wow, my post will be the best ever! Oops - that was prideful, how can I make it sound more humble?") when I could just know God cares for me just as I am and move on to share that love in a practical way with somebody else.

[57. xeres said the following at 10:28 AM on Mar 4:]

57

Sara,

What's wrong with having a purpose in your life? There has to some reason to pursue virtue and being good. More inportantly, what's wrong with inquiring for understanding what makes us human, what is the good and virtious life. It is a pursuit worth pursuing, even if it is a lifetime journey. This is why I find the philosophical implications of evoulutionary thought and post-modernistic views troubling.

[58. Eliza said the following at 10:55 AM on Mar 4:]

58

Hi Sara,

Why I am still a Christian. Oh gosh.

I did skim the synoptic problem site you linked. I had a New Testament class in college that went over that in some detail. I'm not sure I quite understand what the problem is? Whether they're plagiarized from each other, or they had a conspiracy to say the same things, making it less likely that what they say is the actual record of what happened?

My understanding of the place of scripture in Christianity has undergone quite a change in the past few years. I was raised to believe that pretty much every word in the Bible was literal, indoctrinated into 6 Day Creation and the like. But when I started thinking for myself, my perspective took a big shift. I still see "all of scripture as being God-breathed", but it's just that--inspired. Not dictated. God "inspired" people to write things that have a level of truth; sometimes factual, sometimes emotional, sometimes spiritual, sometimes metaphorical. I love the fact that Jesus is described as the "word". The Christian "word" is a living breathing person, not a book to analyze. So, I'm not positive that there are absolutely no errors in the Bible, but I'm not going to throw out the whole Book because of that. People say, "You're just picking and choosing what parts you like" or "If you decide chapter X is inaccurate, how can you trust any other passage?" I think that's kind of extreme. I believe God is perfect, but people are not. So someone could have marked a number of something down wrong or made a spelling error, but this does not erase the inherent inspiration of what they wrote.

As far as Matthew, Mark, and Luke go, I don't have a problem with the Q doc theory. It certainly looks like they all got their info from similar sources. Like 3 people writing a research paper based on the same original material. Luke, especially, states right out that what he's writing is not an eyewitness account. I don't think this negates the general accuracy and "truth" (note the small "t") of the recorded events.

This is going to end up being a long post!

At this point I still call myself a Christian, but I'm being a very bad one! I'm not doing all those "devotional" things we're supposed to do, and my prayers are more like angry rants or pity parties. And yet for some reason I still choose all the time to believe. At least believe that Jesus exists and is having grace on me. I'm confused about pretty much everything else.

I've never had intellectual problems on the existence of God or the historical existence, death and resurrection of Jesus or the reliability of the canonical books. I think there is as much evidence to support these things as there is evidence to support pretty much any religion, and a lot more than some! And I've been immersed in enough apologetic mumbo-jumbo that I'm sure I could talk myself out of a bad situation, if needed. At least I could make it sound logical :).

No, my issue with Christianity is much more social, emotional and philosophical. I see now that I definitely projected my image of my parents onto God, which has given me a deep-seated fear of being struck by lightening at any moment, because God wants to teach me some kind of "lesson". The people in my life now say that's not how God is, but I could point to lots of scriptures that seem to imply otherwise! Anyway, the obnoxious bully kind of god is not worth worshiping, in my book. That's the short explanation of the emotional/philosophical problems I have with the Christian God. The social one is this: I have met way to many self-righteous, stuck up, passive-agressive, narrow-minded Christians in my life. And I really don't like them and don't want to be associated with them.

So, why the heck am I still here??? Well, the church I found now is different from anything I grew up in, and it's not repulsive :). In fact, I had a great conversation with one of the pastors whose wife left him where I asked him why he came back to the church after that controversy. After all, didn't he expect judgment and criticism to greet him everywhere? And he replied that he came back because he wanted this to be a kind of church where people like him could come. I was totally blown away by that, because I'd never encountered that kind of vulnerability and commitment to just plain ol' goodness before. He basically totally laid himself out there to give the church a chance to be, you know, churchy:). In the good way. Pretty much all the ministers at this church are like that.

So, I have come to terms with the fact that not all Christians are obnoxious and evil.

This has also effected my emotional/philosophical issues, because obviously this pastor knows a different God than I do. And I'm still doing a lot of questioning, but I don't want to back out until I really am happy with my conclusions; throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The biggest thing I've realized is that there is absolutely no amount of thinking that's going to get me to heaven. After going around in a million circles, it will always come down to faith. There is no way to actually know. At this point I have a kind of vacillating faith--sometimes it's somewhat solid, mostly pretty wishy-washy--and it's still a journey.

Another, perhaps shallower reason that I continue to be a part of church is that I think it's pretty beautiful. I really like liturgy and symbolism and hymns and intentional community and all that jazz. For all the hurt the church causes, I'm seeing that it also does a lot of good.

Sorry for the huge explanation, and I hope it was at least somewhat understandable :).

[59. Al said the following at 4:19 PM on Mar 4:]

59

Sara,

How responsible God is over evil and pain because He created humans capable of succumbing to the Fall has been argued for thousands of years, and Paul even addresses it in Romans. The rhetoric stating that God is as good as responsible for their pain is a bit too simplistic in my opinion. I know that I am fully deserving of the consequences of my own actions and pain. It's one of those things that are simply self-evident to me. Paul addresses the argument, albiet with a response that doesn't satisfy me philosphically, nor would it placate any atheist. But it does state a truth I accept-- I am not God, and I cannot presume to know better than my Maker, and in my questioning and struggles, I need to be wary of thinking I know all that there is to know. Anyway, the Christian understanding is that God allows but does not directly cause evil-- how that works I'm not smart enough to give you a complete answer for. But He turns what men intend for evil for good, and instead of shying away from pain, He embraces it himself.

If anyone could have His way and avoid pain, you would think it would be God. Yet Christ subjects Himself to that very pain of a fallen world to redeem man and for His glory. To me, that's a sort of deep, astounding, unexpected beauty greater than wishes for a universe that pain has never touched.

It's kind of funny that we deem God unimaginative for not creating a painless world, when it may well be our lack of imagination that renders us unable to understand how pain may be necessary to bear ultimate beauty. I actually find the fact that God allows and redeems suffering, and does the unthinkable in taking it upon Himself one of the most highly imaginative and surprising aspects of Christian theology. In the moment of the Cross, God knew what it was to be apart from God. That's wacky. It speaks of a strange beauty and universe that I would never have chosen to make, precisely because I lack the imagination for it-- and my imagination is crippled from the outset because for better or worse, I'm pain avoidant.

It's abit arbitrary for us to demand a universe made without pain, merely because we find it distasteful, and then accuse God of being uncreative in being unable to comply with our requirements. If there *is* a God, then we've got things really backwards. He would be the one to determine how the universe should be built and for what ends, not us.

Never seen cows die in childbirth... I guess they're having beef for dinner.

[60. Sara said the following at 4:20 PM on Mar 4:]

60

Eliza, what a lovely post! Thank you. I want really want to respond more to it; I'm usually not as pressed for time as I am right now... :) I'd say that I'll try posting something in a couple days, but that sounds like some kind of pathetic teaser :)

That's a great story about your pastor.

[61. Al said the following at 4:38 PM on Mar 4:]

61

"Would he say that the reverse is true? If the whole universe has meaning, we should never know that it has meaning because everything would be so infused with meaningfulness that we couldn’t conceive of meaninglessness?"

I don't know what C.S. Lewis would say about a world filled to the brim with meaning whereby it's lost again because it wouldn't be discernable from meaninglessness (if that's what you're asking?). He would probably say it wasn't true, or doesn't know, as he doesn't have such a universe to observe. But he's been dead 40 years and is a better thinker than me, so I probably shouldn't suppose to speak for him. For what it's worth, I don't abscribe to the philosophy that something only exists on the basis of its counterpart-- and that good only exists by coopting evil. I do believe opposites illustrate their compliment and highlight them. But it remains that the world we live in is one that appears at times meaningless though we long for it, not one the one you speak of, so filled with meaning that we can't conceive of it-- so it seems Lewis is speaking of the world that actually is, and I don't know how he would respond to the hypothetical world you describe.

But that hypothetical world does sound a little bit like a world without pain you imagine possible, which, according to your question if you believe it to raise a valid argument, would preclude a world without meaninglessness, which would preclude a world without pain, as meaninglessness is one of the most painful things I know. It's a bit like asking if we can experience pleasure in a world without pain. I imagine so, but only because I don't ascribe to the philosophy underlying your question. I would disagree that a universe without pain would automatically provide the greatest pleasure and greatest good, however.

"Also, he doesn’t distinguish between the possibilities of not being able to know the ‘meaning of the universe’ on a grand scale, and being able to know ‘meaning’ on a smaller scale events which, just by being non-universal, could still be ‘seen’ under his metaphor, and which, taken together, might make up the meaning of the whole universe."

Lewis isn't talking about ultimate meanings here. Rather, he is arguing against the explanation of meaningless that you cited and felt resonated with you-- that we're only material and chemical, somehow lamenting that we're only energy and matter, and that you yourself would end up arguing against if you allow any meaning beyond mere tissue and material on any scope, great or small. He doesn't distinguish between the two because he is responding to the very belief you previous cited asserting that there is none at all.

I suppose it's possible that the universe may have "meaning" on small scales and not larger ones-- but thinking that it should be that way is somewhat arbitrary, as we artificially limit the significance and scope of any one meaning. This also runs somewhat counter to most scientific philosophy, which supposes that ultimate rules (here "significance" and "meaning") should elegantly have ultimate scope. Allowing for a bunch of smaller meanings cobbled together while prohibiting ultimate ones seems artificial-- especially when the definition of meaning itself implies the abstract, underlying greater. It would probably take an actual philosopher or wordsmith to give you a better definition of meaning.

"And what on earth is ‘meaning’? I only believe in ‘cause and effect’, and that’s something that, even if it’s a universe-wide phenomenon, we could be expected to be able to observe to some extent."

Mere mechanical cause and effect implies that there isn't meaning on a large scale because there isn't real meaning on a small scale. No materialistic evolutionist would define cause and effect as having meaning, or even being meaning-- it is merely an illusory construct we impose on patterns in reality. In fact, "merely cause and effect" are precisely what materialistic evolutionists use to describe what meaning is not, and the latter cannot be rescued in the objective sense by defining it as material processes.

Which just goes back to the original problem. If everything is just material cause and effect, it seems that we should not even be having this discussion right now, as if there was even the possibility of something more.

"Apart from his romanticizing of the past, and apart from the straw man he’s picking on (I for one, could conceive of a world where I’d want more for people than mere pain-free happiness) and that the world could be so bad a place that it’s more noble to reject it than to stay in it; and that you could long for the life of a creature, but not the kind of life that’s available to it!"

I don't think Lewis romanticizes the past. He does take great issue with the Myth of Modernity, that what is new is necessarily what is better, and that much of the wisdom of the ages is mostly irrelevant and can be reduced to mere curiosities.

And I don't think he's making straw man arguments as much as he has his finger on the pulse on society (or at least where it was headed in the time he wrote). Many modern movements are concerned with "kindness" over love, or mistake the two. A somewhat newly Christian sister who I respect has defended abortion passionately because of the life she imagines of those born to parents who don't want them. And much of the let-do philosophy of our age is concerned primarily with letting people be happy (or attempt to be happy) on their own terms, rather than that they would become better for their own sake. I agree with you that we should all long for a better life for other creatures, and do our best to make our longing a real hope for them-- but to presume that we can decide for them alternatives to their achievable life-- whether they should continue or end, or whether they should be born or not for their own sake seems highly arrogant and in practical action, directly undermines any of their dignity and life we say we cherish. We play their functional gods who know better rather than their fellow creatures.

And last I don't find much *noble* in wanting to leave the world because it's broken. I mean, I can certainly empathize with wanting to get off this rock... usually when I'm feeling especially emo or pining after unrequited love. I even think it's a legitimate desire. But I don't think that by itself, merely shunning the world is all that commendable, and I don't find much sublime in Buddhist notions of escape. Maybe it's just that I'm a little too enamoured with a certain someone-- who in a moment, shed His nobility and entered the world-- precisely because it was dark and broken.

[62. Adam said the following at 2:14 PM on Mar 5:]

62

Sara,

just on your last point: actually, I do see the world that way, and believe that there 'aren't any objective moral obligations, only nice-to-haves'. When I say that people should stop unnecessary suffering, I'm just saying that it seems that way to me, not that it's a definite universal truth. I didn't say that my view is inconsistant, I said that it isn't intellectually solid enough to withstand criticism from moral skeptics. I don't think anybody's views are.

You are right. I should have said that your view is arbitrary. Here is what you actually said:

Adam, I don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented. I can only say that it's self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions)

You said you "don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented." You then went on to say that it was "self-evident" to you. In other words, what you are saying is that you are being arbitrary.

And, of course, you do not allow people to be arbitrary. For instance, in your last response to me, you wrote:

I want to talk to you about how you think that God "has revealed himself in his inerrant word, the Bible". Hopefully it won't be a too off-topic thing to talk about in some upcoming post. Basically, I think that the 'Holy Spirit' is an anthropomorphisizing of our own emotions, and that any appeal to proof by the Spirit is really yet another intellectual or emotional proof offered up; and also that the Bible isn't inerrant, and doesn't even claim to be: the canon wasn't totally finalized until the 4th century, so when the Bible talks about 'itself' it isn't necessarily talking about all 66 books.

I think, and this point that I could answer that I do not have to have a rational reason why I believe the Bible is inerrant. It is self-evident to me...very self evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions). As I said, you have opened the flood gates. Now, I don't have to have a rational reason to believe anything. Yet, you know deep down inside that this is no way to look at the situation, since you were the one who brought up the objection about inerrancy in the first place. You believe in having rational, moral dialogue. The problem is that your view makes that impossible.

Also, you say that no one's views are able to withstand moral skepticism. You are only proving my point. You reject inerrancy, and thus, you cannot even argue against inerrancy, because I can be arbitrary just like you. You are right. Reject inerrancy, and no one can escape the arguments of the moral skeptic. What you are showing us is what happens when you reject God's word as being inerrant and inerrant revelation from him.

Now, I am going to go on to answer the criticisms you present. However, remember, at least I have a framework in terms of which I can answer them. Given your arbitrariness, and your willingness to appeal to "self-evidence," you cannot even argue against anything I present. So, the fact that I am even responding to these criticisms means your position has been refuted.

You say that the Bible no where says it is inerrant. Well, actually, it does say that. It says that God's word is "truth" [John 17:17]. The Lord Jesus said that "the scriptures cannot be broken" [John 10:34-35]. Also, the Bible presents the scriptures as coming from an omnicient God [2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21] who cannot lie [Titus 1:2]. Along these same lines, the Jews never questioned Jesus when he quoted scripture. It was the final court of appeals. In Matthew 19:5, Jesus puts the words of Genesis 2:24 into the mouth of God, when, in the text of Genesis, it was spoken by the narrator. Such, of course, means that the scriptures viewed these words as the words of God. Again, we find no complaint from the Jews over this.

Now, as far as the canon not being completely recognized until the third century, I again have to ask why this is important. Given what the scriptures tell us, the scriptures come from God, not from man [2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21]. The canon is therefore a function of revelation. For instance, there is a canon of my articles. I have written several on my blog. The fact that I have written some articles and not all articles means that there is a canon of my works. Thus, inspiration is not a function of what man thinks, but what God has chosen to inspire.

Now, we just need to add one premise to that, and all of these kind of objections become irrelevant. That is that God leads his people to have exactly what they need. In other words, his people are passive instruments who are led to recognize God's inerrant word.

How do we know what that inerrant word is? Again, from the impossibility of the contrary. No other alleged revelation can make rational sense out of reality. Which is, ultimately, where we started before you even asked the question. Given these 66 books as revelation from a transcendent, imminant God, I can make sense out of the universe. However, as I said before, you are reduced to nothing but pure arbitrariness.

God Bless,
Adam

[63. Eliza said the following at 3:41 PM on Mar 5:]

63

Adam,

Do you not see how circular your argument is? You are saying:

The Bible is inerrant.
I know this because the Bible tells me.
The Bible is the only so-called proof you are offering for itself.

Your belief in God is entirely based on faith (granted, with apparently a good knowledge of history). In order to believe anything you do, you first have to presuppose God's existence and that he is personal enough to influence people. You say you believe this because the Bible says so? That is circular logic, and not proof of the truth of either the Bible or God.

As far as Sara being arbitrary, I continue to disagree with you. She is not making decisions based on her own personal convenience or desire without any regard for the intrinsic nature of things. Just because there are philosophical issues that one doesn't have the answer to does not make one's entire worldview arbitrary. It just makes it unfinished. And that is just fine. After all, when is the point where we know everything and don't need to think about it any more?

The more I learn the less I know.

[64. Sara said the following at 4:52 PM on Mar 5:]

64

Hi Adam - just for now, are we conflating moral skepticism with skepticism about empirical facts and mathematical and logical systems and so on? say Ed shoots Bill: I can point out the gun, the bullet, the wound, the scream, but I can't point to the 'wrong'. I can logically show 'if A therefore C', but I can't objectively prove that that's good or evil. At least for this thread, I'm saying that I believe in the objectivity of observable realities, and of coherence within math and logic systems and so on, but not of morals.

[65. Adam said the following at 6:17 PM on Mar 5:]

65

Eliza,

Actually, I was not responding to her challange that the Bible is inerrant. I was responding to her challange that the Bible does not teach its own inerrancy. She said:

and also that the Bible isn't inerrant, and doesn't even claim to be:

I was challanging the statement in bold.

No, what I am arguing is that the proof of the inerrancy of the scriptures is without it, and the rest of the Christian worldview, you can't make rational sense out of reality.

Finally, my argumentation is a rational form of argumentation. It is called transendental argumentation, arguing something from the impossibility of the contrary:

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/transcende_bid.html

It began with Kant, and is in virtually every philosophy textbook available. While some reject the argument Kant used against the scepticism of David Hume, it is a very well accepted form of argumentation.

As far as Sara being arbitrary, I continue to disagree with you. She is not making decisions based on her own personal convenience or desire without any regard for the intrinsic nature of things. Just because there are philosophical issues that one doesn't have the answer to does not make one's entire worldview arbitrary. It just makes it unfinished. And that is just fine. After all, when is the point where we know everything and don't need to think about it any more?

Eliza, you have missed the entire point of my argument. My argument is not to say Sara personally cannot give any foundation for moral obligation, but that it is *impossible* for her, or anyone else who holds her worldview to do it, given the inherent nature of the worldview she holds. She has no ultimate, infallible authority in her worldview, and thus, it is inconsistent for her to talk about universal moral obligation. Hence, the argument is not that Sara personally cannot make sense out of moral obligation, but, given her rejection of an ultimate, infallible creator and king who has the right to bind his law to her contience, it is *impossible* to have moral obligation. Not that sometime down the road we will figure it out, but that, given the nature of her worldview which is inherently secular, it is *impossible* to have moral obligation.

Sara then responded with the following:

Adam, I don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented. I can only say that it's self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions)

At that point, yes, if you grant that it is impossible, given your worldview, to make rational sense out of moral obligation, and yet you just believe in it anyway, then you are, indeed, being arbitrary to say that you do not need a rational reason, and that it is just "self-evident."

God Bless,
Adam

[66. Adam said the following at 6:38 PM on Mar 5:]

66

Sara,

Hi Adam - just for now, are we conflating moral skepticism with skepticism about empirical facts and mathematical and logical systems and so on? say Ed shoots Bill: I can point out the gun, the bullet, the wound, the scream, but I can't point to the 'wrong'. I can logically show 'if A therefore C', but I can't objectively prove that that's good or evil. At least for this thread, I'm saying that I believe in the objectivity of observable realities, and of coherence within math and logic systems and so on, but not of morals.

Actually, the point is that if you allow for irrationality in the area of morals, what is wrong with me using irrationality in other areas? Here, again, we have another instance of arbitrariness. It is just fine for you to be irrational when it comes to the problems in my system, but it is not ok for me to be irrational when it comes to the problems you try to raise in my system???????? Why is it you apply one standard to ethics and another standard to other kinds of reasoning?

Not only that, but let me also bring up the area of logic. How do you as an atheist make sense out of universal, immaterial, abstract laws such as the laws of logic? Obviously, you can't make sense out of the laws of logic if you are a naturalistic materialist. To speak of something immaterial when all you believe in are things that are material is simply to contradict yourself.

Now, you could argue that you believe in immaterial things such as the laws of logic as well as material things, thus becoming a secularistic dualist. However, then next question is how you bring those immaterial laws into contact with the material world. It is all well and good that the immaterial laws exist, but how is it that that which is immaterial has an effect on that which is material?

I have heard the problem put this way. If you have cookie dough and a cookie christmas-tree-shaped cookie cutter, it still does not give you a christmas-tree-shaped cookie. You have to bring the cookie cutter into contact with the cookie dough in such a way that it cuts the dough in the shape of a christmas-tree-shaped cookie. How is it that immaterial things such as the laws of logic can have an effect upon the material world when your worldview is secular, and does not allow for the thinking of a sovereign God to be the determiner of what is logical?

Again, there is not enough "stuff" in your worldview to bring these two together. Thus, again, I would argue that even the laws of logic are impossible given your worldview.

God Bless,
Adam

[67. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:35 AM on Mar 6:]

67

Basically, I think that the 'Holy Spirit' is an anthropomorphisizing of our own emotions, and that any appeal to proof by the Spirit is really yet another intellectual or emotional proof offered up

That's an interesting thing to say...and like Eliza keeps trying to say, hinges on faith.

Every logical argument begins with an accepted premise that is accepted on faith. Some things for some people require less faith to believe them, but its faith none-the-less. Lets go back to the father of upside down logic who decided building logically off of a pre-supposed creator wasn't a solid argument.

Des Cartes began with what he felt he could believe with absolute certainty - I think, therefore I am. However, he was accepting even that statement on faith. I know, Sara, that you may not agree with him, but think about the premise you are basing all of your arguments on and ask yourself if that is a logical basis or if you are accepting it on faith, as miniscule as it may be. Until then, I don't know if you can logically debate against people who acknowledge the basis of their arguments and accept that their presupposition is based on faith. At least we have a solid foundation for argument.

I love how you point out that the Holy Spirit could be the anthropomorphisizing of our own emotions. I especially like this because Paul pretty much says that in Romans when he discusses our conscience.

But again, the reason why arguing to you that that's what the Holy Spirit is and still claim he's from God doesn't work because we are basing that claim on the fact that there was an intelligent creator that created us and that conscience. We've accepted that presuppososition on Faith, with observation of the natural world around us to edify that claim.

From the acceptance of an intelligent creator, we (as believers of such) have a curiosity to satisfy. Well who is this creator? And from there we go to the Bible. Why? Again, its a presupposition of faith. I accept that scripture is the word of God for the same reasons I accept the argument for an intelligent creator. 2000+ years of writing, dozens of different authors, tons of historical evidence to support certain claims made by it, and all of it has a central theme that points to the climax and the resolution. Add on to that that it claims to be the breathed life of God. You claim that that is a circular argument, but logically it isn't - its a paradox. If that statement is wrong, then all of scritpure can be wiped out as false. But there are parts of scripture that ARE true - and have been proven as such. Its like claiming Jesus was a good man but not the messiah - you either accept him as messiah or a mad man. There's no inbetween. But I don't need that to justify my belief.

My belief system is based on 2 assumptions I've accepted by faith. Its completely and totally simplistic.

How many assumptions is your belief system based on? And don't say "none", because you'd be a walking contradiction with no focus in life, and completely lacking of consistent, logical thought.

Philosophy, in all its wisdom, has managed to seperate human beings from themselves. Every argument is a mixture of faith and logic - logic doesn't exist purely on its own...unless you are God. Accepting that, to an extent, faith is acceptable in arguments makes life a lot more consistent - philosophically.

[68. John said the following at 9:18 AM on Mar 6:]

68

Christina,

I would almost 100% agree with you, but I'm slightly hesitant.

I would adjust your argument to say that everyone lives be faith in something, whether it is Buddha, wealth, their heart, Darwin, or God.

To say otherwise would be to claim omniscience.

That's where I would like to brush up your argument slightly. Axioms, not faith, are what logic is based on. Axioms are assumed and accepted, they cannot be proven.

Axioms are the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality, just to name 2.

Hopefully this all helps Sara out.

[69. Sara said the following at 11:17 AM on Mar 6:]

69

Adam,
This reminds me of whichever philosopher it was who, freaked out by some epistemological point, was afraid to get out of bed for fear that the floor wasn't there! I don't mean this hypothetically: would you demand that he stay in bed until he felt 100% sure it was safe, and admitted that the question of the floor's existance can be ultimately settled, without a doubt?
You'd say athiest philosophers have no basis for their beliefs, and they'd return that neither do you... the key thing is that from there, it isn't a black and white thing--that there's either absolute certainty or utter confusion--but that there's things like probability and reason, which can *provisionally* be assumed: will you not allow me to say that there's a big difference, for me, between my uncertainty that I'm truly sitting on a chair right now, and my uncertainty that I'm sitting on a troll? It's just that kind of distinction that makes me say that there's a big difference in my confidence that '1984' was written in the UK and my confidence that the Bible was inspired by an invisible Father/Ghost/Human-whose-blood-we-ought-to-fake-drinking, etc. etc.

When it comes to looking at evidence, I think religious people have a much greater burden of proof. For instance, I say that when we die, we rot, like any other animal. Someone who wants to drag in invisible battling horsemen and raging demons and lakes of fire has more explaining to do than I have, unless of course you believe more in invisible things than in tangibility.

The key point here is provisionality instead of deadlock uncertainty and despair. If you're interested in saying, "what's your basis for being ok with provisionality, and what's your basis for being ok with that, and so on" that would lead to an infinite regress for us *both* (just like when I say "what's your basis for faith", and keep going).... unless we accept, provisionally, some things like rationality, and go from there. We don't have to to, but if we don't, I don't think you're any freer from the infinite regress than I am. Just because you admit absolutes, it doesn't do anything to prove that they're there or that arguments based on them are better than mine. You could maybe say that it makes your arguments more *internally* cohesive in that they spring from taken-to-be-certainties, but then I'd say that my arguments were more internally cohesive with regard to rationality (see invisible horsemen), and so on.

Just to note, the closest I come to believing in a higher power (sorry if that's an annoying phrase, like 'life partner') has to do with asking what the origins of the universe are. The leap of faith from that to 'Allah speaks Arabic and I ought to pray towards Mecca' isn't happening for me anytime soon, I doubt, but we'll see. Or should I understand that faith is at the root of it, and accept it, anyway? After all, how can I presume to know the mind of Allah? Who am I to question his commandments? I trust that He has a purpose for permitting pain in this world.

Whatever people answer to that is why I think it's all about reason, not faith, in practice. And so come all the discussions about Biblical inerrancy and love and the nature of faith and so on, which for me, as yet, have led to atheism, but again, we'll see.

[70. Adam said the following at 12:17 PM on Mar 6:]

70

Christina,

Lets go back to the father of upside down logic who decided building logically off of a pre-supposed creator wasn't a solid argument.

Des Cartes began with what he felt he could believe with absolute certainty - I think, therefore I am. However, he was accepting even that statement on faith.

First of all, Christina, Did Descartes ever combine that argument with a transcendental argument alla Kant? No, he could not have because transcendental reasoning was not systemitized until the time of Kant, who was not even born until 74 years after the death of Descartes.

2000+ years of writing, dozens of different authors, tons of historical evidence to support certain claims made by it, and all of it has a central theme that points to the climax and the resolution. Add on to that that it claims to be the breathed life of God. You claim that that is a circular argument, but logically it isn't - its a paradox. If that statement is wrong, then all of scritpure can be wiped out as false. But there are parts of scripture that ARE true - and have been proven as such. Its like claiming Jesus was a good man but not the messiah - you either accept him as messiah or a mad man. There's no inbetween. But I don't need that to justify my belief.

Two things, first of all it is erronious to say "If that statement is wrong, then all of scritpure can be wiped out as false. But there are parts of scripture that ARE true - and have been proven as such." This is faulty logic. There are many books where parts have been proven to be wrong. For instance, consider an old commentary that my pastor used to say that the Philistine God Dagon was the fish God. We now know that he is actually the grain God. Of course, there are many other things in that commentary that are perfectly true. Why would you consider it illogical to believe that the Bible could be wrong about it being God-breathed, and yet, right about some of the other things it says? Also, there are other books that claim to be God's word, such as the Koran, that also have things in them that have been proven to be true. Why is it that you would reject them as being God's word?

My belief system is based on 2 assumptions I've accepted by faith. Its completely and totally simplistic.

How many assumptions is your belief system based on? And don't say "none", because you'd be a walking contradiction with no focus in life, and completely lacking of consistent, logical thought.

Philosophy, in all its wisdom, has managed to seperate human beings from themselves. Every argument is a mixture of faith and logic - logic doesn't exist purely on its own...unless you are God. Accepting that, to an extent, faith is acceptable in arguments makes life a lot more consistent - philosophically.

Christina, is that really consistent with what the Bible says? You say that you accept on faith that the Bible is inerrant. Notice what the Bible says about this topic:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Christina, does that sound to you like it is just a matter of faith against faith? Does it not sound like God has revealed himself so clearly in this world that no one can miss it? How is that faith against faith?

Psalm 19:1 For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Does that sound like it is just faith against faith, or does it sound like it is something that is declared?

Romans 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Does that sound like it is just faith against faith? Does it not sound like the unbeliever does, in fact, know God?

From these passages, and many more, I think it is safe to say that this is not the description of the situation given by the Bible. Hence, I would argue that if you accept the Bible on faith, then you must reject the position you have just presented on faith.

The problem is your assumption that we cannot use the lordship of Christ in our argumentation. You say he must be reduced to a faith claim equally as valid as anyone elses. Paul tells us that we are to "take every thought captive, and make it obedient to Christ" [2 Corinthians 10:5]. Not only that, when we "give a defense for the hope that is within us," we are to "sanctify Christ in our hearts" [1 Peter 3:15]. Can you really say that, in Christ are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3] if you do believe that it is nothing more than equally valid faith claims?

I know that you are on my side of this discussion, but I have some real concerns about the way in which your post has been constructed, and I don't believe that it is the way we are to be thinking as Christians. While I know that there are a whole lot of people who agree with you, I believe it is important to discuss these things because it not only effects how we reason with unbelievers, but also how we look at the very world in which we live.

God Bless,
Adam

[71. Sara said the following at 1:13 PM on Mar 6:]

71

Adam,
About Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:21: you have to first have faith in these verses' credibility to believe that these represent a valid proof of revelation, a declaratation by God, and a correct description of unbelievers' actions respectively.
You wrote to Christina, "The problem is your assumption that we cannot use the lordship of Christ in our argumentation. You say he must be reduced to a faith claim equally as valid as anyone elses. Paul tells us that we are to "take every thought captive, and make it obedient to Christ" [2 Corinthians 10:5]. Not only that, when we "give a defense for the hope that is within us," we are to "sanctify Christ in our hearts" [1 Peter 3:15]. Can you really say that, in Christ are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3] if you do believe that it is nothing more than equally valid faith claims?"
Adam, what makes you believe that these verses are right? You have to believe that these verses are valid before you can say that their assertions--that, say, Christ is above thoughts--are true (ironically).

[72. Adam said the following at 1:17 PM on Mar 6:]

72

Sara,

This reminds me of whichever philosopher it was who, freaked out by some epistemological point, was afraid to get out of bed for fear that the floor wasn't there! I don't mean this hypothetically: would you demand that he stay in bed until he felt 100% sure it was safe, and admitted that the question of the floor's existance can be ultimately settled, without a doubt?

Actually, yes I would indeed, do so. What you are referring to is the problem of induction. This is the idea that the future will be like the past. For instance, consider that, in past experiences, everytime we have squeezed the tube of toothpaste, toothpaste has come spurting out of the tube. What is the justification that you have that tonight, when you squeeze that tube of toothpaste, that toothpaste will, again, come spurting out of the tube? You have to rely on a principle known as induction, namely, the principle that says that the future will be like the past.

Of course, this is not hard to justify from a Christian perspective. If you take the Bible to be God's inspired and inerrant revelation, then we can trust the promise of God:

Genesis 8:22 "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease."

You see, if you trust in the promise of the Noahic covenant, then you have justification for your claim that the future will be like the past because God, in his sovereignty, has promised to keep things uniform. However, again, as an atheist, what justification is there for the belief that the future will be like the past?

You'd say athiest philosophers have no basis for their beliefs, and they'd return that neither do you...

Well, I don't agree. I would challange the atheistic philosopher in the same way that I am challanging you.

the key thing is that from there, it isn't a black and white thing--that there's either absolute certainty or utter confusion--but that there's things like probability and reason, which can *provisionally* be assumed: will you not allow me to say that there's a big difference, for me, between my uncertainty that I'm truly sitting on a chair right now, and my uncertainty that I'm sitting on a troll? It's just that kind of distinction that makes me say that there's a big difference in my confidence that '1984' was written in the UK and my confidence that the Bible was inspired by an invisible Father/Ghost/Human-whose-blood-we-ought-to-fake-drinking, etc. etc.

Well, of course, the problem with that is that probability is ultimately a claim that the future will be like the past. For instance, one could say that in the past, there is a probability that 10/14 times toothpaste will come spurting out of the tube. Now, in the future, we say that there is, therefore, a 10/14 probability that toothpaste will come spurting out of the tube. What is the problem with that? Probability is ultimately a claim that the future will be like the past. Whether you want to talk about uniform probability, or uniform high probability. Either way, a probability judgment is ultimately a claim that the future is like the past. Hence, I would maintain that, as an atheist, you cannot assume uniformity in nature, period, and thus, cannot have certainty that anything will be true, even a second from now.

Hence, I would say that, as an atheist, you can have no more certainty that your sitting in your chair right now, then you are that you are sitting on a troll. Once the principle of induction is shown to be unjustified, you really cannot know anything at all. You cannot know that things were even as they were a second ago.

Again, how do you know that 1984 was written in the UK. You might say that historical records tell you so. Ok, and is the intent of the author of those historical records the same today as when he wrote them? How do you know that the person who wrote the record has uniform personality such that he is the same person as when he wrote the historical record? Again, unless you can answer how it is that you can know that the future is like the past, you cannot even know that 1984 was written in England.

Now, as far as your "confidence," again, that is going to be a function of your worldview. Consistently, if you are an atheist, you cannot have confidence in either the fact that 1984 was written in England, or the fact that you are not now sitting on a troll simply because there is no way to assume that the future will be like the past.

Of course, the basis of my confidence that 1984 was written in England and that I am not now sitting on a troll is the fact that there is a loving God who revealed himself to us in his inerrant word, commands us to celebrate the Lord's supper, and promises to keep nature uniform. Without that, there is no foundation for confidence in anything.

When it comes to looking at evidence, I think religious people have a much greater burden of proof. For instance, I say that when we die, we rot, like any other animal. Someone who wants to drag in invisible battling horsemen and raging demons and lakes of fire has more explaining to do than I have, unless of course you believe more in invisible things than in tangibility.

Ok, the simple explaination is that, you cannot rationally believe that, when you die, your body will rot unless you believe that the Bible is inspired, and thus there is an immaterial soul that either goes to eternal torment, or eternal life as described in the Bible given that atheists cannot explain the principle of induction.

The key point here is provisionality instead of deadlock uncertainty and despair. If you're interested in saying, "what's your basis for being ok with provisionality, and what's your basis for being ok with that, and so on" that would lead to an infinite regress for us *both* (just like when I say "what's your basis for faith", and keep going).... unless we accept, provisionally, some things like rationality, and go from there. We don't have to to, but if we don't, I don't think you're any freer from the infinite regress than I am. Just because you admit absolutes, it doesn't do anything to prove that they're there or that arguments based on them are better than mine. You could maybe say that it makes your arguments more *internally* cohesive in that they spring from taken-to-be-certainties, but then I'd say that my arguments were more internally cohesive with regard to rationality (see invisible horsemen), and so on.

No, I reject that claim because, while you are right that both sides start from certain places, the difference is that, within my worldview based upon Christian presuppositions, I do not have to irrationally insert things like logic, induction, moral obligation, etc into my worldview. They fit together nicely with the rest of my worldview. While these things certainly are part of your worldview, it does not "fit" together with the rest of your worldview. It ends up being something that is totally arbitrary within the context of your own worldview. Given the rest of your presuppositions, there is no way to account for logic, induction, and moral obligation.

What I am arguing is that, unless you accept in your worldview the idea of demons, heaven, and hell, you cannot even believe that your body will rot. Unless you accept the idea of demons, heaven, and hell, you can have no certainty or cohesiveness in anything. That is the argument.

Just to note, the closest I come to believing in a higher power (sorry if that's an annoying phrase, like 'life partner') has to do with asking what the origins of the universe are. The leap of faith from that to 'Allah speaks Arabic and I ought to pray towards Mecca' isn't happening for me anytime soon, I doubt, but we'll see. Or should I understand that faith is at the root of it, and accept it, anyway? After all, how can I presume to know the mind of Allah? Who am I to question his commandments? I trust that He has a purpose for permitting pain in this world.

That is why I disagree with people who use that argument. It can be used to prove any God that is intellegent. That is why my argument is inherently Christian in character. What I have been trying to say to you is that you need to come to Christ, and have him form your worldview, or you will be stuck with a worldview that cannot internally make sense out of moral obligation, logic, and induction. Unless Christ is presented as the only savior for your thinking, you are not getting what I believe is the foundational Christian message, and I am sorry for that.

Whatever people answer to that is why I think it's all about reason, not faith, in practice. And so come all the discussions about Biblical inerrancy and love and the nature of faith and so on, which for me, as yet, have led to atheism, but again, we'll see.

No, I would say that you cannot separate the two. You see, Bible does not say that faith isn't based on reason, but that reason is based on faith. That is, you must have faith in the scriptures as God's inerrant word to man if you are going to be able to reason at all. The reason is that no other worldview can *internally* account for logic, moral obligation, and induction. Therefore, if you are going to continue to reason, what I am saying you must logically do, is come to Christ.

God Bless,
Adam

[73. Adam said the following at 3:47 PM on Mar 6:]

73

Sara,

About Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:21: you have to first have faith in these verses' credibility to believe that these represent a valid proof of revelation, a declaratation by God, and a correct description of unbelievers' actions respectively.
You wrote to Christina, "The problem is your assumption that we cannot use the lordship of Christ in our argumentation. You say he must be reduced to a faith claim equally as valid as anyone elses. Paul tells us that we are to "take every thought captive, and make it obedient to Christ" [2 Corinthians 10:5]. Not only that, when we "give a defense for the hope that is within us," we are to "sanctify Christ in our hearts" [1 Peter 3:15]. Can you really say that, in Christ are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3] if you do believe that it is nothing more than equally valid faith claims?"
Adam, what makes you believe that these verses are right? You have to believe that these verses are valid before you can say that their assertions--that, say, Christ is above thoughts--are true (ironically).

I know they are true because of the impossibility of the contrary. Unless you have the inerrancy of the scriptures as one of the presuppositions of your worldview, your worldview cannot make rational sense out of reality. As I have said to you many times, unless you come to Christ and allow him to form your worldview by his word, you are left without out any ability to "fit" moral obligation, logic, and induction into your worldview. Indeed, you loose all of the "treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3], and your reasoning becomes foolish [Psalm 14:1, Romans 1:21-22].

Of course, when I am writing to Christina, I am writing to someone who already shares my worldview. She already believes in the inerrancy of the scriptures, and thus, I can appeal to that belief to ask her how it is that she can believe that it is merely faith against faith, when the scriptures say otherwise. My appeal to her is to be more consistent in her Christian faith, while my appeal to you is to repent so that reasoning [moral or otherwise] makes sense within your worldview. Hence, when I write to Christina, I am not writing to someone who needs to repent so that they can make sense out of logic, induction, and moral obligation. I am writing to her to simply express concerns as a brother in Christ.

God Bless,
Adam

[74. Sara said the following at 3:25 PM on Mar 7:]

74

Adam, that's unbelievable, that you'd expect the philosopher to be philosophically certain that he was able to stand on the floor before he tried to do so!

No animals have conscious philosophies; neither do babies; and most of the time, normal humans act irrationally: we do things in our sleep; we may be insane or enraged or one-year-old babies or distracted or mentally retarded or overjoyed; or just not thinking about philosophy at the moment. ... I hope you'll try and convince actual atheist philosophers of your views, and not just straw me.

My main point: induction just as easily makes evolutionary sense as it's a proof of God. People who acted like you suggest the philosopher act wouldn't be able to propagate! Your idea that people ought to accept an absolutist philosophy literally before they can act is an idea that seems so divorced from human or animal nature.

If you'll allow an interlude, and if you've read Ted's post about his friend, what do you make of all this? On the one hand, it seems horribly trivial to be bickering about something like this; on the other hand, life is such that even on the morning you go to a funeral you still have to do jarringly mundane things like find your keys and watch traffic lights and so on. Like lots of people, this whole thread--whole blog--sometimes leaves such a sick taste in my mouth and I very often feel guilty having such detached and harsh debates; on the other hand, sometimes exchanging thoughts is wonderful, and it's always good to know what other people are thinking; I don't know; it's almost like the philosopher in bed question: should a person make sure they're capable of ultimate respect and sympathy and so on before they get themselves into arguments? I guess they should at least me moving in that direction; . whatever.

When I think of the sweet people I know who would never, ever get themselves in discussions like these, I'm sure that I, at the very least, like the 'aesthetic' of their personality better than [I'm going to say] ours; and they unquestionably do--again, at the very least--much more immediate good in the world than 'debators' do... Maybe it's an 'it takes all kinds' sort of thing; I don't know. Those loving, kind, no-debating kind of people don't tend to get into positions of power, either, though, and be able to effect things like policy change and so on... OK, I'm rambling; whatever. This is so sad: if the fabulous North American medical community could come up with a personality transplant procedure, I'd immediately pick that of a certain kindly old grandmother I know, or Robert Coles' or something. Jesus--and the badness of not being grateful for the personality you've been given or developed--aside, whose would you want to be more like?

[1. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:20 PM on Feb 26:]

1

Suzanne:

Vox Day, in his recent book The Irrational Atheist, provided a very systematic, methodical smackdown of Harris, Hitchens, and Dawkins on that front.

And he did it using everything from FBI uniform crime statistics, historical records, and empirical studies.

Granted, he's outside the typical theological box, but his is perhaps the best rebuttal to the Dawkins-Hitchens-Harris trinity in print.

[2. Christina said the following at 12:35 PM on Feb 26:]

2

That's good to know.

But what about religion on a personal and relational level? Yeah, society as a whole is better off with Christianity/Religion, but how is it when trying to interact on a relational level with other people?

[3. Sara said the following at 1:14 PM on Feb 26:]

3

I would argue that the discrete acts of volunteerism by churchgoing individuals aren't as effective as the programs of liberal governments who conservative Christians tend to keep out of office.

Christina, good question. I've read many psychologists who say things like, "I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the Catholic Church", and so on. Too often, the price for that self-control is guilt and repression. And then there's the divorce statistics, and the nasty events in Christian history we'd rather forget, and so on.

[4. Kelley said the following at 5:57 PM on Feb 26:]

4

There are terrible historic events that were done in the name of religion, but I don't think we should overlook the risks taken by those who would identify themselves as true believers against those acts. I'm thinking of Corrie ten Boom and her family hiding Jews during WWII and the christians who were conductors on the Underground Railroad. Those are just a few among many others.

[5. Amanda said the following at 6:23 PM on Feb 26:]

5

To Christina (2):

If I understand correctly, Christina, you’re raising a question about how religion affects relationships. It is an important question. From your wording, I infer that you believe Christianity/Religion has had a less-than-positive effect on them. But I’d rather hear from you than make inferences. What are your personal observations on the matter?

To Sara (3):

Although I think your first point is worth a discussion, I am probably not knowledgeable enough to be the one to discuss it. But about your second point—you bring up something that I think is important: Christian “failure.” But your comment left me hanging—I’m curious about your conclusions. In other words, I see it as a question of “Does Christianity work?” Looking at the “credits” and “debits,” so to speak, what is your estimation of the sum?

[6. Nate said the following at 10:28 PM on Feb 26:]

6

Sara (3),

A close reading of history will reveal that the programs of "liberal" governments are actually based on the teachings of Christ. The concept of caring for the poor, women's rights, looking after the welfare of widows and orphans, etc. all have their origin in Christ. When the Church comes alive, government programs become unnecessary. One example of this was hurricane Katrina. The Church responded almost immediately and with such efficiency that it put government agencies to shame.

To address your second point, I'm sure there are many religious people who are repressed. But, there is a world of difference between religion and a relationship with Jesus Christ. Jesus said He came to give his followers freedom and abundant life. You can't get that from following rules, but you can get it from a living, interactive relationship with the author of life.

Also, most psychological studies in the last couple decades have served to affirm the teachings of Jesus. (For example, Jesus' teachings on worry.) Repression doesn't come from following Christ's teachings, but from ignoring them.

[7. Andrew R. (aka Canadian Boy) said the following at 11:18 PM on Feb 26:]

7

If religion is so great, and causes people to do good things... then why is the perception of it the opposite?

[8. Jen said the following at 4:19 AM on Feb 27:]

8

In response to Christina's comment, I think Christianity can greatly enhance relationships (it has tremendously enhanced my own). We are called to be humble, patient, loving, and other-centered; studies have shown that altruistic marriages are happier, and all of these things are important in a healthy relationship. We are also admonished not to be proud and arrogant or to harbor bitterness or keep a record of past wrongs, or to be deceitful or to gossip, all things which can contribute to serious problems in any relationship. But all of us struggle with these things and no one can do all of them all of the time, and I could see our struggles with these things causing difficulties.

In response to Sara's first comment, that is something I used to believe myself but not only have not seen much evidence that many of them work (with the possible exception of the Earned Income Tax Credit, which I think is a great idea), but that there is evidence to suggest they can do more harm than good; welfare is a particularly tragic example; also, historians have shown that many of FDR's programs made the Great Depression worse than it had to be. Such programs tend to look at things and try to solve things in a very materialistic manner, while not always able to deal with or aware of non-material issues and things deeply rooted in human nature (such as the fact that stable families are intimately tied with the well-being of individuals and society as a whole). Volunteer efforts by churches, communities, and individuals, however, are better equipped to deal with these non-material issues because they can connect with people and deal with them face-to-face; they can tell when people need material support and when people need other kinds of help. People who know you and love you-family members, neighbors, fellow church members-are going to do a much better job of caring for you than people who don't, and that's one reason many of us believe that strong family and community ties are vital to the well-being of people and to society, and that government programs tend to weaken these ties, which has not been good for us. I should also point out that many of us recognize the problems of our current economic situation and wish for a more humane economy; if we do not embrace left-liberal solutions it is because we believe they does not work/are contrary to the common good, not because we wish to maintain ideological purity at all costs. I could actually go on for quite some time with this, but this is probably already getting too long.

I should mention some history here; back in Roman times, Christians were pretty much the only people taking care of the poor and sick; with the exception of the Jewish people it was very uncommon in the ancient world. The Roman government started doing more for the poor just to compete with the Christians. In the Middle Ages, the desperately poor were taken care of by monks in monastaries. After Henry VIII shut many of them down, the poor were released into society and left on their own, and since then we have not come up with a way of caring for them as effective and humane as the monastaries were. I should also mention that the Middle Ages is one of the most misunderstood periods in history and that much good happened as a result of Christians during that time (hospitals, universities, inventions, more humane ways of fighting wars, the civilization of once violent peoples, the scientific method, the preservation of classical texts), and that, the more maligned aspects of it, while some of the things done were wicked and inexcusable, tend to be misunderstood/not examined in the context of that time and exaggerated, do not follow from Christian principles, and pale in comparison to the horrors of the 20th century.

To Sara's second comment, I do not really see that there is a problem with self-control if it means trying to do the right thing/avoid sin. Morality is not arbitrary; it is rooted in God's goodness and we do what is right out of love for God and our neighbors. Certainly Christians have not always done a good job in the past of conveying this, but this has changed quite a bit-a good example is JPII's Theology of the Body, which explains many Catholic teachings with great depth and clarity. And from a more secular standpoint, what people take for granted is that such self-control is what sustains civilization and, though it may seem paradoxical, liberty. When people do not control themselves, when we let our appetites and passions-our greed, lust, anger, etc., control us (and it is human nature that we will) it becomes more dangerous, volatile, and instable, and starts to effect people in a way that requires greater policing and more and tougher laws-that is, less liberty. And what many don't realize is just how much people, especially extroverts, are influenced by others and by the culture around them. If they see others engaging harmful/reckless/irresponsible behavior, if they see it being promoted, and there is no sense of guilt, no shame, no caring friends and neighbors willing stop them or discourage them, they may very well too. And it is the poor and less educated who stand the most to lose. The abandonment of virtue, of customs and mores like selflessness, frugality, chastity, patience (which make civilization possible for many reasons) and others has had a very negative economic impact on them, and a sometimes terrible emotional and spiritual impact on all of us. Guilt and shame are not bad things if they are properly ordered reactions to things that actually are wrong, and they are an incredibly small price to pay for liberty, civilization, and well-being.

[9. Erin said the following at 4:36 AM on Feb 27:]

9

Christianity is reviled as poison by so many not because it IS poison, but because it points out all of the nastiness in ourselves. Sin seeks to destroy us..slowly. Like an excruciatingly slow acting poison. But when everyone around us is dying of the same condition, then we can conclude that there is nothing wrong, and that everything is 'normal.'
When people are personally convicted by Christianity, they see the poision, and try to blame religion.

[10. Amir Larijani said the following at 10:52 AM on Feb 27:]

10

Erin: I absolutely agree.

At the end of the day, people generally accept religion, as long as it does not buck society. In other words, as long as religion affirms people, promotes "societal unity" and pluralism, and does not confront the modus operandi of the world, the world does not have a problem with religion.

On the other hand, religion that confronts the human condition, tells you that the only hope for humanity rests in the grace of a supernatural entity Whose favor we cannot earn, demands allegiance to a power higher than any human ruler, and tells us that the sum total of all our greatest achievements is good enough to land us in hell, is enough to drive the world to declare war against it.

Still, such religion has had a peculiarly sanitizing effect on the human race, as the Christian is responsible for the first universities, the first hospitals, the abolition of slavery in the West, the leader in providing charitable services to the poor, and the leader in the fight against human trafficking.

[11. Sara said the following at 1:44 PM on Feb 27:]

11

To all you who say that caring for the poor, women's rights, etc. etc. are rooted in Christianity, you're about 300 years out of date. Modern ethics philosophy is based on totally extra-relgious grounds like utilitarianism, or respect for human beings' rational nature; things like that, not a belief in God.

"When the Church comes alive, government programs become unnecessary" :

Two thousand years later we've proved what a solid hope that is. Maybe it will happen if we give it 3000 years? Human beings are by nature free-riders. Charity does good, but it can never do all the things we hope, especially large-scale projects like, say, research, unless it's coordinated, and unless everyone is forced to contribute (like through taxes). Why? Because look at this:

say there's a large-scale cause you value above all else that won't work unless many people contribute along with you. There are also lesser, more short-lived projects you could do on your own. Unless you can be SURE that others will help you with the greater cause, it's a *more rational choice* for you to give to the lesser cause because that's the only way you can know your money won't be wasted.

Add to that the tendency for humans to increasingly free-ride relative to the number of other people they think are available to contribute, and you see why private charity will never cut it on its own.

Some beneficiance must be enforced if we want to maximize the 'power of love' (for all you ardent Celine Dion fans)

[12. Amir Larijani said the following at 4:16 PM on Feb 27:]

12

With all due respect Sara, the empirical evidence is at variance with your claims. Religious conservatives are more charitable--fourfold more so--than their liberal, secular counterparts. (Arthur Brooks of Syracuse University has provided that in very stark detail for the whole world to see.)

Charity is not a secular value; in fact, it's the other way around: eugenics and genocide are secular values tied directly to reform Darwinism whereas Christians have led the way in terms of charitable efforts.

Even the United Nations--through its "population control" programs (read: incentive-based sterilization and abortion)--is a leading promoter of eugenics.

To the secularist, compassion is neither logically nor morally necessary. To the Christian, they are obligatory.

In fact, the Darwinian/utilitarian paradigm--a product of secular throught--makes eugenics and genocide of poorer, less-intelligent, and net consumers a more moral option, if God is left out of the equation.

As for so-called "women's rights", that is just another modern-day code word for more abortions. Ergo, even "women's rights" is an affirmation of mass murder.

[13. Sara said the following at 4:18 PM on Feb 27:]

13

"Guilt and shame are not bad things if they are properly ordered reactions to things that actually are wrong, and they are an incredibly small price to pay for liberty, civilization, and well-being."

Even setting aside my own preference for governing people through incentives, not shame--like making gasoline cost ten bucks a gallon instead of urging them to 'save the planet'--, and assuming that you're right, I would still argue that the most gentle AND effective shame is non-religious shame because of what I'll call the middleman problem, with God being the time- and energy-wasting middleman (bear with me here).

It's important to look at how Christianity affects the morality of *specific types of personalities*, because if Christianity doesn't work well in imperfect people, it doens't work well, period. If it's only good in theory, all it's good for is art.

Let's take.... me, for an example. I'm fairly obsessive and introverted, and when I was a Christian that translated into me spending huge amounts of time worrying/praying (whatever you want to call it) about my attitudes, and whether they were full enough of lovejoypeacepatiencekindnesssgoodndsdfksjhlf; and fine-tooth-combing my motivations for everything; and writhing on the floor over my inescapable pride; and above all concerning myself with correctly receiving grace (ha), and my 'personal relationship with God'.

Here's the kicker: all of this without leaving my room, while the real problems of the world weren't benefiting in the least! Non-Christian do-gooders can skip all of this and get right to figuring out what action they should take.

(You say that people like me miss the point; that we were freed from condemnation and judgment when we received the God’s mercy in the cleansing blood of Jesus on Calvary? How often do Christians who earnestly seek to receive this feeling of liberation actually succeed? Too few for me to believe that that doctrine, however appealing in theory, is actually effective and useful in practice. In general, it seems that Christians who aren’t troubled by guilt are that way by nature.)

[just to clarify, these arguments aren’t why I reject Christianity]

[14. Yipeng said the following at 4:22 PM on Feb 27:]

14

Erin: Great thought!

The depth of sinfulness of sin...
Have you realised how much the truth is staring at us? Its straight out of the bible as Jesus said it wld be.

John 15:18-19,22,24

"If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you... I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.

If I had not come and spoken to them... If I had not done among them the works which no one else did, they would not have sin; but now they have both seen and hated Me and My Father as well."

The world hates God because he is the good righteous Judge, if we would just plead guilty we cld accept Jesus as our Saviour but we do not because we refuse to recognize him as King.

I use "we" as though I speak for the human race.

[15. Sara said the following at 5:12 PM on Feb 27:]

15

Amir,

Yes, conservative Christians give more to charity via private contributions. In the last 3 paragraphs of my #12 post I argue that these private contributions aren’t enough.

“Charity is not a secular value”??? Show me one non-sociopathic non-Christian other than Ayn Rand who would agree with you.

“To the secularist, compassion is neither logically nor morally necessary. To the Christian, they are obligatory.” I’m an atheist, and I think compassion is logically and morally necessary because it helps us live together peacefully. Your criticisms of non-Christians are valid in the same way my pointing out the evils of the Crusades and the Inquisition are valid: they don’t tell the whole story.

“Women’s rights are a code for abortion”? How do you feel about honor killing, foot binding, burkas, female genital mutilation, pornography, aborting girl babies, sex slavery, and on and on… All misplaced feminist concerns?

I’m with you in being against incentive-based sterilization and using abortion as a birth control, but do you know what factor most closely correlates with lowering birthrates? It’s the education of girls and women.

[16. Katie B said the following at 5:18 PM on Feb 27:]

16

Erin (#9) I agree with you.... in theory. I agree that religion based on the truth that there is terrible spiritual, moral and emotional decay that can only be restored and regenerated through the work of a all powerful, all loving God and savior, will rub people the wrong way if they are deep in bondage and/or enjoying their 'liberties' and 'pleasures'.

However, that has not been my, nor many other actual experience of the church. Judgment runs amok, selective morality (i.e. we condemn the unwed mother, but not those who gossip about her) is norm, and programs and slick marketing have taken the mission away from the church and made the church the mission. that is poisonous.

[17. Rachael said the following at 5:56 PM on Feb 27:]

17

Hi Sara,

Would love to talk with you instead of post a comment to you, but, for what it's worth...

I'd be curious to know why you reject Christianity.

About guilt...my opinion is that more people are plagued (or slightly plagued) by this than what meets the eye. And if they're not plagued by guilt, likely they have some other life difficuty(s). The deeper I get to know people, the more I see or become aware of their struggles. This world is full of uglies.

Back to guilt, though. I used to have an extremely sensitive conscience about small things, and I still do to an extent, but it seems to have toned down tremendously.

Did your difficulty lie between understanding how to rest in God's grace and knowing how much to struggle in your efforts to serve Him? We may never fully be able to understand exactly how it works; and there does indeed seem to be something paradoxical about the two. How can they both work?

...It's important to understand that salvation comes by grace, through believing that Jesus has paid the price through His death on the cross for the sinners who place their trust on Him. Likely you're familiar with this idea.

There's nothing we can do to save ourselves; we're profoundly powerless. But...He has *conquered* death and is alive today! Yes, we are powerless. But HE has power, and, the *same* Spirit who raised Christ from the dead lives in people who trust in Him for their salvation. (see Rom. 8:11) The Spirit helps develop our character and fruits. I love a passage in 2 Peter 1 where the author, after talking about great qualities, in vs. 9 points out that people who lack those qualities have "forgotten that [they] was cleansed from [their] former sins."
There's something powerful in remembering forgiveness. I hope to reflect upon this more often.

All good in theory, right? You mention liberation and theory vs. practice.

I guess to that I'd say, in my opinion, the Christian walk isn't equivalent to a 24-7 feeling of liberation. Perhaps some would disagree with me. There are many passages in the Bible that talk about the difficulties, the endurance, the race, the fight, the trial...Do Christians always *feel* liberated in all those times? My guess is that they don't.

In my case, I think hope is more deeply engrained into my heart than liberation. There's something comforting and assuring about having this hope. And that in a sense is liberating...even when the rains come down strong. There is hope for this life and the next. If I didn't bank my hope on Christ I might feel empty and wonder about the meaning of life.

To end on a positive note, it seems you care about governements making a positive impact on the community. Just wanted to say, that's great that you seem to care for those in need...

[18. Rachael said the following at 6:31 PM on Feb 27:]

18

P.S. Sara, though you point out that the issues of guilt, etc., aren't the reasons for your rejection of Christianity, I'd still like to mention one more thing. Probably others on here or/and you know more about Luther than myself, but, he had an extreme conscience, but later discovered that righteousness comes through faith. You can check out Luther's testimony here if you like: http://homepage.mac.com/shanerosenthal/reformationink/mlconversion.htm

Perhaps meditating on the book of Romans and verses of salvation would be good for all of us to do more often, to remember forgiveness and the power of Him who saves, indwells, and grows...

[19. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:41 AM on Feb 28:]

19

Sara says:
Yes, conservative Christians give more to charity via private contributions. In the last 3 paragraphs of my #12 post I argue that these private contributions aren’t enough.

Enough to do what? Quite frankly, if we didn't lose over half our paychecks to taxes, private charitable contributions would be much higher, and such contributions carry more bang for the buck than those which go to governmental enterprises, which are notorious for their inefficiencies.

Moreover, this governmental experiment with the Bismarckian welfare state has had little effect on poverty. Fact is, poverty rates have been stable since 1975, rising during times of recession and falling during times of prosperity.

In fact, one could make the case that welfare reform and free markets--staples of conservatism that have been the direction of America since 1981--have done more to keep poverty down and prosperity up than any governmental efforts.

Sara continues: “Charity is not a secular value”??? Show me one non-sociopathic non-Christian other than Ayn Rand who would agree with you.

In a secular framework, charity is neither morally nor logically necessary. This is not to say that atheists are not compassionate; I know many who are. However, their compassion is hardly a product of their atheism.

Sara continues: I’m an atheist, and I think compassion is logically and morally necessary because it helps us live together peacefully.

Peace is neither morally nor logically necessary in an Atheist framework. After all, take God out of the equation and morality is merely a question of who has the better artillery.

Fact is, Mao, Stalin, and Pol Pot--atheists all-- slaughtered millions of their own people in pursuit of "peaceful", communist Utopia.

While we would both agree that they were evil, your framework leaves no objective basis to conclude so.

It's not about what you "think" about morality, or even whether you are a moral or ethical person yourself. However, your secular framework demands none of that from you.

Sara continues: Your criticisms of non-Christians are valid in the same way my pointing out the evils of the Crusades and the Inquisition are valid: they don’t tell the whole story.

While there is no Christian defense of the Inquisition or the Crusades, your argument fails on a couple of points:

(1) In a secular framework, there is no moral basis to condemn the Crusades or the Spanish Inquisition. In fact, in historical context those were quite benign. The Crusades were merely a more barbaric version of today's neoconservative agenda--and were in fact quite mild for their time.

(I would also submit that our military efforts in the Middle East and Afghanistan--irrespective of where one stands on their legitimacy--are also quite humane by any historical metric, to include World War II, Korea, and Vietnam.)

Moreover, as I have pointed out on other threads, the annual execution rate during the Spanish Inquisition was lower than that of the state of Texas.

(2) The second issue is one of scope. Every implementation of secular Utopia has been a grand disaster in both humanitarian and economic terms. We're talking tens of millions of dead.

Less than ten percent of all wars in world history have had anything to do with religion, and if you add up all the carnage committed in the name of Christianity, it is a Sunday School picnic next to the mass carnage of Atheist regimes.

Sara continues: “Women’s rights are a code for abortion”? How do you feel about honor killing, foot binding, burkas, female genital mutilation, pornography, aborting girl babies, sex slavery, and on and on… All misplaced feminist concerns?

I'm against all those things too, but in a secular framework, opposition to those things is hardly a moral necessity any more than opposition to eugenics is.

(In fact, in a purely secular framework, there is an ample case to be made for eugenics.)

Moreover, the feminist establishment could care less what a candidate thinks of these issues: unless a candidate supports abortion rights, they are "anti-choice extremists".

Sara continues: I’m with you in being against incentive-based sterilization and using abortion as a birth control, but do you know what factor most closely correlates with lowering birthrates? It’s the education of girls and women.

The issue is "education" in what? Feminism? Women's studies? Social dogmas of the left? Of course education in each of those arenas would be conducive to lower birth rates, as that is a societal goal of the secularist. And Western Civilization is worse off for those things, as SAT scores are lower today than they were 40 years ago.

In fact, the low birth rate--lauded by feminists--is leading is into a demographic quagmire that is only starting to materialize. As the number of retirees begins to overtake those working and producing value for the economy, you will see the telos of secular, utilitarian thought in the form of active euthanasia.

You could certainly find yourself on the receiving end of that needle...

[20. Eliza said the following at 11:07 AM on Feb 28:]

20

I am not an atheist, but I feel compelled to argue on Sara's behalf.

">http://www.boundlessline.org/2008/02/religion-does-n.html#comment-105017886"> Amir said: In a secular framework, charity is neither morally nor logically necessary. This is not to say that atheists are not compassionate; I know many who are. However, their compassion is hardly a product of their atheism.

"Atheism" does not automatically equate "amorality". I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who see no reason for morality because there is no God, but I haven't met any of them. On the contrary, all the atheists I know have very strong ethical and moral standards, which fit nicely into their secular humanist worldview. Compassion is essentially empathy, which is a natural response to recognizing the inherent humanity of another person. Secular ethics are typically based on the Golden Rule, which can logically be argued is a smart evolutionary standard. Consistently caring for oneself and one's neighbor falls neatly within a worldview which values human life and accomplishment over all. Peace and civility is indeed required by such a framework.

While there is no Christian defense of the Inquisition or the Crusades, your argument fails on a couple of points:

1) I have never heard the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades called "mild". That statement is extremely inaccurate, regardless of whatever other atrocities anyone else committed. Just because Joe doesn't torture people as badly as Tom doesn't make what Joe does "mild".

2) Like Sara said, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hiter, etc. are not the whole atheist story. They were insane megalomaniacs and do not represent Sara's or any other atheists' perspective, just like a Christian would not like to be represented by leaders of the Crusades.

Moreover, the feminist establishment could care less what a candidate thinks of these issues: unless a candidate supports abortion rights, they are "anti-choice extremists".

"Feminism" is a lot more nuanced than that. There are loud-mouths in every camp who make their cohorts cringe, but people who label all pro-lifers as "anti-choice extremists" in no way speak for the entire feminist movement. Feminism is about respect for women, period. There is a lot of discussion about what that should mean, and many feminists vehemently disagree even with one another. Lumping "feminist agenda" all under one cliché umbrella is to mischaracterize and diminish the phenomenal contributions the feminist movement has made in western society.

And SAT scores do not actually report true educational status. They are artificial and mostly arbitrary, which is leading several liberal arts colleges to drop that requirement altogether. Education of women (meaning simply "literacy") is, I think, the defining skill Sara is talking about.

Again, I am not an atheist, but there is as much logic to an atheist's "faith" as their is to Christianity.

[21. Amir Larijani said the following at 11:16 AM on Feb 28:]

21

Sara says: "When the Church comes alive, government programs become unnecessary" :

Two thousand years later we've proved what a solid hope that is. Maybe it will happen if we give it 3000 years? Human beings are by nature free-riders. Charity does good, but it can never do all the things we hope, especially large-scale projects like, say, research, unless it's coordinated, and unless everyone is forced to contribute (like through taxes). Why? Because look at this:

say there's a large-scale cause you value above all else that won't work unless many people contribute along with you. There are also lesser, more short-lived projects you could do on your own. Unless you can be SURE that others will help you with the greater cause, it's a *more rational choice* for you to give to the lesser cause because that's the only way you can know your money won't be wasted.

Sara, that's why we have markets. In general, the free market is rational, as investors can determine which "research projects" are worth pursuing and which are not. While this is hardly a perfect system, it sure beats the heck out of a governmental system that has no accountability to anyone.

And that's the problem with these big government enterprises: accountability, or lack thereof. You say "research" in the same posting that you cite "utilitarian" ethics. Do you have any idea what can of worms you are opening?

Who decides what research projects ought to be pursued, and on what bases? I can legitimize any research project--however abusive it may be--in the name of "progress" and "utilitarian" ethics. This is because in a utilitarian framework, we have a real-life Animal Farm in which "all animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others".

Do we pay women to breed so we can abort the children and harvest the tissue for "research"? In an Atheist framework, there is no compelling reason to prohibit this practice.

Do we take foster children and use experimental drugs to sedate them? In an Atheist framework, we have no compelling reason to prohibit this, and in fact this has been practiced here. (We have done this. Don't believe me? Google "Chemical straitjackets")

Do we take military Special Forces operators and subject them to medical experimentation such as "blood doping"? (We have done this.)

How about allowing "researchers" to molest children just to study sexual responses? (We have done this, too.)

In your utilitarian framework, government holds all the cards and has little--if any--accountability. Government workers--especially at the federal level--almost never have to face the music when they commit atrocities against the American people.

Besides, in your framework, there is no moral case against government atrocities, as anything they do--no matter how evil--is construable as "pursuit of the best interests of the people."

[22. Sara said the following at 11:44 AM on Feb 28:]

22

Rachel,
that's funny: I swear I just handed in an essay this Tuesday written solely about Luther's conversion experience! Maybe not too-too surprising; it's a big event in Western history.

(As a freak-show side note, if you're into Martin Luther, check out Erik Erikson and others' take on Luther's conversion: some believe it was all about Luther's anal retentiveness and that Luther's sudden release from guilt coincided with his sudden release from a bout of constipation! Of course it's historically questionable, but it's interestingly conherent when you read about it. Erikson wrote 'Young Man Luther'. [Robert Coles did a great biography of Erik Erikson so that's why I know of him.])

Amir,
as I understand it, what's behind your main arguments is the point that athiests aren't forced by their atheism alone to be charitable. That's true, I agree with that. But neither is someone who believes in a God forced by their belief in Him alone to be charitable. The decision to enter into a Christian relationship with God and to be charitable is analogous to the decision made by some atheists on non-Christian philosophical grounds to be charitable.

I can't believe you think there's no secular basis for condemning genocide. What about simply the 'belief' that unnecessary pain is bad and ought to be prevented? That's just to begin with, without getting philosophical at all. Apart from logic and reasoning, altruism can make good evolutionary sense. The 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' kind of idea, or in less reciprocal cases, as a kind of insurance policy, or because (at least with humans) it makes me feel good to help other people, and any other number of non-religious reasons.

About the economic and distributive justice things, we just don't agree. I'm not a communist, for what it's worth, though I'm certainly not a libertarian either.

[23. Sara said the following at 11:50 AM on Feb 28:]

23

(sorry, just missed your post)
Amir, I don't go for strict utilitarianism, either: I was just using that as an example.

Eliza puts it better than me.

[24. Amir Larijani said the following at 12:02 PM on Feb 28:]

24

Eliza says:
"Atheism" does not automatically equate "amorality". I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who see no reason for morality because there is no God, but I haven't met any of them. On the contrary, all the atheists I know have very strong ethical and moral standards, which fit nicely into their secular humanist worldview.

Your reasoning is failing in that you are trying to impute the particular (I know atheists who are moral) on the general (therefore atheism is moral)

That there are moral atheists does not imply that Atheism requires morality. In fact, Atheism demands none of that, as Atheism provides no objective basis for morality.

Eliza continues: Compassion is essentially empathy, which is a natural response to recognizing the inherent humanity of another person. Secular ethics are typically based on the Golden Rule, which can logically be argued is a smart evolutionary standard. Consistently caring for oneself and one's neighbor falls neatly within a worldview which values human life and accomplishment over all. Peace and civility is indeed required by such a framework.

No it is not. Atheism makes no claim to value with respect to human life, as such respect is not a logical necessity. In fact, using government to impose societal transformation--which almost always results in mass murder--is a hallmark of Atheist regimes. To such leaders, the mass death amounts to cracking eggs to make a proverbial omelet.

1) I have never heard the Spanish Inquisition or the Crusades called "mild". That statement is extremely inaccurate, regardless of whatever other atrocities anyone else committed. Just because Joe doesn't torture people as badly as Tom doesn't make what Joe does "mild".

I said "mild for its time", not "mild". I have no qualms debating you, but please be intellectually honest in your representations of what I said.

And, using the qualifiers I used, my statement is very correct. Put the Inquisition--in which the annual execution rate was less than the annual execution rate of the state of Texas--in context with mass slaughters that occurred in the same regions, due to attacks by non-Christians against Christians, and you'll understand what I am talking about.

It is perfectly fair to ask the question, "Compared to what?" And that is all I did here. Compare the historical record of Atheist governments with the worst atrocities of Christian governments, and the record is not even close: Atheist governments are the biggest out-and-out humanitarian and economic disasters in history.

2) Like Sara said, Pol Pot, Stalin, Hiter, etc. are not the whole atheist story. They were insane megalomaniacs and do not represent Sara's or any other atheists' perspective, just like a Christian would not like to be represented by leaders of the Crusades.

In actuality, Hitler only implemented as policy--in terms of eugenics and the strive for racial purity--what the leading academics of the West had been trumpeting at the time. We call Stalin an insane man today, but we tend to forget that he merely implemented frameworks that our leading academics romanticized at the time (and in many cases still romanticize.) Don't believe me? Look at the modern-day fascination with Che Guevara.

And no...the Crusades and Spanish Inquisition are nothing compared to the atrocities of Atheist governments.

"Feminism" is a lot more nuanced than that. There are loud-mouths in every camp who make their cohorts cringe, but people who label all pro-lifers as "anti-choice extremists" in no way speak for the entire feminist movement. Feminism is about respect for women, period. There is a lot of discussion about what that should mean, and many feminists vehemently disagree even with one another. Lumping "feminist agenda" all under one cliché umbrella is to mischaracterize and diminish the phenomenal contributions the feminist movement has made in western society.

Yep...phenomenal contributions, such as the murder of 50 million children and a declining birth rate that threatens the economic stability of America.

The admirable qualities of feminism--women's suffrage and equal-job/equal-pay--were not worth the price of 50 million deaths.

And SAT scores do not actually report true educational status. They are artificial and mostly arbitrary, which is leading several liberal arts colleges to drop that requirement altogether.

That's not true: SAT scores are generally a good predictor of success at college-level academic rigor. The SAT--combined with high school grades--provides a better metric for correlating academic potential than HS grades alone.

Education of women (meaning simply "literacy") is, I think, the defining skill Sara is talking about.

Even then, the declining birth rate in the West--to which she correlates the "education of women"--is an economic and demographic storm that is only beginning to brew.

Personally, I'm all for educating women, but feminism is only a shade below communism in terms of its damage on humanity in such s short period of time.

[25. Sara said the following at 12:10 PM on Feb 28:]

25

"Investors can determine which "research projects" are worth pursuing and which are not"

...that's just the problem! In that system, 'worth pursuing' means 'most profitable', not 'most health-promoting'. Look at all the research the free market does on aging skin for the benefit of narcissistic rich people, while illnesses more affecting the poor go unfunded.

The free market is great for some things, and bad for others. Look at the inefficiencies in the American healthcare system: The States spends almost twice as much GDP on healthcare--much of it on insurance overhead, not medical services--than countries like the UK and Canada, yet has a lower life expectancy. The US probably has the most technologically superior system, but...it's not exactly equally accessible.

I wish you'd stop saying "Atheist framework"! Just as theism can lead to many very, very different positions, so can atheism. Be charitable and choose the most altruistic atheist framework, and argue against that.

[26. Adam said the following at 2:17 PM on Feb 28:]

26

Sara,

To all you who say that caring for the poor, women's rights, etc. etc. are rooted in Christianity, you're about 300 years out of date. Modern ethics philosophy is based on totally extra-relgious grounds like utilitarianism, or respect for human beings' rational nature; things like that, not a belief in God.

I am well familiar with both of those things, and the first one doesn't work, and the second one begs the question. Utilitarianism tells us that an action's measure is good or evil depending upon whether or not it produces the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people. First, one action can produce a variety of results. For instance, it may be that giving a poor person food will cause them to not be hungry anyomore. Of course, it also might be that giving a poor person food will cause them to choke on it, and end up dying. Now, in one instance the giving of the food to the poor person produced a good result that brought the most amount of people happiness, and in the other instance it produced a horrible result that brought pain to the person and their family. Within the Utilitarian system, there is no way to know the end result of any given action, and thus, like all systems of teleological ethics, cannot tell us what is right and what is wrong. The only way it would work is if you were omnicient and could tell every possible result of every single action.

Secondly, the "respect for human beings' rational nature" just simply begs the question. Why is it that we should respect human beings' rational nature?

I’m an atheist, and I think compassion is logically and morally necessary because it helps us live together peacefully.

Again, why is it that we should live peacefully together if there is no authority of God to bind our contience to his law? Now, I agree with you that we should live peacefully together. The only difference is that, because I believe in a sovereign God who has the authority by virtue of who he is to bind my contience to his law, I can therefore make sense out of moral obligation.

Eliza,

"Atheism" does not automatically equate "amorality". I'm sure there are plenty of atheists who see no reason for morality because there is no God, but I haven't met any of them. On the contrary, all the atheists I know have very strong ethical and moral standards, which fit nicely into their secular humanist worldview. Compassion is essentially empathy, which is a natural response to recognizing the inherent humanity of another person. Secular ethics are typically based on the Golden Rule, which can logically be argued is a smart evolutionary standard. Consistently caring for oneself and one's neighbor falls neatly within a worldview which values human life and accomplishment over all. Peace and civility is indeed required by such a framework.

First of all, to clarify, I am not saying that atheists are immoral people. What I am saying is that their moral behavior is inconsistent with the rest of their worldview. In other words, secular humanism may have morality of one the beliefs within its worldview, but it does so out of arbitariness and inconsistency.

For instance, you mention evolution. I thought we were talking about survival of the fittest in such a system. Why shouldn't we murder others who are weaker than us so that only the "fittest" will survive? What is wrong with killing other human beings if, indeed, the strongest will be the last ones standing? It sounds to me that such a system encourages immorality.

However, even if you want to suggest otherwise, I again have to ask why it is that we should promote the survival of the human race? Where does our obligation come from? Why should we be obligated to see the human race survive?

There are other problems as well which we may get into as time allows. For right now, suffice it to say that what I am arguing is that Hitchens' antitheism presupposes Christian theism. That is, to even argue against the existence of God, you have got to assume that he exists. Hitchen's main argument is that we should be moral, and the theism does not lead to morality. Of course, what I have been showing is that the assumption that we should be moral only makes sense if Christianity is true.

God Bless,
Adam

[27. Eliza said the following at 3:45 PM on Feb 28:]

27

Hello Amir (#24),

Your reasoning is failing in that you are trying to impute the particular (I know atheists who are moral) on the general (therefore atheism is moral).

The opposite is also true. The fact that some atheists are amoral does not mean that it is the objective truth. My point was that simply that not all atheists are philosophically amoral.

I also would like to point out that there are lots of different kinds of atheists. " Atheism" is simply a disbelief in God. Some atheists are secular humanists, some are Buddhists, some are naturalists. It just so happens that these three categories do indeed have a strong moral/ethical core. "Atheism" does not "demand" a specific morality because that is not its purpose. It is a description of something a person does not believe in rather than something a person does. Therefore, the word "atheist" is not inherently helpful in describing a person's belief system.

The admirable qualities of feminism--women's suffrage and equal-job/equal-pay--were not worth the price of 50 million deaths.

Not all feminists are pro-choice. A certain sect of the feminist activists perhaps paved the way for the pro-choice movement, but the two really are separate. The mother of the women's rights movement herself was avidly pro-life. Abortion kills future women as well as future men, and "equal rights for women" does not automatically mean "my body-my decision". That is separate, more extreme line of thinking. I am a feminist, and I have plenty of VERY rational thought about why I am pro-life.

Hello Adam (#26),

In other words, secular humanism may have morality of one the beliefs within its worldview, but it does so out of arbitariness and inconsistency.

From a secular humanist's perspective, there is as much if not more arbitrariness in the Christian worldview as you seen in their own. I see plenty of consistency in a secular humanist perspective, so I guess I'm confused as to what you're referring to? Values such as love, fairness, respect, moderation, etc. are applied out of acknowledgment of the specialness of humanity. (Specialness is a word; I just looked it up!)

"Survival of the fittest" is not a hard and fast rule. Animals care for and protect each other in nature. Some species of spider might kill and eat each other just to get ahead, but I don't think that's common practice. Camaraderie and nurturing do exist in the wild.

Likewise, humans do not make a habit of killing off their own. We choose to protect, defend and care for each other because we have this thing called "empathy". We can see ourselves in someone else's shoes. You can say this is God-given, or you can say that this is an evolutionary development. Neither statement is provable, and neither statement is inherently illogical.

~~~~~~~

I see that a lot of people like to tell Sara what she does or does not believe. Instead of informing her of what her alleged worldview is, I think a better method would be to ask her questions, and let her inform us.

[28. Sara said the following at 4:13 PM on Feb 28:]

28

Adam,
I do actually agree with you; I'd call myself a moral skeptic... Without a belief in God, life is pretty meaningless as long as it contains any more pain than a person is willing to bear.

The idea that humans are 'over-evolved' really resonates with me, that is, the idea that we've got so much gray matter that, unlike other animals, we can see how meaningless it is to be alive for no other reason than because we've so far survived the evolutionary process. While I'd have no arguments against people in favour of trying to slowly make ourselves extinct, more mildly, and just for myself, there's no way I'd ever, ever have children (hence my extreme pro-adoption and education-of-women stance).

Again, I agree that most non-religious bases for charity are shaky; for me it comes down to a matter of wanting their to be as little unnecessary pain as possible in the world.

[29. Sara said the following at 4:40 PM on Feb 28:]

29

(though I still think my adoption argument is just as compatible with Christianity, or even moreso, what with its obligation to charity)

Adam and Amir,
To you, it looks like: Christian = unshakeable basis for morality; atheist = shaky basis for morality.

To atheists, though, that belief in a god that your own morality rests on is about as shaky as it gets!

Just a matter of perspective I think you're missing.

Eliza,
if you keep asking questions long enough, it's true that atheist bases for altruism don't have anything to stand on if you're not willing to take things like the reduction of pain, or survival itself, as being good in and of themselves.

I accept this fundamental uncertainty to be part of what it means to be alive. And again, there's no way I'd ever have children.

I even went as far as to care more about the well-being of elderly people than children in some ways, out of fear that making children happier would make them more likely to have children of their own, and therefore increase the net pain in the world.

Then I looked more into birth rate patterns and saw that things like increased education of women (yes, looking at literacy rate) and increased economic and employment opportunities for women is what most closely correlates to lowering birth rates.

[30. Amir Larijani said the following at 5:47 PM on Feb 28:]

30

Sara says:...that's just the problem! In that system, 'worth pursuing' means 'most profitable', not 'most health-promoting'. Look at all the research the free market does on aging skin for the benefit of narcissistic rich people, while illnesses more affecting the poor go unfunded.

Quite the contrary, Sara. The best cancer treatments are the result of the free markets, not government enterprise. Similarly, advancements in heart treatments, diabetes treatments, forms of cancer that have largely been regarded as incurable, are largely the result of our private sector.

The larger issues are (a) who decides which projects get funded?; (b) what research methodologies are allowed?; (c) which projects get the priority?; and (d) what recourse do the people have to hold such entities accountable?

I'm old enough to know what kinds of politics goes into deciding research priorities, and--quite frankly--know enough about how government funds very shady research that allows for the most hideous abuses with no accountability.

The free market is great for some things, and bad for others. Look at the inefficiencies in the American healthcare system: The States spends almost twice as much GDP on healthcare--much of it on insurance overhead, not medical services--than countries like the UK and Canada, yet has a lower life expectancy.

I've debated that issue many times, and would love to discuss it at more length here, but that is beyond the scope of this discussion thread. Suffice it to say that issues such as life expectancy have more to do with lifestyle choices than with the quality of health care available.

Sara continues: The US probably has the most technologically superior system, but...it's not exactly equally accessible.

In the UK and Canada, it's a lot like an HMO: if all you need is your regular checkups, it's great. If anything goes wrong, you will find that health care is far more accessible here in the States.

Sara continues: I wish you'd stop saying "Atheist framework"! Just as theism can lead to many very, very different positions, so can atheism. Be charitable and choose the most altruistic atheist framework, and argue against that.

No, I will not stop using the term "atheist framework". I insist on this because your framework provides no objective basis for the definition or even the necessity for moral action. Quite frankly, Onfray and Nietcshke are/were closer to the telos of atheism than you are.

And don't get me wrong, Sara, I'm not putting you down, as this is not to say that all Atheists lack a moral compass; like you, I know many who are moral people.

However, the framework itself does not require it.

For example, I have an atheist co-worker who is quite the hedonist: he doesn't give to charity, he would rather let all AIDS victims--including his own brother--die, he was a meth addict for many years, and has cheated on his wife.

While you and I would certainly agree that his actions--and attitudes--are very immoral, you have no objective basis to conclude it whereas the Christian does.

In fact, you have no objective basis to conclude that Ayn Rand's morality is any better than yours.

[31. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:02 PM on Feb 28:]

31

Eliza says: The opposite is also true. The fact that some atheists are amoral does not mean that it is the objective truth. My point was that simply that not all atheists are philosophically amoral.

I said that atheism is amoral, not that atheists are amoral.

Eliza continues: I also would like to point out that there are lots of different kinds of atheists. " Atheism" is simply a disbelief in God. Some atheists are secular humanists, some are Buddhists, some are naturalists. It just so happens that these three categories do indeed have a strong moral/ethical core. "Atheism" does not "demand" a specific morality because that is not its purpose. It is a description of something a person does not believe in rather than something a person does. Therefore, the word "atheist" is not inherently helpful in describing a person's belief system.

Completely irrelevant. The point is that atheism makes no objective claim to morality.

Eliza continues: Not all feminists are pro-choice. A certain sect of the feminist activists perhaps paved the way for the pro-choice movement, but the two really are separate. The mother of the women's rights movement herself was avidly pro-life.

Teh feminist movement is overwhelmingly pro-abortion.

Feminists for Life, a group I used to support financially, is but a drop in the bucket in numerical terms. The big money in the feminist movement--from academia to the political realm--is overwhemingly pro-abortion.

Eliza continues: Abortion kills future women as well as future men, and "equal rights for women" does not automatically mean "my body-my decision". That is separate, more extreme line of thinking. I am a feminist, and I have plenty of VERY rational thought about why I am pro-life.

I am glad that you are pro-life; on the other hand, the feminist movement is overwhelmingly pro-abortion. The movers and shakers in your movement--whom you did not necessarily support--paved the way for its forced legalization, without any recourse by voters.

In addition, the movers and shakers in your movement--whom you did not necessarily support--have led the way to force taxpayers to fund abortions.

The larger feminist establishment has a lot for which to answer. And no, the benefits of the feminist movement are not justified by the costs born--50 million chhildren dead--by our society.

[32. Eliza said the following at 6:23 PM on Feb 28:]

32

Sara,

I recognize that I am only defending things that make sense to me, and I didn't mean to put any words in your mouth. I hope you didn't take it that way.

I am curious...why do you visit this decidedly conservative Christian blog? I recognize that I'm definitely on the more liberal end of things, and like to participate in discussions for my own reasons. But I'm really curious as to what yours are?

I admit I still do not understand your deep aversion to the concept of children (note: I don't want to imply that you don't like children in general). Yes, charity (in the "taking care of the poor" sense, not in the King James "perfect love of God" sense) is a strong--and I would say pivotal--value in the Christian faith. But it does not supersede other values, like the inherent blessing, desirability, and sacredness of procreation as a part of life--and even worship. There are a couple theological reasons for this, one of them reflected in the word "pro-creation" itself. God exhibits his role as Creator through us. I would say that the example of God as Trinity is another theological reflection of the "family unit." God chose not to pick a "Son" or create one, but to "beget" one. There is something divine in the "begetting".

However, in the sense that we are all "adopted" into the family of God, there is something equally divine in the adoption and merger of two families that were once separate. Adoption is a kind of beautiful familial salvation.

It's interesting to note that Jesus doesn't always do the obvious charitable thing. When a woman poured a jar of really expensive perfume on him (his feet no less!) the disciples argued he should have given it to the poor. But he replied that what she did was a beautiful thing. I take that to mean that--while the poor are vitally important--there are some things God appreciates just for the beauty of the thing. I think children (natural-born as well as adopted) are one of those things.

This is obviously off topic, so if you want to talk about it more maybe we should go back to an older blog.

[33. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:24 PM on Feb 28:]

33

Sara says: as I understand it, what's behind your main arguments is the point that athiests aren't forced by their atheism alone to be charitable. That's true, I agree with that. But neither is someone who believes in a God forced by their belief in Him alone to be charitable.

Depends. Accepting that there is a God is one thing; accepting the implications of that--that we have a Transcendent authority to Whom we are accountable, and Who specifically commands charity is a different matter.

To accept the premise that there is a God Who transcends ourselves carries the logical implication regarding our relationship to that God, that God's expectations of us, and the ramifications of our compliance or non-compliance.

Sara continues: The decision to enter into a Christian relationship with God and to be charitable is analogous to the decision made by some atheists on non-Christian philosophical grounds to be charitable.

Not necessarily. The decision to receive Christ is not separable from the requirement to be charitable. One cannot choose (a) and eschew (b) (1 John 4).

One can say, "I'm a Christian, but I could care less about the poor." But, according to Scipture, such a one is not a Christian.

Sarah continues: I can't believe you think there's no secular basis for condemning genocide. What about simply the 'belief' that unnecessary pain is bad and ought to be prevented?

Who defines what is necessary and what is not? In the Darwinian/Utilitarian/Atheist framework, anythiing is permissible in the pursuit of "progress". I can rationalize anything--from infanticide to forced (or incentive-based) sterilizations in the name of minimizing unnecessary pain.

After all, many of the movers and shakers in your stratus are constantly telling us that the collective is more important than the individual.

Ergo, one can rationalize the basis for killing large numbers of people in the interests of a defined collective. (Sam Harris has even suggested this.)

Sara continues: That's just to begin with, without getting philosophical at all. Apart from logic and reasoning, altruism can make good evolutionary sense.

So can eugenics. And a secularist can market that in terms of altruism.

Sara continues: The 'You scratch my back, I'll scratch yours' kind of idea, or in less reciprocal cases, as a kind of insurance policy, or because (at least with humans) it makes me feel good to help other people, and any other number of non-religious reasons.

The trouble is, what makes you and me feel good is not what makes a group of academics devoted to eugenics feel good.

Sara continues: About the economic and distributive justice things, we just don't agree. I'm not a communist, for what it's worth, though I'm certainly not a libertarian either.

Fair enough. I am a Ron Paul-supporting libertarian, and fundamentally anti-tyranny. My dad's side of the family is from a country--Iran--that has been in the grip of tyranny for nearly 30 years.

[34. Amir Larijani said the following at 6:28 PM on Feb 28:]

34

Sara says: Adam and Amir,
To you, it looks like: Christian = unshakeable basis for morality; atheist = shaky basis for morality.

To atheists, though, that belief in a god that your own morality rests on is about as shaky as it gets!

Just a matter of perspective I think you're missing.

On what basis do you conclude that a transcendent God--serving as the objective basis for what is moral--is "shaky"?

[35. Al said the following at 6:45 PM on Feb 28:]

35

Sara,

As much as the idea that humanity's futile search for meaning is a phenomenon of being over-evolved fascinates me, I can't say I find it very compelling. It seems unlikely that the capacity to understand meaning and the hunger for significance arose as an adaptation and simultaneously became a vistage within the same species. Animals don't seem to yearn for "meaning" as far as we can tell, and if meaning was such an immediate evolutionary dead end, I would have expected humans to have developed into rational, utilitarian creatures satisfied with baser pleasures and their pursuits without ever longing and searching for transcendence. They should never have noticed that there was something askew with running on life's treadmill if that's what they were made to do. It seems that the question of "Why?" should never have come up.

C.S. Lewis states it this way. "If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

And here's an odd question for ya. If you believe that your worldview is most beneficial to mankind as a whole, and that at least some of your conscientiousness, disposition, and selflessness are genetic and inborn, wouldn't you in a great sense be depriving humanity by forcibly ending your biological line? =) Wouldn't this be counterproductive by leaving the world to the less thoughtful and more selfish, and allowing their offspring to define humanity and potentially cause more suffering than if there were *more* like you?

Also, I personally have great difficulty with the idea of the reduction of pain being an absolute "good" on its own, especially when prioritized above life. I see it having value only in context of human dignity (or the dignity of other creatues, I suppose), and human dignity necessitates humans, and the increase in human life can still be celebrated, though not recklessly. I also find it gravely troubling for us to be able to determine whether future humans should or should not exist solely on the basis of sparing them (and others) potential pain, as I feel that this in a great sense undermines their dignity as well. It's true that some in times of pain wish that they had never been born. But this hardly defines the human experience at large, and I can't feel but presumptuous in deciding that future humans should or should not exist for their own good without ever giving them a choice in the matter. Of course they wouldn't have a choice if somehow my actions cause them to be born-- but at least they would be granted the immense priviledge of making choices and decisions rather than none at all. Then again, if they were never born there would never have been a person whose freedom to choose was denied.

My brain might explode.

[36. John said the following at 7:49 PM on Feb 28:]

36

One only needs to read up to post 3 to see that this thread isn't going anywhere.

There are too many logical fallacies, historical misconceptions and gross mischaracterizations to even begin having a decent conversation.

"I would argue that the discrete acts of volunteerism by churchgoing individuals..."

"Discrete"? That's the first mistake. There's nothing discrete about the church's charity. It's not simply sister Ann baking pies to raise money for VBS. Nobody, I repeat, nobody out gives the church on the aggregate. Not one single country in this entire world donates more money than the church. Not one! The church gave more time and money during Katrina and Tsunami than any government could begin to even think about giving.

Strike 1, Sarah.

"...aren't as effective as the programs of liberal governments who conservative Christians tend to keep out of office."

Just two recent and well known examples that I gave above were magnificent examples of the exact opposite. When there is a disaster, the first, most efficient and effective responders are Christians, Christian organizations, or Christian inspired organizations.

At least you have other examples of "effective" liberal government programs, like the postal service, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, the VA. Oh, wait; all of those are bloated, poorly run, financially mishandled, bureaucratic nightmares. All well.

Strike 2.

"Christina, good question. I've read many psychologists who say things like, "I wouldn't have a job if it weren't for the Catholic Church", and so on. Too often, the price for that self-control is guilt and repression."

True.

Foul tip.

"And then there's the divorce statistics, and the nasty events in Christian history we'd rather forget, and so on."

Divorce statistics for whom? If you're referring to that oft touted nonsense about rates among Christians being similar to those among non-believers, you'd be gullible.

There are few and very very minor "nasty" events in Christian history, as it is a history of imperfect sinners, redeemed, yet still human. It would be foolish to say that believers have never made mistakes or even outright sinned, but it is far more foolish to characterize the history of Christ's body as anything less than glorious. Remember the usually often tired refrain of Crusades, Inquisition, Galileo, etc. involved the Roman Catholic Church NOT Christianity.
Besides that, the scales are decidedly tipped towards the immensely positive effects of His body. (Red Cross, hospitals, cemeteries, orphanages, schools, universities, working with the untouchables of society (lepers) ending chattel slavery, ending gladiatorial fighting, ending foot binding in China, widow burning in India, etc.) I could go on, but hopefully, even you get the point.

Liberal government programs pervert incentives and replace personal charity and personal responsibility and accountability with impersonal income redistribution without personal responsibility or accountability.

Strike 3, yer out!

But something tells me you're not here to learn. You're here to try to trip people up, no matter how well intentioned you may be. It's alright, I'm sure you're far smarted than Aquinus, Augustine, C.S. Lewis, D. James Kennedy, Falwell, Colson, Pearcey, etc. etc. I'm sure you've tangled with their treaties and came away thinking, "Poor sad Christians".

Haha. LOL. :)

[37. Adam said the following at 7:55 PM on Feb 28:]

37

Eliza,

From a secular humanist's perspective, there is as much if not more arbitrariness in the Christian worldview as you seen in their own. I see plenty of consistency in a secular humanist perspective, so I guess I'm confused as to what you're referring to? Values such as love, fairness, respect, moderation, etc. are applied out of acknowledgment of the specialness of humanity. (Specialness is a word; I just looked it up!)

I am talking about moral obligation. Given a secularistic humanistic worldview, what is the obligation to love people and treat people with fairness and respect? What one ball of chemicals does to another ball of chemicals is ethically irrelevant. So, you might say that we should take care of others, but the question is *why* should we take care of others. How does this kind of moral obligation make sense in a world where there is no ultimate, infallible authority? I can make sense out of this as a Christian, given that I believe in a sovereign God who has the right to bind his people's contiences to his law on the basis of the fact that he is our creator, but how does an atheist make sense out of this?

Also, if you believe that there is arbitrariness in my worldview, could you please show it?

"Survival of the fittest" is not a hard and fast rule. Animals care for and protect each other in nature. Some species of spider might kill and eat each other just to get ahead, but I don't think that's common practice. Camaraderie and nurturing do exist in the wild.

Which begs the question as to how evolution and survival of the fittest can account for such care and nurture. That is the whole point. You say it is not a hard and fast rule. The problem is that survival of the fittest is the way in which Darwin was able to explain how it is that randomness became order. If you say that survival of the fittest is not a hard and fast rule, then you have just destroyed the very foundation of evolutionary theory. If it is not a hard and fast rule, then how do we get from randomness to the current situation today?

Likewise, humans do not make a habit of killing off their own. We choose to protect, defend and care for each other because we have this thing called "empathy". We can see ourselves in someone else's shoes. You can say this is God-given, or you can say that this is an evolutionary development. Neither statement is provable, and neither statement is inherently illogical.

Actually, if you say it is evolutionary, then who cares if we violate it? If it is just a matter of natural chemicals in the brain developing over time, then why can't we go around violating it at will? Schitzophrenics see things all of the time that are simply a result of chemical problems in the brain, and yet we contradict their idea of reality all of the time. You see, once it is lowered down to either the idea of a cultural convention, or evolution of the grey matter, then it is nothing more than a human convention that has no relevance outside of the person who has received the evolution. So, while we all might desire to care for each other, again, given an evolutionary worldview, there is no obligation for us to do so. In other words, you either have to believe that God put it there, or give up the idea that it is obligatory to every human being.

Sara,

To you, it looks like: Christian = unshakeable basis for morality; atheist = shaky basis for morality.

To atheists, though, that belief in a god that your own morality rests on is about as shaky as it gets!

Just a matter of perspective I think you're missing.

I understand that. They simply don't share my worldview. However, just as a clarification, the challange I am making is that they cannot have any foundation for morality given their atheistic presuppositions. Again, remove the Christian God from the equation, and how is it that you can make sense out of universal moral obligation? Because of atheism's inherent lack of the king of kings and lord of lords, they cannot make sense out of the very thing they are trying to use to argue against Christianity.

I do actually agree with you; I'd call myself a moral skeptic... Without a belief in God, life is pretty meaningless as long as it contains any more pain than a person is willing to bear.

The idea that humans are 'over-evolved' really resonates with me, that is, the idea that we've got so much gray matter that, unlike other animals, we can see how meaningless it is to be alive for no other reason than because we've so far survived the evolutionary process. While I'd have no arguments against people in favour of trying to slowly make ourselves extinct, more mildly, and just for myself, there's no way I'd ever, ever have children (hence my extreme pro-adoption and education-of-women stance).

Again, I agree that most non-religious bases for charity are shaky; for me it comes down to a matter of wanting their to be as little unnecessary pain as possible in the world.

I actually agree with you about needless pain. I myself am very concerned about how we are turning into a nation of violence with violent video games, television shows, and even the emotional pain that is caused by women and men wanting to enjoy sexual relations, but being unwilling to commit to one another, a wife who manipulates her husband, and a husband who beats their wife. These things are an abomination to the Lord.

However, let me ask you, given that you are a moral skeptic, why should their be as little unecessary pain as possible in the world? If you are going to be a moral skeptic, then how do you know that inflicting needless pain on another human is wrong? What I am pointing out is that even on the matter it comes down to for you, you cannot make sense of what you want. It becomes nothing more than a personal preference.

Sara, that is why the gospel is there, to save us from all this. You don't have to be a skeptic if you submit your mind to God, and think his thoughts after him. I guess the issue comes down to the fact that one must choose between a position that leaves you as a moral skeptic [atheism], and a position that can provide you with a foundation for morality so that you can stop the unnecessary pain in the world [submitting your mind to God].

God Bless,
Adam

[38. Al said the following at 5:00 PM on Feb 29:]

38

John,

As a Christian brother, I have to say that your combative response was uncalled for. Frankly, portions of it were rude, and love is not. As far as I can tell, there was a dialogue and conversation in progress, one that Amir and Eliza chose to engage in so that they *could* attempt to clear up possible mischaracterizations and gross generalizations. It might not have progressed and resolved in a manner and with a quickness and finality you would have preferred, but it was a challenging one that I hope benefitted and sharpened those involved. I know it did me.

But it seems that you saw fit to jump in and judge whether that conversation was one worth having and hoped to end it for all of us by pinning on Sara motives that you don't know and haven't confirmed, and made no effort here to confirm yourself by respectfully questioning Sara and considering her response. That's just a little bit screwed up. I would even consider it slander.

I mean, how would you like it if I had said that something tells me that you're not here to teach or edify out of love, but to take others down a notch out of pride in your own rightness?

Frankly, I think Sara's owed an apology, one that only you can extend.

[39. Sara said the following at 2:51 PM on Mar 1:]

39

(I'm choosing a bad time to write just now; I'll try to answer more fully on Monday if there's any activity here still!)

Eliza, I guess I visit this website because I miss discussing things within a Christian framework; because this discussion board is really well run; because I'm a procrastinator and its SO easy to click over to Boundless and waste time in what's usually a really interesting way; because I like being able to think about things from an atheist and christian perspective, and probably other reasons.

About God liking children and procreation for their own sake, I'd say it would be better for Him in his all-powerfulness to change his tastes towards something that doesn't inherently involve suffering.

Amir, thanks for explicitly saying you're a libertarian; I was confused... I still think you're pigeonholing atheists.

Al, I agree with your 'odd question'. Then again, I'm so very sure that I'm right that I'd be worried about that! Besides, you can also 'procreate' through education and writing. I want to answer you more; again I look at what you wrote on Monday.

Adam, I don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented. I can only say that it's self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions)

No apology necessary, John: I'm not a believer in apologies at all, except when you really hurt someone. Either accept your actions or change or be quiet! Still, the way you argue just makes me tired. I'm sure it would be fun playing baseball with you, though.

[40. John said the following at 8:38 AM on Mar 3:]

40

Al,

Sarah thinks she has it all figured out and clearly is not even wanting to consider that she's wrong.

For her, government stealing is better than charitable giving. What kind of dialogue can be had?

Al, you need to apologize to all of us for your self-righteous finger wave. It is an apology only you can extend.

[41. John said the following at 8:46 AM on Mar 3:]

41

Sarah,

It's good that you're tired, that way I won't have to spend as much time pointing out your errors, so others won't repeat them.

My hope is that you would learn something, but obviously, like I said, that's not why you're here.

It seems you're here only to be contrary to biblical morality and ethics.

You present unbiblical ideas, I show how they are so and the biblical principles that should be followed and that makes you tired.

Go figure.

[42. Adam said the following at 10:35 AM on Mar 3:]

42

Sara,

Sorry it has taken so long to get back to you. I have been very busy. Anyway, here is my response to what you have said:

Adam, I don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented. I can only say that it's self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions)

Well, then, I can just say that I don't have any rational reason to believe that the Christian God exists, and that he has revealed himself in his inerrant word, the Bible. I can only say that these things are self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions).

You see, once you get down to the idea of what is self evident, then there is no way to refute anything. If a person just says a fact is self-evident, then you cannot refute anything they have to say.

That is why I have to keep pointing out to you that you need to come to Christ to save your rationality. I mean, if you want to admit that, in order to be rational, you have to become a Christian, I can live with that. Of course, I would rather see you come to know Christ "in whom are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3].

However, either way you have proven my point that Christopher Hitchens' argument is irrational from the beginning, because an atheist cannot account for moral obligation.

God Bless,
Adam

[43. Eliza said the following at 11:29 AM on Mar 3:]

43

Sara,

RE: God changing his tastes

I totally know what you mean :).

[44. Eliza said the following at 12:11 PM on Mar 3:]

44

Adam

I'm not actually an atheist, so I agree with all of your points. The reason I was making the arguments I did was because Sara strikes me as being an intellectual person who has thought about this a lot. Obviously people come to different conclusions based on their own analysis of facts and opinions, their own experiences and on how they value their priorities. Having toyed with joining the atheist camp myself, I know that generalizations about anyone's logical capabilities is dangerous.

Having said that, my conclusions continue to rest with Christianity, although it certainly does not answer all of my questions.

As far as the arbitrariness of God's law goes, there are strange commands (communion? the Sabbath?) as well as the fact that rules often seems to come down to what we think God's law is (swearing? women's roles in church?). Many of the laws/commands seem to have no rationale outside a Christian worldview. Such as God's frequent command to stone people in the OT. Putting to death is one thing...stoning is definitely a "cruel and unusual punishment" in my book. And seems to promote a culture of violence.

Also, the rules and lifestyle only make sense if you are in the worldview. From an outsider's perspective, Christianity is no less arbitrary than any other religion. It certainly looks like we just decided to made it all up.

[45. Al said the following at 12:38 PM on Mar 3:]

45

John,

My response to you wasn't because I was trying to declare my own righteousness. I am the biggest, most wretched sinner I personally know. And I loudly proclaim that because it's the truest thing I know. And in that particular truth I find the greatest and most unfathomable, incomprehensible Grace I know-- so when it comes to most things, I'm not exactly in a position to have illusions about myself or my own righteousness. Heh.

I will confess to you that there is always a hint of pride present when I'm convinced that I'm in the right-- and I will also confess that what I perceive to be your unfair and ungracious treatment of Sara got me slightly hot under the collar-- but at this point, I believe most of it was justified. In spite of being personally prone to mixed motivations, I still believe that we are also called to call each other out in hopes of edifying each other in love, and I'm sure you would agree that not all attempts at correction stem from self-righteousness. And just as I often have a trace of sin in the motivation of much of what I do, I will also admit that I've a bit of a ego and enjoy seeing my words in print. Nonetheless, I felt that it was necessary to defend Sara against what seemed to be an uncharitable, unloving, and unverified attack on her character and person.

I also responded to you because the very attitude you accuse Sara of-- that she knew all there was and was unwilling to reconsider her thinking-- was what I detected in your response to her. Except in your case, it concerned her motivation and heart, which when wrong, would essentially be slander. If I'm incorrect about your motivations, and you too, are truly here to learn and are open to correction, then you have my apology. Like C.S. Lewis says, it's a certainty that we all have wrong ideas about things. We just don't know which things we're wrong about.

If there are others in addition to John that feels that I am being self-righteous here, please let me know-- I could use a clue on how I could have better handled the situation. If apporpriate, as John recommends, I will issue you an apology.

I'm also going to have to make this my last post regarding John's response to Sara. If there's any ongoing discussion still, it doesn't need to be derailed by us.

[46. Al said the following at 1:38 PM on Mar 3:]

46

Hah, Sara-- the very fact that you're convinced you're right about your world view is the very reason you *should* be worried about not having offspring. =) And procreating those who are most like you stands a better chance with like genetics in addition to education, I'd think (though that doesn't always work out).

And from a biblical world view, God didn't exactly "choose" children and childbirth to inherently involve suffering. As you're probably aware, it was an affect of the "Fall" and a curse for man's disobedience, as is the general brokenness of the world. Saying that God arbitrarily chose something painful mischaracterizes the Christian understanding of God a bit. It's weird that most animals seem to have a pretty easy time of having offspring. I've seen footage of calves literally drop from cows that were grazing. It's not all fun and games for the male black window spider though.

I would also argue that with the world as it is, pain is necessary for life-- and to presuppose that the pain human life will cause and endure is unnecessary is somewhat dangerous, because we end up with very shaky, arbitrary, and sentimental definitions of "unnecessary pain" that ends up nearly wishing that others disappear so that we would not have to witness or endure their pain--presuming that we are relieving them when we're really relieving ourselves. Maybe I'm mischaracterizing a bit, but I think I see shades of that in some philosophies elevating pain relief above human life. Instead I would rather argue human life and dignity necessary first and much more valuable than the mere elimination of pain, and seek practical solutions from there-- rather than presume that it is something that should be traded away for less suffering.

I'm going to have to reference Lewis again. The man is brilliant when it comes to human nature. He observes that in the past we used to value "Charity" and "Love"-- the fierce, hearty sort of love that would even allow the object loved to experience pain for its own good and its own life. Now that has been replaced by mere "Kindness", which just desires that a creature be happy and escape suffering. He remarks that mere Kindness and Love are not the same thing, as Love longs ultimately for the life of the creature while Kindness divorced from Love would gladly kill it to spare it pain.

And in your response to John, I realized that you were more gracious and had a thicker skin than I gave you credit for.

[47. Adam said the following at 3:04 PM on Mar 3:]

47

Eliza,

I'm not actually an atheist, so I agree with all of your points. The reason I was making the arguments I did was because Sara strikes me as being an intellectual person who has thought about this a lot. Obviously people come to different conclusions based on their own analysis of facts and opinions, their own experiences and on how they value their priorities. Having toyed with joining the atheist camp myself, I know that generalizations about anyone's logical capabilities is dangerous.

That depends on what you mean by "logical capabilities." You see, I don't believe that atheists truly exist. There are many people who profess to be atheists, but I believe that they have to rely on the very God of the Bible to even live their lives.

So, in other words, I am not saying that Sara does not have the capacity to reason, but that she does so in a manner that is inconsistent with her worldview, and relies upon my worldview for its validity. Sure, I believe that atheists can reason, and do a very good job of it. However, in order to reason, they are having to rely upon the God they know exists, because they are created in his image [Romans 1:21]. Thus, atheists might reason very well, but it is their reasoning for which they cannot give an account. Given their worldview, there should be no such thing as moral obligation. The only worldview that can make sense out of moral obligation is the Christian worldview, and thus, all unbelievers must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to reason about morality.

As far as the arbitrariness of God's law goes, there are strange commands (communion? the Sabbath?) as well as the fact that rules often seems to come down to what we think God's law is (swearing? women's roles in church?). Many of the laws/commands seem to have no rationale outside a Christian worldview. Such as God's frequent command to stone people in the OT. Putting to death is one thing...stoning is definitely a "cruel and unusual punishment" in my book. And seems to promote a culture of violence.

Also, the rules and lifestyle only make sense if you are in the worldview. From an outsider's perspective, Christianity is no less arbitrary than any other religion. It certainly looks like we just decided to made it all up.

Well, that is why we don't look outside of a Christian worldview. That is the whole point. That is why I am saying that we need to compare the two worldviews, and show the impossibility of moral obligation at all given any other worldview than Christianity. As others who argue for Christianity in the way I do are fond of saying: The proof of the existance of the Christian God is in this, that without him, you cannot prove anything. In other words, what you call "strange" commands, and commands for "cruel and unusual punishment" are the very preconditions for moral obligation en toto. They might seem strange, and they might seem cruel and unusual, but, unless you accept their morality, you cannot have moral obligation at all. Thus, people who try to formulate worldviews other than the Christian worldview must be constantly relying upon the Christian worldview in order to formulate these other worldviews.

In other words, what I am saying is that we need to compare the two worldviews, and show that only the Christian worldview can make sense out of reasoning. That is why I have consistently told Sara that she needs a savior for her reasoning. Only Christianity can save her from her moral skepticism, because only Christ, the king of kings and lord of lords, can provide her with the ultimate, infallible authority needed for moral obligation.

God Bless,
Adam

[48. Jethro said the following at 3:18 PM on Mar 3:]

48

John,

Quote "Not one single country in this entire world donates more money than the church. Not one!"

Provide me with some figures to back this up please. I would be quite intrigued to see how the money donated by the church (not to John, by, that's the word you used) stacks up against spending on internal and foreign aid by countries like the US. I trust you have these figures handy given the forceful and ungracious tone of your response.

[49. Eliza said the following at 4:15 PM on Mar 3:]

49

Adam,

I see you are very passionate about your beliefs, and I generally agree with your conclusions. And yet I disagree with the value you place on the religion of Christianity (as opposed to the One True God). Perhaps you just used "Christian" when you meant "God".

The only worldview that can make sense out of moral obligation is the Christian worldview, and thus, all unbelievers must borrow from the Christian worldview in order to reason about morality.

"To make sense" is a subjective term. What makes sense to you is not necessarily what makes sense to me. The process of making order out of one's world is shaped by language, culture, family, education, etc. Therefore something might make total sense to Sara and/or I, and not make sense to you. There are many things in Christianity that make NO sense to me, and yet I choose to believe them. In some cases, against what I would call my "better judgment". Does that mean they are not true because they do not make sense to me? (answer to rhetorical question = no.)

There is no such thing as a unified "Christian" worldview. Also, there were coherent (allegedly God-fearing) worldviews before Christ. So it is difficult to say that all unbelievers borrow from the "Christian" worldview.

The proof of the existance of the Christian God is in this, that without him, you cannot prove anything.

It is also true that you cannot "prove" anything with the Christian God. He can only be accepted on faith. Granted, faith with an intellectual background, but faith nonetheless. Likewise, atheism is a faith (or loss of faith) in God. Also backed up by intellectualism, also not provable.

I have to say, I do find your logic difficult to follow. I do not see how rejecting the morality of stoning forces you to reject all moral obligation. I also do not see how all peoples--even those who have never encountered Christianity as well as those whose ideas are so far removed from Christianity as to be practically incomparable (Hinduism, Buddhism) must base their ideas about moral obligation on Christian principles. Their foundations are sound and logical to them (make perfect sense) and have lasted thousands of years. Their moral obligations are somewhat different than ours (not killing cows, sacrificing to ancestors, etc.)

Finally, I believe that Sara conceded the point that atheism does not have any moral obligations, only nice-to-haves. Wouldn't you consider that a consistent worldview?

[50. Adam said the following at 6:00 PM on Mar 3:]

50

Eliza,

"To make sense" is a subjective term. What makes sense to you is not necessarily what makes sense to me. The process of making order out of one's world is shaped by language, culture, family, education, etc. Therefore something might make total sense to Sara and/or I, and not make sense to you. There are many things in Christianity that make NO sense to me, and yet I choose to believe them. In some cases, against what I would call my "better judgment". Does that mean they are not true because they do not make sense to me? (answer to rhetorical question = no.)

Well, is there is any way for a self-contradiction to make sense, or for arbitrariness to make sense? No, both of those are logical fallacies. That is what I am talking about. The point is that, unless the Christian God is a part of any given worldview, that worldview will never be able to make *rational* sense out of the question of moral obligation.

There is no such thing as a unified "Christian" worldview. Also, there were coherent (allegedly God-fearing) worldviews before Christ. So it is difficult to say that all unbelievers borrow from the "Christian" worldview.

Well, you are talking to a covenant theologian here, so, I do believe that the Christian worldview existed before the time of Christ. Now, did we have a full knowledge of every single detail of God's revelation at that time? No. However, the Christian worldview did, indeed, exist before the time of Christ, because the essential elements of the Christian worldview were present even in the Hebrew scriptures. That is how the apostle Paul could witness to the Jews from the Hebrew scriptures themselves.

Secondly, there does not need to be a "unified" Christian worldview in the sense that all Christians necessarily agree on everything. Even atheists don't have that. When I talk about the Christian worldview, I am talking about the very foundations of the Christian faith, and the things which all Christians hold in common. Imparticular, I am speaking about Bible as the inerrant revelation of God to man. Can there be differences on those issues which the Bible does not deem as definitional to the Christian faith? Most definitely. However, what we are talking about here is the foundational doctrines that the scriptures say one must believe in order to be a Christian. When these are rejected, one cannot make sense out of moral obligation.

It is also true that you cannot "prove" anything with the Christian God. He can only be accepted on faith. Granted, faith with an intellectual background, but faith nonetheless. Likewise, atheism is a faith (or loss of faith) in God. Also backed up by intellectualism, also not provable.

Well, I don't agree. I know that perspective is very popular. However, the Bible tells us that God has created the world so that man is without excuse to not believe in God. I believe that I have proven that God exists.

Now, we need to make a distinction between proof and persuasion. Just because there may be people that do not accept my proof does not mean that I have not proven that God exists. Persuasion is subjectively qualified. Proof is not.

I have to say, I do find your logic difficult to follow. I do not see how rejecting the morality of stoning forces you to reject all moral obligation. I also do not see how all peoples--even those who have never encountered Christianity as well as those whose ideas are so far removed from Christianity as to be practically incomparable (Hinduism, Buddhism) must base their ideas about moral obligation on Christian principles. Their foundations are sound and logical to them (make perfect sense) and have lasted thousands of years. Their moral obligations are somewhat different than ours (not killing cows, sacrificing to ancestors, etc.)

Well, again, I have to get back to the distinction between what moral obligations they have, and whether or not they can make sense out of the *concept* of moral obligation. In other words, it is not that they do not have moral obligations, but that they cannot make rational sense out of the very concept of moral obligation itself.

Where I would want to go with the Hindu is to discuss their idea that all of our experience of distinction is illusion, and everything is one. Well, if everything is one, then all premises are one, rationality and irrationality are one, morality, and immorality are one, and thus, the whole system breaks down so that reason, moral or otherwise breaks down. For the Buddhist, I would want to stress the fact that his religion is atheistic, and thus, why is it that I have any obligation to obey what the guru says?

Again, I am not arguing that these people do not have moral obligations. I am arguing that they cannot make sense out of their moral obligations, because the entire *concept* of moral obligation does not make rational sense given their worldview. Given their worldview, moral obligation is something that is totally arbitrary.

So, in other words, the reason why it is that their foundations have lasted as long as they have is because they are relying upon the Christian worldview to even be able to make sense out of the concept moral obligation. The point I am trying to make is the same point as was made by Paul in Romans 1:

Romans 1:18-25 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse. 21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. 24 Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. 25 For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

Thus, I am arguing that unbelievers know God, but refuse to aknowledge him in their thinking. This is how a person can say that they have a different foundation other than the Christian worldview, and yet, still build their moral obligations upon the Christian worldview. They know him, but because of sin, they suppress this knowledge, and will not give him the credit he deserves.

The result is that they become, as Paul says, fools. Now, this is not engaging in name-calling. It is talking about one's reasoning when you will not aknowledge God as the foundation of your reasoning. The concept of moral obligation becomes rationally impossible. Yet, this is the very same thing that Hitchens wants to use against the existance of God????? This is what I believe is incoherent.

Finally, I believe that Sara conceded the point that atheism does not have any moral obligations, only nice-to-haves. Wouldn't you consider that a consistent worldview?

No, because no one views the world in that way. Even she admitted that people should stop all unnecessary suffering. She also admitted that it was inconsistent for her to say that. Thus, she does not view the world in any kind of a consistent manner at this point, and she acknowledged as much.

God Bless,
Adam

[51. Sara said the following at 7:03 PM on Mar 3:]

51

I think I'm a little late, and maybe talking to dead air here but oh, well.

Adam,
I want to talk to you about how you think that God "has revealed himself in his inerrant word, the Bible". Hopefully it won't be a too off-topic thing to talk about in some upcoming post. Basically, I think that the 'Holy Spirit' is an anthropomorphisizing of our own emotions, and that any appeal to proof by the Spirit is really yet another intellectual or emotional proof offered up; and also that the Bible isn't inerrant, and doesn't even claim to be: the canon wasn't totally finalized until the 4th century, so when the Bible talks about 'itself' it isn't necessarily talking about all 66 books.

Eliza,
I like all the friction I get here ('iron sharpens iron' and so forth), but it was very nice to be understood for once :) about the 'God changing his tastes' thing. Just you personally, what most strongly keeps you Christian? Apart from 'is-there-a-God', and just about Christianity, I find redaction criticism of the NT the most compelling evidence against Christianity (far from the only, though). If you can look into something like the Synoptic Problem and come out a Christian, I'd be very eager to understand how! Here's a summary of the method (written by a pretty conservative Christian, oddly enough: it seems some Christians can accept it and keep their faith; I can't) http://www.cresourcei.org/synoptic.html

Al,
If God chose to make humans such that they were able to succumb to a Fall and subsequent consequences, that's as good as having caused their pain. I agree that in this world we have now, certain pains are valuable and useful -- again, I'd say, your God isn't so limited that He couldn't conceive of a world where pain wasn't necessary. Arguments along the lines of 'God couldn't get realy love from us if he didn't test our faithfulness through trials' smack of a ascribing a very curtailed creativity to an all-powerful God!
[and as an aside, I've seen many cows die giving birth, including one cow have her pelvis crack. Not to be too glib, but I'd put the praying mantis on the pro-God side of evidence. They are just so cool. Black widows are creepy.]

John,
Just about your style, I want to say that I agree with you that there needs to be people in this world who are willing to stand up and speak out loudly and angrily against what's wrong (and for you, my ideas are one of those things). The risk in doing that, though, is that if your arguing style is too abrasive or otherwise distracting, you'll ironically draw attention away from your cause, and put it back on yourself.

[52. Sara said the following at 7:31 PM on Mar 3:]

52

Adam,
just on your last point: actually, I do see the world that way, and believe that there 'aren't any objective moral obligations, only nice-to-haves'. When I say that people should stop unnecessary suffering, I'm just saying that it seems that way to me, not that it's a definite universal truth. I didn't say that my view is inconsistant, I said that it isn't intellectually solid enough to withstand criticism from moral skeptics. I don't think anybody's views are.

[53. Sara said the following at 8:01 PM on Mar 3:]

53

[the following is very boring; I just don’t like C.S. Lewis’ logic, and wanted to respond to the three quotes and paraphrases of his that people have used here]

"If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning: just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be without meaning."

-Would he say that the reverse is true? If the whole universe has meaning, we should never know that it has meaning because everything would be so infused with meaningfulness that we couldn’t conceive of meaninglessness? Also, he doesn’t distinguish between the possibilities of not being able to know the ‘meaning of the universe’ on a grand scale, and being able to know ‘meaning’ on a smaller scale events which, just by being non-universal, could still be ‘seen’ under his metaphor, and which, taken together, might make up the meaning of the whole universe. And what on earth is ‘meaning’? I only believe in ‘cause and effect’, and that’s something that, even if it’s a universe-wide phenomenon, we could be expected to be able to observe to some extent.

“it's a certainty that we all have wrong ideas about things. We just don't know which things we're wrong about.”
-Hopefully he’s aware of the joke he’s making by calling this belief of his a ‘certainty’.

“in the past we used to value "Charity" and "Love"-- the fierce, hearty sort of love that would even allow the object loved to experience pain for its own good and its own life. Now that has been replaced by mere "Kindness", which just desires that a creature be happy and escape suffering. He remarks that mere Kindness and Love are not the same thing, as Love longs ultimately for the life of the creature while Kindness divorced from Love would gladly kill it to spare it pain.”

-Apart from his romanticizing of the past, and apart from the straw man he’s picking on (I for one, could conceive of a world where I’d want more for people than mere pain-free happiness), he’s not addressing the possibilities that: people might have a different definition of love than his(!); and that there could be a world where lessons could be learned without pain; and that the world could be so bad a place that it’s more noble to reject it than to stay in it; and that you could long for the life of a creature, but not the kind of life that’s available to it!

[54. John said the following at 8:39 PM on Mar 3:]

54

Jethro,

Even though you still tried to insult me, that's perhaps the nicest post you've ever addressed to me.

Here's a place to start:

http://www.generousgiving.org/page.asp?sec=4&page=312

[55. Sara said the following at 9:09 AM on Mar 4:]

55

oops, Adam, I meant to say that I think the Holy Spirit is nothing more than a 'personification' (as in, persons of the Trinity) of a certain set of our own emotions, not an 'anthropomorphisizing'.

Eliza: I didn't mean to so glibly suggest that you read like 30 pages of stuff on the internet, however good it is. :)

John, interesting website. It's off-topic, but isn't it interesting that "only 30 percent of affluent families survive into the second generation, and only 10 percent into the third." Also very surprising: " Senior pastors in the U.S. earn an average salary of over $80,000 a year, including benefits." Crazy! My old pastor only gets like $10 000 a year (it's a very small church).

[56. Hope said the following at 10:23 AM on Mar 4:]

56

Wow, these are long posts with some heavy content! Rather intimidating for a newcomer to jump in, but post #13 got stuck in my head and so I wanted to thank Sara for sharing what her Christian life was like. It reminds me of my own focus on self perfection (for example, my current train of thought is "wow, my post will be the best ever! Oops - that was prideful, how can I make it sound more humble?") when I could just know God cares for me just as I am and move on to share that love in a practical way with somebody else.

[57. xeres said the following at 10:28 AM on Mar 4:]

57

Sara,

What's wrong with having a purpose in your life? There has to some reason to pursue virtue and being good. More inportantly, what's wrong with inquiring for understanding what makes us human, what is the good and virtious life. It is a pursuit worth pursuing, even if it is a lifetime journey. This is why I find the philosophical implications of evoulutionary thought and post-modernistic views troubling.

[58. Eliza said the following at 10:55 AM on Mar 4:]

58

Hi Sara,

Why I am still a Christian. Oh gosh.

I did skim the synoptic problem site you linked. I had a New Testament class in college that went over that in some detail. I'm not sure I quite understand what the problem is? Whether they're plagiarized from each other, or they had a conspiracy to say the same things, making it less likely that what they say is the actual record of what happened?

My understanding of the place of scripture in Christianity has undergone quite a change in the past few years. I was raised to believe that pretty much every word in the Bible was literal, indoctrinated into 6 Day Creation and the like. But when I started thinking for myself, my perspective took a big shift. I still see "all of scripture as being God-breathed", but it's just that--inspired. Not dictated. God "inspired" people to write things that have a level of truth; sometimes factual, sometimes emotional, sometimes spiritual, sometimes metaphorical. I love the fact that Jesus is described as the "word". The Christian "word" is a living breathing person, not a book to analyze. So, I'm not positive that there are absolutely no errors in the Bible, but I'm not going to throw out the whole Book because of that. People say, "You're just picking and choosing what parts you like" or "If you decide chapter X is inaccurate, how can you trust any other passage?" I think that's kind of extreme. I believe God is perfect, but people are not. So someone could have marked a number of something down wrong or made a spelling error, but this does not erase the inherent inspiration of what they wrote.

As far as Matthew, Mark, and Luke go, I don't have a problem with the Q doc theory. It certainly looks like they all got their info from similar sources. Like 3 people writing a research paper based on the same original material. Luke, especially, states right out that what he's writing is not an eyewitness account. I don't think this negates the general accuracy and "truth" (note the small "t") of the recorded events.

This is going to end up being a long post!

At this point I still call myself a Christian, but I'm being a very bad one! I'm not doing all those "devotional" things we're supposed to do, and my prayers are more like angry rants or pity parties. And yet for some reason I still choose all the time to believe. At least believe that Jesus exists and is having grace on me. I'm confused about pretty much everything else.

I've never had intellectual problems on the existence of God or the historical existence, death and resurrection of Jesus or the reliability of the canonical books. I think there is as much evidence to support these things as there is evidence to support pretty much any religion, and a lot more than some! And I've been immersed in enough apologetic mumbo-jumbo that I'm sure I could talk myself out of a bad situation, if needed. At least I could make it sound logical :).

No, my issue with Christianity is much more social, emotional and philosophical. I see now that I definitely projected my image of my parents onto God, which has given me a deep-seated fear of being struck by lightening at any moment, because God wants to teach me some kind of "lesson". The people in my life now say that's not how God is, but I could point to lots of scriptures that seem to imply otherwise! Anyway, the obnoxious bully kind of god is not worth worshiping, in my book. That's the short explanation of the emotional/philosophical problems I have with the Christian God. The social one is this: I have met way to many self-righteous, stuck up, passive-agressive, narrow-minded Christians in my life. And I really don't like them and don't want to be associated with them.

So, why the heck am I still here??? Well, the church I found now is different from anything I grew up in, and it's not repulsive :). In fact, I had a great conversation with one of the pastors whose wife left him where I asked him why he came back to the church after that controversy. After all, didn't he expect judgment and criticism to greet him everywhere? And he replied that he came back because he wanted this to be a kind of church where people like him could come. I was totally blown away by that, because I'd never encountered that kind of vulnerability and commitment to just plain ol' goodness before. He basically totally laid himself out there to give the church a chance to be, you know, churchy:). In the good way. Pretty much all the ministers at this church are like that.

So, I have come to terms with the fact that not all Christians are obnoxious and evil.

This has also effected my emotional/philosophical issues, because obviously this pastor knows a different God than I do. And I'm still doing a lot of questioning, but I don't want to back out until I really am happy with my conclusions; throw the baby out with the bathwater.

The biggest thing I've realized is that there is absolutely no amount of thinking that's going to get me to heaven. After going around in a million circles, it will always come down to faith. There is no way to actually know. At this point I have a kind of vacillating faith--sometimes it's somewhat solid, mostly pretty wishy-washy--and it's still a journey.

Another, perhaps shallower reason that I continue to be a part of church is that I think it's pretty beautiful. I really like liturgy and symbolism and hymns and intentional community and all that jazz. For all the hurt the church causes, I'm seeing that it also does a lot of good.

Sorry for the huge explanation, and I hope it was at least somewhat understandable :).

[59. Al said the following at 4:19 PM on Mar 4:]

59

Sara,

How responsible God is over evil and pain because He created humans capable of succumbing to the Fall has been argued for thousands of years, and Paul even addresses it in Romans. The rhetoric stating that God is as good as responsible for their pain is a bit too simplistic in my opinion. I know that I am fully deserving of the consequences of my own actions and pain. It's one of those things that are simply self-evident to me. Paul addresses the argument, albiet with a response that doesn't satisfy me philosphically, nor would it placate any atheist. But it does state a truth I accept-- I am not God, and I cannot presume to know better than my Maker, and in my questioning and struggles, I need to be wary of thinking I know all that there is to know. Anyway, the Christian understanding is that God allows but does not directly cause evil-- how that works I'm not smart enough to give you a complete answer for. But He turns what men intend for evil for good, and instead of shying away from pain, He embraces it himself.

If anyone could have His way and avoid pain, you would think it would be God. Yet Christ subjects Himself to that very pain of a fallen world to redeem man and for His glory. To me, that's a sort of deep, astounding, unexpected beauty greater than wishes for a universe that pain has never touched.

It's kind of funny that we deem God unimaginative for not creating a painless world, when it may well be our lack of imagination that renders us unable to understand how pain may be necessary to bear ultimate beauty. I actually find the fact that God allows and redeems suffering, and does the unthinkable in taking it upon Himself one of the most highly imaginative and surprising aspects of Christian theology. In the moment of the Cross, God knew what it was to be apart from God. That's wacky. It speaks of a strange beauty and universe that I would never have chosen to make, precisely because I lack the imagination for it-- and my imagination is crippled from the outset because for better or worse, I'm pain avoidant.

It's abit arbitrary for us to demand a universe made without pain, merely because we find it distasteful, and then accuse God of being uncreative in being unable to comply with our requirements. If there *is* a God, then we've got things really backwards. He would be the one to determine how the universe should be built and for what ends, not us.

Never seen cows die in childbirth... I guess they're having beef for dinner.

[60. Sara said the following at 4:20 PM on Mar 4:]

60

Eliza, what a lovely post! Thank you. I want really want to respond more to it; I'm usually not as pressed for time as I am right now... :) I'd say that I'll try posting something in a couple days, but that sounds like some kind of pathetic teaser :)

That's a great story about your pastor.

[61. Al said the following at 4:38 PM on Mar 4:]

61

"Would he say that the reverse is true? If the whole universe has meaning, we should never know that it has meaning because everything would be so infused with meaningfulness that we couldn’t conceive of meaninglessness?"

I don't know what C.S. Lewis would say about a world filled to the brim with meaning whereby it's lost again because it wouldn't be discernable from meaninglessness (if that's what you're asking?). He would probably say it wasn't true, or doesn't know, as he doesn't have such a universe to observe. But he's been dead 40 years and is a better thinker than me, so I probably shouldn't suppose to speak for him. For what it's worth, I don't abscribe to the philosophy that something only exists on the basis of its counterpart-- and that good only exists by coopting evil. I do believe opposites illustrate their compliment and highlight them. But it remains that the world we live in is one that appears at times meaningless though we long for it, not one the one you speak of, so filled with meaning that we can't conceive of it-- so it seems Lewis is speaking of the world that actually is, and I don't know how he would respond to the hypothetical world you describe.

But that hypothetical world does sound a little bit like a world without pain you imagine possible, which, according to your question if you believe it to raise a valid argument, would preclude a world without meaninglessness, which would preclude a world without pain, as meaninglessness is one of the most painful things I know. It's a bit like asking if we can experience pleasure in a world without pain. I imagine so, but only because I don't ascribe to the philosophy underlying your question. I would disagree that a universe without pain would automatically provide the greatest pleasure and greatest good, however.

"Also, he doesn’t distinguish between the possibilities of not being able to know the ‘meaning of the universe’ on a grand scale, and being able to know ‘meaning’ on a smaller scale events which, just by being non-universal, could still be ‘seen’ under his metaphor, and which, taken together, might make up the meaning of the whole universe."

Lewis isn't talking about ultimate meanings here. Rather, he is arguing against the explanation of meaningless that you cited and felt resonated with you-- that we're only material and chemical, somehow lamenting that we're only energy and matter, and that you yourself would end up arguing against if you allow any meaning beyond mere tissue and material on any scope, great or small. He doesn't distinguish between the two because he is responding to the very belief you previous cited asserting that there is none at all.

I suppose it's possible that the universe may have "meaning" on small scales and not larger ones-- but thinking that it should be that way is somewhat arbitrary, as we artificially limit the significance and scope of any one meaning. This also runs somewhat counter to most scientific philosophy, which supposes that ultimate rules (here "significance" and "meaning") should elegantly have ultimate scope. Allowing for a bunch of smaller meanings cobbled together while prohibiting ultimate ones seems artificial-- especially when the definition of meaning itself implies the abstract, underlying greater. It would probably take an actual philosopher or wordsmith to give you a better definition of meaning.

"And what on earth is ‘meaning’? I only believe in ‘cause and effect’, and that’s something that, even if it’s a universe-wide phenomenon, we could be expected to be able to observe to some extent."

Mere mechanical cause and effect implies that there isn't meaning on a large scale because there isn't real meaning on a small scale. No materialistic evolutionist would define cause and effect as having meaning, or even being meaning-- it is merely an illusory construct we impose on patterns in reality. In fact, "merely cause and effect" are precisely what materialistic evolutionists use to describe what meaning is not, and the latter cannot be rescued in the objective sense by defining it as material processes.

Which just goes back to the original problem. If everything is just material cause and effect, it seems that we should not even be having this discussion right now, as if there was even the possibility of something more.

"Apart from his romanticizing of the past, and apart from the straw man he’s picking on (I for one, could conceive of a world where I’d want more for people than mere pain-free happiness) and that the world could be so bad a place that it’s more noble to reject it than to stay in it; and that you could long for the life of a creature, but not the kind of life that’s available to it!"

I don't think Lewis romanticizes the past. He does take great issue with the Myth of Modernity, that what is new is necessarily what is better, and that much of the wisdom of the ages is mostly irrelevant and can be reduced to mere curiosities.

And I don't think he's making straw man arguments as much as he has his finger on the pulse on society (or at least where it was headed in the time he wrote). Many modern movements are concerned with "kindness" over love, or mistake the two. A somewhat newly Christian sister who I respect has defended abortion passionately because of the life she imagines of those born to parents who don't want them. And much of the let-do philosophy of our age is concerned primarily with letting people be happy (or attempt to be happy) on their own terms, rather than that they would become better for their own sake. I agree with you that we should all long for a better life for other creatures, and do our best to make our longing a real hope for them-- but to presume that we can decide for them alternatives to their achievable life-- whether they should continue or end, or whether they should be born or not for their own sake seems highly arrogant and in practical action, directly undermines any of their dignity and life we say we cherish. We play their functional gods who know better rather than their fellow creatures.

And last I don't find much *noble* in wanting to leave the world because it's broken. I mean, I can certainly empathize with wanting to get off this rock... usually when I'm feeling especially emo or pining after unrequited love. I even think it's a legitimate desire. But I don't think that by itself, merely shunning the world is all that commendable, and I don't find much sublime in Buddhist notions of escape. Maybe it's just that I'm a little too enamoured with a certain someone-- who in a moment, shed His nobility and entered the world-- precisely because it was dark and broken.

[62. Adam said the following at 2:14 PM on Mar 5:]

62

Sara,

just on your last point: actually, I do see the world that way, and believe that there 'aren't any objective moral obligations, only nice-to-haves'. When I say that people should stop unnecessary suffering, I'm just saying that it seems that way to me, not that it's a definite universal truth. I didn't say that my view is inconsistant, I said that it isn't intellectually solid enough to withstand criticism from moral skeptics. I don't think anybody's views are.

You are right. I should have said that your view is arbitrary. Here is what you actually said:

Adam, I don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented. I can only say that it's self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions)

You said you "don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented." You then went on to say that it was "self-evident" to you. In other words, what you are saying is that you are being arbitrary.

And, of course, you do not allow people to be arbitrary. For instance, in your last response to me, you wrote:

I want to talk to you about how you think that God "has revealed himself in his inerrant word, the Bible". Hopefully it won't be a too off-topic thing to talk about in some upcoming post. Basically, I think that the 'Holy Spirit' is an anthropomorphisizing of our own emotions, and that any appeal to proof by the Spirit is really yet another intellectual or emotional proof offered up; and also that the Bible isn't inerrant, and doesn't even claim to be: the canon wasn't totally finalized until the 4th century, so when the Bible talks about 'itself' it isn't necessarily talking about all 66 books.

I think, and this point that I could answer that I do not have to have a rational reason why I believe the Bible is inerrant. It is self-evident to me...very self evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions). As I said, you have opened the flood gates. Now, I don't have to have a rational reason to believe anything. Yet, you know deep down inside that this is no way to look at the situation, since you were the one who brought up the objection about inerrancy in the first place. You believe in having rational, moral dialogue. The problem is that your view makes that impossible.

Also, you say that no one's views are able to withstand moral skepticism. You are only proving my point. You reject inerrancy, and thus, you cannot even argue against inerrancy, because I can be arbitrary just like you. You are right. Reject inerrancy, and no one can escape the arguments of the moral skeptic. What you are showing us is what happens when you reject God's word as being inerrant and inerrant revelation from him.

Now, I am going to go on to answer the criticisms you present. However, remember, at least I have a framework in terms of which I can answer them. Given your arbitrariness, and your willingness to appeal to "self-evidence," you cannot even argue against anything I present. So, the fact that I am even responding to these criticisms means your position has been refuted.

You say that the Bible no where says it is inerrant. Well, actually, it does say that. It says that God's word is "truth" [John 17:17]. The Lord Jesus said that "the scriptures cannot be broken" [John 10:34-35]. Also, the Bible presents the scriptures as coming from an omnicient God [2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21] who cannot lie [Titus 1:2]. Along these same lines, the Jews never questioned Jesus when he quoted scripture. It was the final court of appeals. In Matthew 19:5, Jesus puts the words of Genesis 2:24 into the mouth of God, when, in the text of Genesis, it was spoken by the narrator. Such, of course, means that the scriptures viewed these words as the words of God. Again, we find no complaint from the Jews over this.

Now, as far as the canon not being completely recognized until the third century, I again have to ask why this is important. Given what the scriptures tell us, the scriptures come from God, not from man [2 Timothy 3:16, 2 Peter 1:21]. The canon is therefore a function of revelation. For instance, there is a canon of my articles. I have written several on my blog. The fact that I have written some articles and not all articles means that there is a canon of my works. Thus, inspiration is not a function of what man thinks, but what God has chosen to inspire.

Now, we just need to add one premise to that, and all of these kind of objections become irrelevant. That is that God leads his people to have exactly what they need. In other words, his people are passive instruments who are led to recognize God's inerrant word.

How do we know what that inerrant word is? Again, from the impossibility of the contrary. No other alleged revelation can make rational sense out of reality. Which is, ultimately, where we started before you even asked the question. Given these 66 books as revelation from a transcendent, imminant God, I can make sense out of the universe. However, as I said before, you are reduced to nothing but pure arbitrariness.

God Bless,
Adam

[63. Eliza said the following at 3:41 PM on Mar 5:]

63

Adam,

Do you not see how circular your argument is? You are saying:

The Bible is inerrant.
I know this because the Bible tells me.
The Bible is the only so-called proof you are offering for itself.

Your belief in God is entirely based on faith (granted, with apparently a good knowledge of history). In order to believe anything you do, you first have to presuppose God's existence and that he is personal enough to influence people. You say you believe this because the Bible says so? That is circular logic, and not proof of the truth of either the Bible or God.

As far as Sara being arbitrary, I continue to disagree with you. She is not making decisions based on her own personal convenience or desire without any regard for the intrinsic nature of things. Just because there are philosophical issues that one doesn't have the answer to does not make one's entire worldview arbitrary. It just makes it unfinished. And that is just fine. After all, when is the point where we know everything and don't need to think about it any more?

The more I learn the less I know.

[64. Sara said the following at 4:52 PM on Mar 5:]

64

Hi Adam - just for now, are we conflating moral skepticism with skepticism about empirical facts and mathematical and logical systems and so on? say Ed shoots Bill: I can point out the gun, the bullet, the wound, the scream, but I can't point to the 'wrong'. I can logically show 'if A therefore C', but I can't objectively prove that that's good or evil. At least for this thread, I'm saying that I believe in the objectivity of observable realities, and of coherence within math and logic systems and so on, but not of morals.

[65. Adam said the following at 6:17 PM on Mar 5:]

65

Eliza,

Actually, I was not responding to her challange that the Bible is inerrant. I was responding to her challange that the Bible does not teach its own inerrancy. She said:

and also that the Bible isn't inerrant, and doesn't even claim to be:

I was challanging the statement in bold.

No, what I am arguing is that the proof of the inerrancy of the scriptures is without it, and the rest of the Christian worldview, you can't make rational sense out of reality.

Finally, my argumentation is a rational form of argumentation. It is called transendental argumentation, arguing something from the impossibility of the contrary:

http://www.publicbookshelf.com/public_html/Outline_of_Great_Books_Volume_I/transcende_bid.html

It began with Kant, and is in virtually every philosophy textbook available. While some reject the argument Kant used against the scepticism of David Hume, it is a very well accepted form of argumentation.

As far as Sara being arbitrary, I continue to disagree with you. She is not making decisions based on her own personal convenience or desire without any regard for the intrinsic nature of things. Just because there are philosophical issues that one doesn't have the answer to does not make one's entire worldview arbitrary. It just makes it unfinished. And that is just fine. After all, when is the point where we know everything and don't need to think about it any more?

Eliza, you have missed the entire point of my argument. My argument is not to say Sara personally cannot give any foundation for moral obligation, but that it is *impossible* for her, or anyone else who holds her worldview to do it, given the inherent nature of the worldview she holds. She has no ultimate, infallible authority in her worldview, and thus, it is inconsistent for her to talk about universal moral obligation. Hence, the argument is not that Sara personally cannot make sense out of moral obligation, but, given her rejection of an ultimate, infallible creator and king who has the right to bind his law to her contience, it is *impossible* to have moral obligation. Not that sometime down the road we will figure it out, but that, given the nature of her worldview which is inherently secular, it is *impossible* to have moral obligation.

Sara then responded with the following:

Adam, I don't have any rational reason to think unnecessary pain is definitely bad, and ought to be prevented. I can only say that it's self-evident to me. Very self-evident. (And I know that that's not an intellectually solid answer, but I'm at least OK enough with that to allow it to guide my actions)

At that point, yes, if you grant that it is impossible, given your worldview, to make rational sense out of moral obligation, and yet you just believe in it anyway, then you are, indeed, being arbitrary to say that you do not need a rational reason, and that it is just "self-evident."

God Bless,
Adam

[66. Adam said the following at 6:38 PM on Mar 5:]

66

Sara,

Hi Adam - just for now, are we conflating moral skepticism with skepticism about empirical facts and mathematical and logical systems and so on? say Ed shoots Bill: I can point out the gun, the bullet, the wound, the scream, but I can't point to the 'wrong'. I can logically show 'if A therefore C', but I can't objectively prove that that's good or evil. At least for this thread, I'm saying that I believe in the objectivity of observable realities, and of coherence within math and logic systems and so on, but not of morals.

Actually, the point is that if you allow for irrationality in the area of morals, what is wrong with me using irrationality in other areas? Here, again, we have another instance of arbitrariness. It is just fine for you to be irrational when it comes to the problems in my system, but it is not ok for me to be irrational when it comes to the problems you try to raise in my system???????? Why is it you apply one standard to ethics and another standard to other kinds of reasoning?

Not only that, but let me also bring up the area of logic. How do you as an atheist make sense out of universal, immaterial, abstract laws such as the laws of logic? Obviously, you can't make sense out of the laws of logic if you are a naturalistic materialist. To speak of something immaterial when all you believe in are things that are material is simply to contradict yourself.

Now, you could argue that you believe in immaterial things such as the laws of logic as well as material things, thus becoming a secularistic dualist. However, then next question is how you bring those immaterial laws into contact with the material world. It is all well and good that the immaterial laws exist, but how is it that that which is immaterial has an effect on that which is material?

I have heard the problem put this way. If you have cookie dough and a cookie christmas-tree-shaped cookie cutter, it still does not give you a christmas-tree-shaped cookie. You have to bring the cookie cutter into contact with the cookie dough in such a way that it cuts the dough in the shape of a christmas-tree-shaped cookie. How is it that immaterial things such as the laws of logic can have an effect upon the material world when your worldview is secular, and does not allow for the thinking of a sovereign God to be the determiner of what is logical?

Again, there is not enough "stuff" in your worldview to bring these two together. Thus, again, I would argue that even the laws of logic are impossible given your worldview.

God Bless,
Adam

[67. Christina (in green) said the following at 7:35 AM on Mar 6:]

67

Basically, I think that the 'Holy Spirit' is an anthropomorphisizing of our own emotions, and that any appeal to proof by the Spirit is really yet another intellectual or emotional proof offered up

That's an interesting thing to say...and like Eliza keeps trying to say, hinges on faith.

Every logical argument begins with an accepted premise that is accepted on faith. Some things for some people require less faith to believe them, but its faith none-the-less. Lets go back to the father of upside down logic who decided building logically off of a pre-supposed creator wasn't a solid argument.

Des Cartes began with what he felt he could believe with absolute certainty - I think, therefore I am. However, he was accepting even that statement on faith. I know, Sara, that you may not agree with him, but think about the premise you are basing all of your arguments on and ask yourself if that is a logical basis or if you are accepting it on faith, as miniscule as it may be. Until then, I don't know if you can logically debate against people who acknowledge the basis of their arguments and accept that their presupposition is based on faith. At least we have a solid foundation for argument.

I love how you point out that the Holy Spirit could be the anthropomorphisizing of our own emotions. I especially like this because Paul pretty much says that in Romans when he discusses our conscience.

But again, the reason why arguing to you that that's what the Holy Spirit is and still claim he's from God doesn't work because we are basing that claim on the fact that there was an intelligent creator that created us and that conscience. We've accepted that presuppososition on Faith, with observation of the natural world around us to edify that claim.

From the acceptance of an intelligent creator, we (as believers of such) have a curiosity to satisfy. Well who is this creator? And from there we go to the Bible. Why? Again, its a presupposition of faith. I accept that scripture is the word of God for the same reasons I accept the argument for an intelligent creator. 2000+ years of writing, dozens of different authors, tons of historical evidence to support certain claims made by it, and all of it has a central theme that points to the climax and the resolution. Add on to that that it claims to be the breathed life of God. You claim that that is a circular argument, but logically it isn't - its a paradox. If that statement is wrong, then all of scritpure can be wiped out as false. But there are parts of scripture that ARE true - and have been proven as such. Its like claiming Jesus was a good man but not the messiah - you either accept him as messiah or a mad man. There's no inbetween. But I don't need that to justify my belief.

My belief system is based on 2 assumptions I've accepted by faith. Its completely and totally simplistic.

How many assumptions is your belief system based on? And don't say "none", because you'd be a walking contradiction with no focus in life, and completely lacking of consistent, logical thought.

Philosophy, in all its wisdom, has managed to seperate human beings from themselves. Every argument is a mixture of faith and logic - logic doesn't exist purely on its own...unless you are God. Accepting that, to an extent, faith is acceptable in arguments makes life a lot more consistent - philosophically.

[68. John said the following at 9:18 AM on Mar 6:]

68

Christina,

I would almost 100% agree with you, but I'm slightly hesitant.

I would adjust your argument to say that everyone lives be faith in something, whether it is Buddha, wealth, their heart, Darwin, or God.

To say otherwise would be to claim omniscience.

That's where I would like to brush up your argument slightly. Axioms, not faith, are what logic is based on. Axioms are assumed and accepted, they cannot be proven.

Axioms are the law of non-contradiction and the law of causality, just to name 2.

Hopefully this all helps Sara out.

[69. Sara said the following at 11:17 AM on Mar 6:]

69

Adam,
This reminds me of whichever philosopher it was who, freaked out by some epistemological point, was afraid to get out of bed for fear that the floor wasn't there! I don't mean this hypothetically: would you demand that he stay in bed until he felt 100% sure it was safe, and admitted that the question of the floor's existance can be ultimately settled, without a doubt?
You'd say athiest philosophers have no basis for their beliefs, and they'd return that neither do you... the key thing is that from there, it isn't a black and white thing--that there's either absolute certainty or utter confusion--but that there's things like probability and reason, which can *provisionally* be assumed: will you not allow me to say that there's a big difference, for me, between my uncertainty that I'm truly sitting on a chair right now, and my uncertainty that I'm sitting on a troll? It's just that kind of distinction that makes me say that there's a big difference in my confidence that '1984' was written in the UK and my confidence that the Bible was inspired by an invisible Father/Ghost/Human-whose-blood-we-ought-to-fake-drinking, etc. etc.

When it comes to looking at evidence, I think religious people have a much greater burden of proof. For instance, I say that when we die, we rot, like any other animal. Someone who wants to drag in invisible battling horsemen and raging demons and lakes of fire has more explaining to do than I have, unless of course you believe more in invisible things than in tangibility.

The key point here is provisionality instead of deadlock uncertainty and despair. If you're interested in saying, "what's your basis for being ok with provisionality, and what's your basis for being ok with that, and so on" that would lead to an infinite regress for us *both* (just like when I say "what's your basis for faith", and keep going).... unless we accept, provisionally, some things like rationality, and go from there. We don't have to to, but if we don't, I don't think you're any freer from the infinite regress than I am. Just because you admit absolutes, it doesn't do anything to prove that they're there or that arguments based on them are better than mine. You could maybe say that it makes your arguments more *internally* cohesive in that they spring from taken-to-be-certainties, but then I'd say that my arguments were more internally cohesive with regard to rationality (see invisible horsemen), and so on.

Just to note, the closest I come to believing in a higher power (sorry if that's an annoying phrase, like 'life partner') has to do with asking what the origins of the universe are. The leap of faith from that to 'Allah speaks Arabic and I ought to pray towards Mecca' isn't happening for me anytime soon, I doubt, but we'll see. Or should I understand that faith is at the root of it, and accept it, anyway? After all, how can I presume to know the mind of Allah? Who am I to question his commandments? I trust that He has a purpose for permitting pain in this world.

Whatever people answer to that is why I think it's all about reason, not faith, in practice. And so come all the discussions about Biblical inerrancy and love and the nature of faith and so on, which for me, as yet, have led to atheism, but again, we'll see.

[70. Adam said the following at 12:17 PM on Mar 6:]

70

Christina,

Lets go back to the father of upside down logic who decided building logically off of a pre-supposed creator wasn't a solid argument.

Des Cartes began with what he felt he could believe with absolute certainty - I think, therefore I am. However, he was accepting even that statement on faith.

First of all, Christina, Did Descartes ever combine that argument with a transcendental argument alla Kant? No, he could not have because transcendental reasoning was not systemitized until the time of Kant, who was not even born until 74 years after the death of Descartes.

2000+ years of writing, dozens of different authors, tons of historical evidence to support certain claims made by it, and all of it has a central theme that points to the climax and the resolution. Add on to that that it claims to be the breathed life of God. You claim that that is a circular argument, but logically it isn't - its a paradox. If that statement is wrong, then all of scritpure can be wiped out as false. But there are parts of scripture that ARE true - and have been proven as such. Its like claiming Jesus was a good man but not the messiah - you either accept him as messiah or a mad man. There's no inbetween. But I don't need that to justify my belief.

Two things, first of all it is erronious to say "If that statement is wrong, then all of scritpure can be wiped out as false. But there are parts of scripture that ARE true - and have been proven as such." This is faulty logic. There are many books where parts have been proven to be wrong. For instance, consider an old commentary that my pastor used to say that the Philistine God Dagon was the fish God. We now know that he is actually the grain God. Of course, there are many other things in that commentary that are perfectly true. Why would you consider it illogical to believe that the Bible could be wrong about it being God-breathed, and yet, right about some of the other things it says? Also, there are other books that claim to be God's word, such as the Koran, that also have things in them that have been proven to be true. Why is it that you would reject them as being God's word?

My belief system is based on 2 assumptions I've accepted by faith. Its completely and totally simplistic.

How many assumptions is your belief system based on? And don't say "none", because you'd be a walking contradiction with no focus in life, and completely lacking of consistent, logical thought.

Philosophy, in all its wisdom, has managed to seperate human beings from themselves. Every argument is a mixture of faith and logic - logic doesn't exist purely on its own...unless you are God. Accepting that, to an extent, faith is acceptable in arguments makes life a lot more consistent - philosophically.

Christina, is that really consistent with what the Bible says? You say that you accept on faith that the Bible is inerrant. Notice what the Bible says about this topic:

Romans 1:20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Christina, does that sound to you like it is just a matter of faith against faith? Does it not sound like God has revealed himself so clearly in this world that no one can miss it? How is that faith against faith?

Psalm 19:1 For the choir director. A Psalm of David. The heavens are telling of the glory of God; And their expanse is declaring the work of His hands.

Does that sound like it is just faith against faith, or does it sound like it is something that is declared?

Romans 1:21 For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

Does that sound like it is just faith against faith? Does it not sound like the unbeliever does, in fact, know God?

From these passages, and many more, I think it is safe to say that this is not the description of the situation given by the Bible. Hence, I would argue that if you accept the Bible on faith, then you must reject the position you have just presented on faith.

The problem is your assumption that we cannot use the lordship of Christ in our argumentation. You say he must be reduced to a faith claim equally as valid as anyone elses. Paul tells us that we are to "take every thought captive, and make it obedient to Christ" [2 Corinthians 10:5]. Not only that, when we "give a defense for the hope that is within us," we are to "sanctify Christ in our hearts" [1 Peter 3:15]. Can you really say that, in Christ are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3] if you do believe that it is nothing more than equally valid faith claims?

I know that you are on my side of this discussion, but I have some real concerns about the way in which your post has been constructed, and I don't believe that it is the way we are to be thinking as Christians. While I know that there are a whole lot of people who agree with you, I believe it is important to discuss these things because it not only effects how we reason with unbelievers, but also how we look at the very world in which we live.

God Bless,
Adam

[71. Sara said the following at 1:13 PM on Mar 6:]

71

Adam,
About Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:21: you have to first have faith in these verses' credibility to believe that these represent a valid proof of revelation, a declaratation by God, and a correct description of unbelievers' actions respectively.
You wrote to Christina, "The problem is your assumption that we cannot use the lordship of Christ in our argumentation. You say he must be reduced to a faith claim equally as valid as anyone elses. Paul tells us that we are to "take every thought captive, and make it obedient to Christ" [2 Corinthians 10:5]. Not only that, when we "give a defense for the hope that is within us," we are to "sanctify Christ in our hearts" [1 Peter 3:15]. Can you really say that, in Christ are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3] if you do believe that it is nothing more than equally valid faith claims?"
Adam, what makes you believe that these verses are right? You have to believe that these verses are valid before you can say that their assertions--that, say, Christ is above thoughts--are true (ironically).

[72. Adam said the following at 1:17 PM on Mar 6:]

72

Sara,

This reminds me of whichever philosopher it was who, freaked out by some epistemological point, was afraid to get out of bed for fear that the floor wasn't there! I don't mean this hypothetically: would you demand that he stay in bed until he felt 100% sure it was safe, and admitted that the question of the floor's existance can be ultimately settled, without a doubt?

Actually, yes I would indeed, do so. What you are referring to is the problem of induction. This is the idea that the future will be like the past. For instance, consider that, in past experiences, everytime we have squeezed the tube of toothpaste, toothpaste has come spurting out of the tube. What is the justification that you have that tonight, when you squeeze that tube of toothpaste, that toothpaste will, again, come spurting out of the tube? You have to rely on a principle known as induction, namely, the principle that says that the future will be like the past.

Of course, this is not hard to justify from a Christian perspective. If you take the Bible to be God's inspired and inerrant revelation, then we can trust the promise of God:

Genesis 8:22 "While the earth remains, Seedtime and harvest, And cold and heat, And summer and winter, And day and night Shall not cease."

You see, if you trust in the promise of the Noahic covenant, then you have justification for your claim that the future will be like the past because God, in his sovereignty, has promised to keep things uniform. However, again, as an atheist, what justification is there for the belief that the future will be like the past?

You'd say athiest philosophers have no basis for their beliefs, and they'd return that neither do you...

Well, I don't agree. I would challange the atheistic philosopher in the same way that I am challanging you.

the key thing is that from there, it isn't a black and white thing--that there's either absolute certainty or utter confusion--but that there's things like probability and reason, which can *provisionally* be assumed: will you not allow me to say that there's a big difference, for me, between my uncertainty that I'm truly sitting on a chair right now, and my uncertainty that I'm sitting on a troll? It's just that kind of distinction that makes me say that there's a big difference in my confidence that '1984' was written in the UK and my confidence that the Bible was inspired by an invisible Father/Ghost/Human-whose-blood-we-ought-to-fake-drinking, etc. etc.

Well, of course, the problem with that is that probability is ultimately a claim that the future will be like the past. For instance, one could say that in the past, there is a probability that 10/14 times toothpaste will come spurting out of the tube. Now, in the future, we say that there is, therefore, a 10/14 probability that toothpaste will come spurting out of the tube. What is the problem with that? Probability is ultimately a claim that the future will be like the past. Whether you want to talk about uniform probability, or uniform high probability. Either way, a probability judgment is ultimately a claim that the future is like the past. Hence, I would maintain that, as an atheist, you cannot assume uniformity in nature, period, and thus, cannot have certainty that anything will be true, even a second from now.

Hence, I would say that, as an atheist, you can have no more certainty that your sitting in your chair right now, then you are that you are sitting on a troll. Once the principle of induction is shown to be unjustified, you really cannot know anything at all. You cannot know that things were even as they were a second ago.

Again, how do you know that 1984 was written in the UK. You might say that historical records tell you so. Ok, and is the intent of the author of those historical records the same today as when he wrote them? How do you know that the person who wrote the record has uniform personality such that he is the same person as when he wrote the historical record? Again, unless you can answer how it is that you can know that the future is like the past, you cannot even know that 1984 was written in England.

Now, as far as your "confidence," again, that is going to be a function of your worldview. Consistently, if you are an atheist, you cannot have confidence in either the fact that 1984 was written in England, or the fact that you are not now sitting on a troll simply because there is no way to assume that the future will be like the past.

Of course, the basis of my confidence that 1984 was written in England and that I am not now sitting on a troll is the fact that there is a loving God who revealed himself to us in his inerrant word, commands us to celebrate the Lord's supper, and promises to keep nature uniform. Without that, there is no foundation for confidence in anything.

When it comes to looking at evidence, I think religious people have a much greater burden of proof. For instance, I say that when we die, we rot, like any other animal. Someone who wants to drag in invisible battling horsemen and raging demons and lakes of fire has more explaining to do than I have, unless of course you believe more in invisible things than in tangibility.

Ok, the simple explaination is that, you cannot rationally believe that, when you die, your body will rot unless you believe that the Bible is inspired, and thus there is an immaterial soul that either goes to eternal torment, or eternal life as described in the Bible given that atheists cannot explain the principle of induction.

The key point here is provisionality instead of deadlock uncertainty and despair. If you're interested in saying, "what's your basis for being ok with provisionality, and what's your basis for being ok with that, and so on" that would lead to an infinite regress for us *both* (just like when I say "what's your basis for faith", and keep going).... unless we accept, provisionally, some things like rationality, and go from there. We don't have to to, but if we don't, I don't think you're any freer from the infinite regress than I am. Just because you admit absolutes, it doesn't do anything to prove that they're there or that arguments based on them are better than mine. You could maybe say that it makes your arguments more *internally* cohesive in that they spring from taken-to-be-certainties, but then I'd say that my arguments were more internally cohesive with regard to rationality (see invisible horsemen), and so on.

No, I reject that claim because, while you are right that both sides start from certain places, the difference is that, within my worldview based upon Christian presuppositions, I do not have to irrationally insert things like logic, induction, moral obligation, etc into my worldview. They fit together nicely with the rest of my worldview. While these things certainly are part of your worldview, it does not "fit" together with the rest of your worldview. It ends up being something that is totally arbitrary within the context of your own worldview. Given the rest of your presuppositions, there is no way to account for logic, induction, and moral obligation.

What I am arguing is that, unless you accept in your worldview the idea of demons, heaven, and hell, you cannot even believe that your body will rot. Unless you accept the idea of demons, heaven, and hell, you can have no certainty or cohesiveness in anything. That is the argument.

Just to note, the closest I come to believing in a higher power (sorry if that's an annoying phrase, like 'life partner') has to do with asking what the origins of the universe are. The leap of faith from that to 'Allah speaks Arabic and I ought to pray towards Mecca' isn't happening for me anytime soon, I doubt, but we'll see. Or should I understand that faith is at the root of it, and accept it, anyway? After all, how can I presume to know the mind of Allah? Who am I to question his commandments? I trust that He has a purpose for permitting pain in this world.

That is why I disagree with people who use that argument. It can be used to prove any God that is intellegent. That is why my argument is inherently Christian in character. What I have been trying to say to you is that you need to come to Christ, and have him form your worldview, or you will be stuck with a worldview that cannot internally make sense out of moral obligation, logic, and induction. Unless Christ is presented as the only savior for your thinking, you are not getting what I believe is the foundational Christian message, and I am sorry for that.

Whatever people answer to that is why I think it's all about reason, not faith, in practice. And so come all the discussions about Biblical inerrancy and love and the nature of faith and so on, which for me, as yet, have led to atheism, but again, we'll see.

No, I would say that you cannot separate the two. You see, Bible does not say that faith isn't based on reason, but that reason is based on faith. That is, you must have faith in the scriptures as God's inerrant word to man if you are going to be able to reason at all. The reason is that no other worldview can *internally* account for logic, moral obligation, and induction. Therefore, if you are going to continue to reason, what I am saying you must logically do, is come to Christ.

God Bless,
Adam

[73. Adam said the following at 3:47 PM on Mar 6:]

73

Sara,

About Romans 1:20, Psalm 19:1, Romans 1:21: you have to first have faith in these verses' credibility to believe that these represent a valid proof of revelation, a declaratation by God, and a correct description of unbelievers' actions respectively.
You wrote to Christina, "The problem is your assumption that we cannot use the lordship of Christ in our argumentation. You say he must be reduced to a faith claim equally as valid as anyone elses. Paul tells us that we are to "take every thought captive, and make it obedient to Christ" [2 Corinthians 10:5]. Not only that, when we "give a defense for the hope that is within us," we are to "sanctify Christ in our hearts" [1 Peter 3:15]. Can you really say that, in Christ are "all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3] if you do believe that it is nothing more than equally valid faith claims?"
Adam, what makes you believe that these verses are right? You have to believe that these verses are valid before you can say that their assertions--that, say, Christ is above thoughts--are true (ironically).

I know they are true because of the impossibility of the contrary. Unless you have the inerrancy of the scriptures as one of the presuppositions of your worldview, your worldview cannot make rational sense out of reality. As I have said to you many times, unless you come to Christ and allow him to form your worldview by his word, you are left without out any ability to "fit" moral obligation, logic, and induction into your worldview. Indeed, you loose all of the "treasures of wisdom and knowledge" [Colossians 2:3], and your reasoning becomes foolish [Psalm 14:1, Romans 1:21-22].

Of course, when I am writing to Christina, I am writing to someone who already shares my worldview. She already believes in the inerrancy of the scriptures, and thus, I can appeal to that belief to ask her how it is that she can believe that it is merely faith against faith, when the scriptures say otherwise. My appeal to her is to be more consistent in her Christian faith, while my appeal to you is to repent so that reasoning [moral or otherwise] makes sense within your worldview. Hence, when I write to Christina, I am not writing to someone who needs to repent so that they can make sense out of logic, induction, and moral obligation. I am writing to her to simply express concerns as a brother in Christ.

God Bless,
Adam

[74. Sara said the following at 3:25 PM on Mar 7:]

74

Adam, that's unbelievable, that you'd expect the philosopher to be philosophically certain that he was able to stand on the floor before he tried to do so!

No animals have conscious philosophies; neither do babies; and most of the time, normal humans act irrationally: we do things in our sleep; we may be insane or enraged or one-year-old babies or distracted or mentally retarded or overjoyed; or just not thinking about philosophy at the moment. ... I hope you'll try and convince actual atheist philosophers of your views, and not just straw me.

My main point: induction just as easily makes evolutionary sense as it's a proof of God. People who acted like you suggest the philosopher act wouldn't be able to propagate! Your idea that people ought to accept an absolutist philosophy literally before they can act is an idea that seems so divorced from human or animal nature.

If you'll allow an interlude, and if you've read Ted's post about his friend, what do you make of all this? On the one hand, it seems horribly trivial to be bickering about something like this; on the other hand, life is such that even on the morning you go to a funeral you still have to do jarringly mundane things like find your keys and watch traffic lights and so on. Like lots of people, this whole thread--whole blog--sometimes leaves such a sick taste in my mouth and I very often feel guilty having such detached and harsh debates; on the other hand, sometimes exchanging thoughts is wonderful, and it's always good to know what other people are thinking; I don't know; it's almost like the philosopher in bed question: should a person make sure they're capable of ultimate respect and sympathy and so on before they get themselves into arguments? I guess they should at least me moving in that direction; . whatever.

When I think of the sweet people I know who would never, ever get themselves in discussions like these, I'm sure that I, at the very least, like the 'aesthetic' of their personality better than [I'm going to say] ours; and they unquestionably do--again, at the very least--much more immediate good in the world than 'debators' do... Maybe it's an 'it takes all kinds' sort of thing; I don't know. Those loving, kind, no-debating kind of people don't tend to get into positions of power, either, though, and be able to effect things like policy change and so on... OK, I'm rambling; whatever. This is so sad: if the fabulous North American medical community could come up with a personality transplant procedure, I'd immediately pick that of a certain kindly old grandmother I know, or Robert Coles' or something. Jesus--and the badness of not being grateful for the personality you've been given or developed--aside, whose would you want to be more like?